Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Bayhawks

Members
  • Content Count

    7,617
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,200 Excellent

About Bayhawks

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Washington Redskins

Recent Profile Visitors

10,122 profile views
  1. The $250K for the 17th game; would that only be for the players who currently have a contract? For example, if a player had a 2021 salary (am I right in my belief that the 17 game schedule wouldn't go into effect in 2020, even if approved?) of $16M, he'd get 16 $1M game checks, then a $250K check for week 17. But, if the CBA was approved, and a player was a FA who signed a $17M contract for 2020, he'd get 17 $1M game checks?
  2. Possibly; but that isn’t really relevant to my original question as to whether this was actually a 2nd violation or not.
  3. Not really. The CBA has a specific set of consequences for substances of abuse. If he just decide to “do whatever he wants,” the NFLPA would challenge that. In this case, they’d likely won.
  4. Weeds not personal conduct; it’s substances of abuse. Two different policies.
  5. What’s the repeat offense? I don’t remember him getting popped for drugs before. Am I missing something?
  6. There have been many reasons for NE’s sustained success. Two of the biggest, IMO, are Brady being a top QB who played for loss than market value (thus giving them an edge when it comes to managing the cap), and a weak division. IF Brady leaves, both of those edges could be gone. Sure, they could have another stud QB in Stidham, but it’s not guaranteed, and Buffalo looks like they won’t be a pushover in th AFCE any more. They’d still have BB, and a great D (although I’m not familiar enough with NE’s cap situation to know how that might change), but things WILL be different for NE, IMO.
  7. IF he does change his coaching style to use it. People often lie to get jobs; they embellish their resumes, they give the interviewer the answers they believe he/she wants to hear, sometimes they actually try to do what they say they'll do, only to revert to old habits. But for almost 20 years as an NFL coach (OC/HC), McCarthy had 1 coaching style; until he shows that he has changed that style, one season out of football where he's talking about doing things differently isn't "proof" that this change will stick.
  8. Looks like Mike McCarthy will be the new HC in Dallas (per Schefter). Since we only have 9 months until the season starts, we should probably start discussing how this will impact key FF contributors in Dallas. Dak-MM got great QB numbers from his QBs when he was HC in GB, but that was Favre & Rodgers. Will he be able to get the same results from Dak? Will Jerry force McCarthy to keep Moore as OC? If not, Dak will have to learn a new offense. How similar is McCarthy's offense to what Dak's been running? Zeke-Twitter & other FF message boards seems to indicate that Zeke will suffer under McCarthy, based upon Aaron Jones' performance under him. What's MM's previous history with RBs look like? Cooper/Gallup (assuming Cooper is signed)-Driver, Jennings, Jordy, Adams all had great years for McCarthy. How much was MM versus Favre & Rodgers, though?
  9. But HE can’t stay healthy. Whether it’s a major injury (like the knee his rookie year), or the nagging injuries the last two years, he’s constantly getting dinged, late scratch, or even worse, plays and exits early.
  10. I think we make mistakes when we try to get in these guys heads. We did it with Bell & Gordon & their contract disputes. We did it (repeatedly) with Josh Gordon & his battles with drugs & alcohol. We did it with AP after the child abuse allegations, we did/do it with NE, every time cheating allegations surface. “No way he’ll turn down that much money;” “why doesn’t he just stop drinking/drugging until he gets paid, then do whatever he wants;” “just stop disciplining your kid like that (or at least don’t talk about it), till you’re done playing;” “they’re so good, why do they even bother trying to get these tiny advantages;” etc. They don’t think the way we believe they should think. Maybe it’s just a sub-set of the elites athletes, or maybe these type of individuals just think differently, or maybe there’s some other explanation, altogether. But I’m not sure these kinds of assumptions have any more merit than mere speculation,
  11. See, using your numbers in the House/Senate to influence/slow/kill legislation, investigations, etc is within “the rules,” IMO. It follows that a party with a majority in either/both house(s) will have a greater influence on legislative action. Violating the Constitution (or exploiting loopholes, so as to not anger the semantics guys) by refusing to allow a SC nominee a Senate vote or withholding Articles of Impeachment goes beyond that. It is a group of legislators ignoring their Constitutional duty, because to not do so would harm their party. It is choosing party over country.
  12. Not sure how my posts about an NFL player are relevant to this thread, but in any event, I didn’t shift my position in that thread, at any point. IIRC, that was a complaint made against me, that I wasn’t willing to change my opinion.
  13. OK; I don’t see how that was me being “fuzzy” about anything. I was trying to be non-inflammatory; I think both McConnell and Pelosi were/are ignoring the Constitution to benefit their party. Neither violated the Constitution, per se; but each violated the intent of the constitution, IMO. Feel free to substitute “exploited a Constitutional loophole” anywhere I typed “violated the Constitution.” Not sure what you mean by “getting Le’Veoned,” though.
  14. When was I fuzzy about Constitutional requirement for filling judicial appointments? And what am I incorrect about? Are you suggesting that Presidential SC nominees don’t need/get a confirmation vote in the Senate?
  15. The Constitution requires consent from the Senate for SC nominees. This has been interpreted over the course of our nations history as meaning POTUS appoints a person; Senate Judicial committee reviews the person, then recommends him for a vote by the full house, then the house votes to confirm or deny. While this is a simplified explanation of the process, it is the process we’ve used, per our interpretation of the Constitution. The GOP, in 2016, decided not to do their part in this process, because it didn’t benefit their party. As to your point about federal judge appointment under Bush, I’d argue that SC nominees are different. I don’t have the time or inclination to go through all federal judicial nominations under Bush to see if the Senate refuses, without reason, to even consider nominations made by Bush.