ShareThis Page

Steelers laud decision, praise Brady for taking on Goodell

Chris Adamski
| Friday, Sept. 4, 2015, 12:27 a.m.

Not long after judge Richard Berman on Thursday ruled in favor of Tom Brady's quest against the NFL to have his suspension overturned, billboards in New England displayed the message “Vindicated!”

Steelers player union representative Ramon Foster sees vindication but not for Brady's innocence. Foster believed the U.S. District Court action provided support for his and his teammates' decision four years ago to be the only team to vote against a collective bargaining agreement that handed commissioner Roger Goodell the power to levy the Brady suspension in the first place.

“It does,” Foster said of the ruling providing vindication for the Steelers' 78-6 vote against the 2011 CBA. “We've known (Goodell had too much power) for a while. ... We don't know what's going to happen or change from this, but it shows that he's abusing power.

“The owners, ultimately they have the say-so of what happens to him and how they go about it. But this goes to prove that what we've been saying has been right.”

Across the Steelers locker room following their 23-6 loss to Carolina in the preseason finale Thursday, the reaction from players to the decision wasn't what might be expected.

The Steelers, who open against the Patriots on Sept. 10, had the most to lose in Brady being eligible to play immediately. In their eyes, though, the bigger picture was more important.

“(The union) did a good job of doing their job of defending the player, and at the end of the day, they got an overruling,” defensive end Cameron Heyward said. “We'll move on from there, and we'll see (Brady) on Thursday.”

Foster said he wasn't surprised by the ruling, one that is a blow to the league's powers in disciplining its players.

“The thing they don't have Brady on is guilt,” Foster said. “He never admitted to anything, and they had no proof that he actually did it. It's the (equivalent of) having a jersey infraction — they're supposed to (levy) a fine. Just Roger Goodell abusing his power again, I guess.”

Foster applauded Brady for taking on the Goodell machine.

“It's great, it's a good look for the union,” Foster said.

“For the most part, Tom used the union lawyers to fight this case, and it worked in our favor. Shout out to him for making that happen. He's a guy the NFL needs, and it's good to see him win that.”

Aside from the union/management dynamic, Steelers players had other reasons for wanting Brady to prevail and face them next week. From coach Mike Tomlin down, the Steelers insisted they had been preparing for Brady and not inexperienced backup Jimmy Garoppolo, who they woudl have faced in Week 1.

Beyond that, the Steelers insisted they wanted to play the defending Super Bowl champion Patriots at full strength, even as their team is ailing. All Pros Le'Veon Bell (suspension) and Maurkice Pouncey (injury) and emerging star Martavis Bryant (suspension) will not play.

“Looking forward to it,” Heyward said. “It's Brady. Shoot, what better way to start the season than to play Brady.”

But would beating Garoppolo be better for the Steelers than losing to Brady?

“It wouldn't be better if you beat him,” Heyward said. “Our best against their best. (No.) 7's (Ben Roethlisberger) gonna be there — 12's (Brady) gonna be there. So let's join the party.”

“We were always hoping to see their best,” cornerback Cortez Allen said. “That way, there's no question at the result of the game.”

Chris Adamski is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at cadamski@tribweb.com or via Twitter @C_AdamskiTrib.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.