Pats sign Browner

[Wolvie]

I say the same thing I said before. The suspension should not have been lifted. I don't think he should have got a ring because his selfish decisions put him in the position he was in. I don't have a problem with it being put behind him, but I think you need to know that he is equally willing to put that behind him as well.


Marijuana shouldn't be illegal or banned by the league. But it is. You can't be risking abandoning your teammates like that.

This is a joke right? Sure what he did is wrong, but suspending him for an entire year because of it and not giving him a ring is fair punishment? The guy fails a drug test for weed back in 2006 and since then has passed numerous drug tests and in 2013 fails one and instead of a 4 game suspension he gets an entire year plus the games he missed last year? Under the new collective bargaining agreement he would have been on step one of the program anyways for being clean for so long. The reason why it was overturned is because the NFL would have lost its ass in court had it not. Browner served his time and his punishment more than fits the bill for his crime

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Is this sarcasm? I don't see that we are being gutted at all.

What we have retained:
Tony McDaniel: Our starting DT
Michael Bennett: Our starting DE

What we have lost:
Golden Tate: Our #2 WR
Brandon Browner: Projected as our #3 CB with the way Maxwell had played.
O'Brien Schofield: Backup LB/LEO who didn't have much playing time.
Breno Giacomini: Our far below average RT
Clint McDonald: A rotational DT who was cut by us at one point.

Most of what has been "gutted" has been depth and non-essential players.

We have lost 1 starter, unless you count Giacomini who was a replacement level player to begin with.

You forgot we lost Red Bryant, Chris Clemons, May lose Thurmond. These guys are replaceable for sure, but it leaves a lot of holes. Gutted may not be the right term, I like plucked better.

 

[gohusk]

Damn, these are good pick-ups for them but it seems like the Pats are in desperation mode right now. These are the same tight-wads that let Welker walk for a hair less than they're paying Browner.

 

[AZhawks]

Is this sarcasm? I don't see that we are being gutted at all.

What we have retained:
Tony McDaniel: Our starting DT
Michael Bennett: Our starting DE

What we have lost:
Golden Tate: Our #2 WR
Brandon Browner: Projected as our #3 CB with the way Maxwell had played.
O'Brien Schofield: Backup LB/LEO who didn't have much playing time.
Breno Giacomini: Our far below average RT
Clint McDonald: A rotational DT who was cut by us at one point.

Most of what has been "gutted" has been depth and non-essential players.

We have lost 1 starter, unless you count Giacomini who was a replacement level player to begin with.

Schofield failed his physical, terminated his agreement.

 

[JDM]

This is a joke right? Sure what he did is wrong, but suspending him for an entire year because of it and not giving him a ring is fair punishment? The guy fails a drug test for weed back in 2006 and since then has passed numerous drug tests and in 2013 fails one and instead of a 4 game suspension he gets an entire year plus the games he missed last year? Under the new collective bargaining agreement he would have been on step one of the program anyways for being clean for so long. The reason why it was overturned is because the NFL would have lost its ass in court had it not. Browner served his time and his punishment more than fits the bill for his crime

There is nothing wrong with requiring continued tests to maintain eligibility, and it is on Browner that he did not keep himself in the contact he was supposed to be. That is why he was where he was in the process. Because he did not submit to tests he was supposed to.

His claim is that he was notified at the wrong place, but that's on him.

 

[JDM]

I agree with what you're saying, but do you think that BB would have given him that much of his cap if he didn't see talent that warranted it and didn't plan to get his money's-worth?

I'm starting to warm up to this move a little, though I still think the price is a little high.

I still see the role as I stated; primarily covering hybrid tight ends and maybe the occasional big number 2 or three if they provide mismatch problems. But nickel sets are the new base defense, and I wouldn't be shocked to see us have 4 corners on the field fairly often. Verse Denver, for example, he could cover Thomas and still leave three other corners on the field for the WRs. Other teams have similar mismatch tight ends and I think browner could do well with that.

 

[Wolvie]

There is nothing wrong with requiring continued tests to maintain eligibility, and it is on Browner that he did not keep himself in the contact he was supposed to be. That is why he was where he was in the process. Because he did not submit to tests he was supposed to.

His claim is that he was notified at the wrong place, but that's on him.

Its an arbitrary harsh suspension. You can pass 100 drug tests but then you fail 1 and that is deserving of a year-long suspension without pay? Mind you his act is not even illegal in Washington state.

