Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

NightStalkers

Members
  • Content Count

    110
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by NightStalkers

  1. Hasn't the date to have a league year toll on his contract happened already? There is no reason for him to do any particular thing as far as when or if he comes back as no matter when he comes back he is not getting credit for this year. Bell was a FA and Zeke is under contract so the rules are different if I remember right. I think this in Jerry's court to buckle if he wants to try to win it all this year at his age. Zeke has a lot of control as he is already past the time to get credit for the league year so it is a matter of how much money he loses vs how much an extension gains him....
  2. You could be right I don't pay much attention to the writer. It was just an example of a media guy reporting that the league could use his past conviction against him at Goodell's discretion. Probably the best guy I would read the most into would be Shefter. He gets his info form players, agents, and league officials either on the record or off the record. And I don't even remember what Shefter actually has said one way or another.
  3. Actually I am not. There is https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/04/19/is-tyreek-hill-already-facing-a-personal-conduct-policy-suspension/ article on pg 61 of this thread that states: The league office has clear power to do basically whatever it wants to do under the Personal Conduct Policy, and Hill’s history could make the league office more likely to pursue him aggressively. He pleaded guilty to assaulting his then-pregnant girlfriend before entering the NFL, something for which the NFL couldn’t have disciplined him. But the NFL can do so now, and the NFL could be more inclined to do it to Hill, if there’s a belief in the league office that he has not suffered a sufficient sanction for what he previously did This has same effect IF Goodell decides it does as a 2d DV conviction. In real terms they don't have to do anything at all just put the word out not to sign a player like they did Ray Rice As for the policy being written compared to Hill's charges this also wrong. The league published the DV policy 12/10/14 and Hill was charged by the cop the night of the incident 2 nights later. Also the league has way too much power for personal conduct but the league has won multiple cases in court saying they have this right, as the NFLPA gave them the rights in the CBA. As for punishment will the NFL ever banish someone? I have no idea. In modern times they have suspended indefinitely but always give the right to petition for reinstatement after a year at Goodell's discretion. Banishment is probably the wrong word for it but if Goodell keeps refusing to reinstate someone then it has the same effect. I also don't know if Hill is guilty or not guilty of either incident with the woman and only the 2 of them really know. Most of my posts in this thread have been to say that the league has a lot of power to do what they want as far as discipline of the league, that the players who have DV incidents are very risky to own, and to say that Hill needs to move out of the situation he is in with the lady. One thing people don't think about with this recording is that they were in Dubai when it was made. He needs to make distance from her for his own career's well being even if he hasn't done anything to the child or her. From the legal perspective Hill is free and clear as he has completed his requirements for remove it from his record. From a league perspective he has the first incident in college hanging over his head. Better to distance himself from anything to get into Goodell's office at all. Stay home away from the lady and don't put yourself in any kind of situation for problems at all. Collect the big contract and then retire and do whatever you want...
  4. You could be right. You nor I have any idea as only 2 people were there. He signed the guilty plea so he has that against him fair or not. As far as league is concerned he has that in his past. It will take a lot to remove that but it is possible. One thing I will say is he keeps hanging around with the same lady who accuses him of that crime. If I was him I wouldn't go near her ever after the charge from college. If he was lied on why is he still with her? That is his fault/risk on him entirely. He can't claim it is always her if keeps putting himself with her. Better to be far away and have witnesses to his visitation rights...
  5. I think the actual DV policy states that you can be banned if circumstances warrant but you can reapply for reinstatement after a year. I don't think there is a set punishment for anything beyond the 6 games in the original DV case if he is in the NFL. The CBA on this is very loose for what the commish wants/and or decides to do. Probably why zeke went to court as he wasn't charged and had people vouching for him at the incident if I remember right.
  6. A. It doesn't matter to me what they shared. I don't own him in my leagues and won't unless I get a screaming bargain and would trade after I got him. B. He signed a written letter saying he abused the woman in college. ( what I alluded to as the first incident) C. I am not a Chiefs or AFC West fan so I don't have any fandom involved. Of the three I talked about Hill, Mixon and Zeke: 1. Mixon- I have not heard a peep from him since he got in the NFL. Seems to be least risky. 2. Hill- Until this came up recently this year the same could be said of him. Medium risky of the 3. 3. Zeke- He seems to have his own chair in Goodell's office. It may be just immaturity or he may just not get it. Maybe there is more in the background for Zeke as Goodell pushed his power the most when dealing with his DV incident. The NFL uses former cops so maybe the heard something and passed it to the commish. I heard someone on Sirius say that Bosa moved out from zeke's dorm due to his drug use. Who knows if any of this was true or not.
