I know the whole Tom Brady/Deflategate controversy is fundamentally over, but I am still curious as to what people thought about it. Essentially, Tom Brady was reinstated only because the Judge found that the NFL did not follow the procedure required by the collective bargaining agreement. No decision was made by the Federal Court as to the facts of the matter, i.e. whether Tom Brady knew what was happening and whether he acted appropriately in throwing away his cell phone.

As an attorney, I generally tell my clients that our first “line of attack” against the other side is always procedural, that being that the other attorney did not follow the rules. I have found recently, however, that when I get a favorable decision based on the other side’s failure to follow the rules there is a certain sense of vindication lost. While to me, a win is a win, sometimes people just want to hear that they did not do anything wrong. Winning on a technicality, in some cases, is just not enough.

Did Brady win merely on a technicality? Was this decision enough for his legacy? Or will there always be a question mark associated with Tom Brady?