And compare that to Aldon Smith who was already facing charges of shooting a gun at a party when he was found by police asleep behind the wheel of his car piss drunk at 7am in the morning with his car stuck against a tree with his tires still spinning and had drugs in the vehicle. Aldon hasn't been suspended a single game.

 

[JDM]

Its an arbitrary harsh suspension. You can pass 100 drug tests but then you fail 1 and that is deserving of a year-long suspension without pay? Mind you his act is not even illegal in Washington state.

And compare that to Aldon Smith who was already facing charges of shooting a gun at a party when he was found by police asleep behind the wheel of his car piss drunk at 7am in the morning with his car stuck against a tree with his tires still spinning and had drugs in the vehicle. Aldon hasn't been suspended a single game.

He failed a bunch of tests he was supposed to take by not taking them.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

He failed a bunch of tests he was supposed to take by not taking them.

Patriots problem now.

 

[JDM]

That's fine, and it's a risk I'm willing to take given that he won his appeal, but I don't think he should have won it.

 

[WizardHawk]

He didn't win his appeal per se. He was granted a reinstatement so the league could avoid litigation. Kind of different. He still will have missed over half a year and end up playing 4 games for free after he returns. Hardly a big win for him.

 

[SonnyCID]

Good pickup. They need the toughness.

 

[JDM]

He didn't win his appeal per se. He was granted a reinstatement so the league could avoid litigation. Kind of different. He still will have missed over half a year and end up playing 4 games for free after he returns. Hardly a big win for him.

Meh, it's semantics. He was in the appeal process and had his suspension shortened.

Per the rules his original suspension was fair. Getting it shortened was a huge win because there was no reason for it.

 

[JDM]

Damn, these are good pick-ups for them but it seems like the Pats are in desperation mode right now. These are the same tight-wads that let Welker walk for a hair less than they're paying Browner.

Welker wasn't about the money. I was begging them to let him walk. He had been causing issues on multiple occasions, has below average hands, and if he was free I wanted no part of him. It was time to move on.

 

[SonnyCID]

Meh, it's semantics. He was in the appeal process and had his suspension shortened.

Per the rules his original suspension was fair. Getting it shortened was a huge win because there was no reason for it.

No reason for it be shortened? The fact that the NFL backed down is reason enough.

Though I do agree that the original suspension may have been fair. It was never going to stand up in litigation and that's all that matters. The NFL doesn't just back down for the fuck of it, they only back down when they're beaten.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

No reason for it be shortened? The fact that the NFL backed down is reason enough.

Though I do agree that the original suspension may have been fair. It was never going to stand up in litigation and that's all that matters. The NFL doesn't just back down for the fuck of it, they only back down when they're beaten.

 

[JDM]

No reason for it be shortened? The fact that the NFL backed down is reason enough.

Though I do agree that the original suspension may have been fair. It was never going to stand up in litigation and that's all that matters. The NFL doesn't just back down for the fuck of it, they only back down when they're beaten.

I see no grounds for it to be overturned. They followed the rules that were agreed to.


I see this as unwarranted special consideration of the circumstances and not any indication that they would have lost. They would not have.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

I see no grounds for it to be overturned. They followed the rules that were agreed to.

The NFL has made bad decision after bad decision lately, and this is just one of many on that list.

I would guess the NFL has some damn good lawyers, because lawsuits are a fact of life for them. They don't back down if their lawyers tell them they would win. Obviously their lawyers told them Uhhh you might want to rethink this because you got a good chance of losing. Now lawyers hate saying those kind of things, because court cases = money.

 

[FirebreathingMonkey]

Meh, it's semantics. He was in the appeal process and had his suspension shortened.

Per the rules his original suspension was fair. Getting it shortened was a huge win because there was no reason for it.

I feel the rule was unfair, I mean what right dose the NFL have to force Browner to take a drug test when he was playing in another league. (Which where counted against him) If I move on from another job they shouldn't be able to force me to keep doing there test. And that's why I think the NFL backed down.I also feel Browner should get time served as he did miss the last five or so games. Anyways I hope it works out for you and Browner unless he plays Seattle. Side note re-watched a lot of his rookie year, man did he get tons of INTs. Damn.

 

[SonnyCID]

I see no grounds for it to be overturned. They followed the rules that were agreed to.


I see this as unwarranted special consideration of the circumstances and not any indication that they would have lost. They would not have.

The NFL doesn't back down to anyone, ever. They dont give a shit about "special consideration of circumstances" either, they just are smart enough to not get in to a fight they're going to lose. They would have no problem schooling Browner in court if they felt good about it, just another in a long line.