Wells' indignation doesn't change much here

I heard Mike & Mike discussing the Tom Brady case (of course) on Wednesday morning, and laying out a possible scenario for Brady going to court to have his suspension overturned.

They created a complicated scenario in which Brady's lawyers would call rival players before a Federal judge to talk about manipulating footballs and other minor rules breaking as common practice.

I'm just a simple Unfrozen Caveman Non-Lawyer, but I don't think going to court would be that involved.

From here, the issue is straightforward:

Can Ted Wells label Brady as "uncooperative'' for failure to produce texts from a private cell phone and e-mails from a private account?

Or, should Brady and his agent Don Yee deciding not to produce those communiques is an exercise of privacy that should have received no importance in Wells' report and no impact on the NFL's decision to punish the New England quarterback?

I side with the "or'' part of that.

That actually was my assumption in the previous blog written in defense of Brady's decision not to provide private texts and e-mails. There was a reference to Brady being asked to "turn over his cell phone,'' which if I had it to do over again would have been included "records on the low-pressure footballs.''

Wells' frontal attack on Brady on Tuesday doesn't change anything for me. I never thought the investigator wanted full access to the cell phone in order to see what Brady and his lovely bride might be texting to one another.

For me, it's this: Wells was not asking Brady for those private messages. He was demanding access to them. And, it's clear that he had a preconceived notion of what had occurred.

If Brady and Yee provided texts to Wells that didn't prove this theory of the case, then the investigator would have deemed the quarterback to have manipulated the messages.

There was nothing to be won for Brady to go beyond what he said in an interview with Wells when it came to cooperation.

Amazing.

Go to court, Mr. Brady, on one simple issue: privacy vs. NFL autocracy.