Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Bayhawks

Members
  • Content Count

    7,445
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,150 Excellent

About Bayhawks

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Washington Redskins

Recent Profile Visitors

9,854 profile views
  1. @hankmoody. Have to admit that I read this completely incorrectly. Thanks for the back & forth, without insults/name-calling.
  2. The NFL refers to it as a 6-game baseline on their policy, so when I referred to it in this thread, I used their terminology. That’s it. Sometimes the simplest answer is the actual answer.
  3. Baseline isn’t my word. It is directly from the NFLs policy. What I intended to do was use the terminology from the NFLs policy.
  4. I don’t know where you’re getting this “I said it’s 6 games or nothing,” I never said that. Saying the 6-game baseline applies DOES NOT mean it’s 6 games or nothing. It means that this punishment applies to this situation. I know it can be more, I know it can be less. That’s what the term “baseline” indicates. If I said the death penalty applies in a 1st-degree murder investigation (in a state that has the death penalty), I’m not guaranteeing the suspect will be put to death, but that this punishment is applicable to that investigation. For some reason, you continue to insist that me saying the 6 game baseline applies (to this investigation) means that it is guaranteed that the punishment will be 6 games, no more, no less. I’ll try to be clear: I’ve never posted that, and that’s not what it means. It means that since the NFL is investigating a possible violation of this particular policy, then the 6 game baseline which is cited within said policy is applicable. Could the NFL find this policy wasn’t violated, but discover another violation resulting in a shorter suspension (as you’ve suggested)? Yes. Could the NFL suspend Hill for more than 6 games? Yes. Could the NFL decide no violation occurred & give no suspension? Yes. Do I think the NFL will hand down at least 6 games? Yes, I do. I hope that clears it up.
  5. Sorry, but the snippet of my post that you included doesn’t say “it’s 6 games, end of story.” It was the last sentence of a response to your post where you suggested that the NFL’s investigation wasn’t necessarily an investigation of a violation of the policy because “He hasn't really done any of those things though. The closest we have is "maybe" he threatened her, but there's no way that meets felony level. There is zero evidence of any other violation. So it doesn't have to fall into the minimum 6 game criteria.” I responded that since the investigation started as a result of possible child abuse, it did fall under the policy, and therefore the 6-game baseline (as laid out on the policy) would apply. By just posting the last line, without context, you made it look different than what I really posted.
  6. I’d agree with you, if RG’s past actions were fair. I don’t believe they have been, so I have a hard time expecting that in the future.
  7. I don't know how the full audio impacts Hill. I agree it does make the text messages look fake; but it also changes, somewhat, the context of the original audio clips that were released a while back. There's also the fact that Hill denies his role in his previous DV conviction. Goodell seems to be big on players acknowledging that they were wrong, so that might not fly well. Again, if this were a criminal case, I don't see Hill being found guilty (as evidenced by the decision not to continue the criminal case against him). It's not a criminal case, though, and Goodell doesn't have to believe "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Hill committed child abuse or DV. If he feels like Hill is involved, or wasn't fully cooperative/truthful with the NFL, he can suspend him.
  8. The only reason the NFL is investigating Hill is because child abuse questions were raised after his sons arm was broken. CPS removed the child from his parents’ care. They don’t do that if an NFL player violates a different part of the personal conduct policy. Again, the NFLs investigation might reveal there was no child abuse, no domestic abuse, no violation of this policy. I’m not saying I know what it will reveal. What I am saying is this investigation started because Hill is involved in a situation where child abuse is possible. So the NFL is investigating whether he violated this policy, where a 6-game baseline suspension is specifically laid out. You, and stinking ref, seem to think I’m saying “it’s 6 gsmes, end of story.” I’m not. I THINK it will be a minimum of 6 games, but that’s my opinion. You can disagree with that, it’s just my opinion. I can’t fathom how you’re disagreeing with the fact that the NFL investigation is looking into the possibility of child abuse.
  9. Whether it was hastily thrown together or not, it is what the NFL is investigating. So, they are investigating if Hill violates the provisions of this policy. If RG decides he did, the 6-game baseline applies. We can agree to disagree about RG not acting on allegations alone. But the NFL IS investigating a violation of this policy.
  10. I’m not sure if you’ve actually read my posts. I’ve said, at least 5 times in my posts today that Hill might get no/a short suspension, or that RG could act differently than he has in the past, etc. I don’t think those things will happen, but I’ve been very specific in saying that is what I THINk will happen. Not that it will happen, but that it is my opinion about how it will play out. I haven’t said Hill abused his son, either. What I’ve said is that this is the NFL policy that applies. If Hill is going to be punished by the NFL, it will be under this policy. He is being investigated by the NFL for a violation of this policy. Maybe they will determine he doesn’t deserve any punishment (which I think is what Hankmoody is saying), but IF the NFL punished him, it will be under the this policy. And IF that happens, the 6-game baseline applies.
  11. The whole situation is about a child abuse case. There’s NO WAY you can say this situation doesn’t fit within the parameters laid out in this policy. If you want to argue that he didn’t do it, that’s a different argument (& irrelevant, since if RG decided Hill violated the policy, it doesn’t matter what proof there is/isn’t), but this situation definitely is covered by this policy, and therefore the 6-game baseline would apply.
  12. Like I said before, I’m not saying it won’t happen, I just don’t think it’s likely. Like you said, Hunt isn’t Jones. If RG wasn’t worried about angering Kraft or Jones, I don’t suspect he’s going to do things differently because he’s worried about getting on Hunts bad side.
  13. I posted the link to the NFL’s policy. Has nothing to do with Florio or the FBG article. There is a policy, and if you click the link, you can see it for yourself.
  14. There is a policy. On pages 6 & 7, it clearly states: With regard to violations of the Personal Conduct Policy that involve: (i) criminal assault or battery (felony); (ii) domestic violence, dating violence, child abuse and other forms of family violence; or (iii) sexual assault involving physical force or committed against someone incapable of giving consent, a first Personal Conduct offense will subject the offender to a baseline suspension without pay of six games. I have no idea why you believe otherwise.
  15. True, but I could see the NFL giving some on substance abuse (not PEDs), as they’ve done recently, but I don’t see the NFL giving much power up with regards to the commish’s power in issues of “conduct detrimental.” They’ve gone to court (& won) repeatedly over that issue. Not saying it can’t happen, I just think it’s unlikely.