  7. I think we may be saying the same thing. If it is an aggravating circumstance then it gives Goodell the ability to go very harsh if he wants. I think in the long Hill thread there has been some quotes that it is considered as a first offense even though he was in college. One of things that I have said in this thread is about money. If Goodell gets bad press and loses sponsors money then he would get the Ray Rice treatment. Rice never got back in and the league was loosing money due to the original Rice decision...
  8. why would I be mad? I have never owned Hill or Mixon ever. I play dynasty exclusively. For Zeke I traded him last year for Kamara. For Hill I think he should have gotten what the Jimmy Smith got for the threat, but I don't sweat it. If he his smart he will get away from the woman and keep his nose clean. 4.25 speed doesn't grow on trees. He has a great career ahead if he does the smart things. Will he do it? I have no idea. I am risk adverse when it comes to DV. I was offered Hill for a first by Mike Clay of ESPN and I told him I would do it for a third. My feeling are still the same. The risk is to high for my likings. It is probably wrong sometimes but what if someone had traded 2 2020 first for him back in Febuary and then faced the possible things that were at stake in May?
  9. I think you might want to read the other thread that FBG's put out on potential suspension possibilities. Pretty much as Domestic Violence goes Goddell has tons of leaway. He doesn't need a conviction(Zeke was never charged) and can set the penalty as severe as he wants if he feels there are aggravating circumstances. There has been actual legal people who have been quoted in this thread as to potential outcomes. He could even suspend Hill if he lies or don't cooperate in the investigation. They did that to brady when he destroyed his phones....
  10. Yes he does. They can consider his past conviction as a first offense. He couldn't be punished as he was in college but the policy states that it can be considered, sort of like a legal record. That has been quoted repeatedly by the national media. Zeke, Mixon and Hill all have this threat. Will the NFL actually banish? Maybe maybe not. They didn't banish the Stallworth and he killed someone in a DWI. In real terms it may not matter. The league can let teams know to not sign them like they did with Ray Rice etc...
  11. Actually a second offense for DV can carry a indefinite or lifetime ban. They threatened Zeke with it after his first as a warning. And Hill's prior DV conviction still counts and will never come off unless his wife admits he didn't do it and the state removes the charge. He pleaded guilty so he can't deny it now unless she cooperates with him. Even if the state removes it there is nothing saying the league has to do so. The CBA says whatever the commish feels like pretty much.
  12. One somewhat hidden winner in this might be Damien Williams. With Hill as a threat this should keep the defense more spread out...
  13. I don't know who if anyone of those 2 is telling the truth. I listened to the recording and all I heard was those 2 accusing each other of lying and abusing the child except he did threaten her. One thing I just saw on Wikipedia is that Hill pleaded guilty to the 2014 incident. His words in the tape denying any violence to her don't jibe with the guilty plea. Only RG knows what he will do. He is not consistent with things for sure. However if he sees a possible loss of money/sponsorship for the league don't discount him hitting Hill hard. Hill has a prior DV conviction and the last time a player threatened violence against a woman verbally they gave the Ravens player 4 games and he had no prior acts if I remember correctly. I think personally he gets a minimum of 6-8 games and if Goodell believes only her side he could still face a full year. Don't discount the money side of the equation. RG's main job is to fill the leagues coffers, that is why the owners keep him around. With the CBA he doesn't have to act fair or use any consistent rational. Today's political climate with either party and the fact that they took the child from the home at one point and time along with the previous guilty plea are not things in Hill's favor. Like I said follow the money. So why should RG take it easy? There is no upside for him if he does, and previous rulings show he isn't always about fairness.
  14. Didn't someone say in the MG thread that you have to report before a certain date in the preseason or you don't accure the service time? Bell this didn't apply because he didn't sign his franchise tag and zeke has a contract...
  15. One question I have. If she is lying(I am listening now) about 2014 then why are they still living in the same house? If he got convicted for a crime because of her why would he let her back into his house? All I heard throughout the recording is her accusing him and him denying all of it. Why did he get convicted for the first offense if it was only her word against his? There must have been some physical evidence to support it. She may be a schemer of some sort or another but he seems to be his own worst enemy by keeping her around. And she is having twins? Lord help all their kids. Something seriously wrong with that relationship. Why hasn't he moved away from her permanetly? One of those 2 is massively lying. Either he has done most or all of these things or she is an expert at setting him up. In either case he bears some responsibility for what is going on. He could easily move out to another place and have visitation rights and pay his alimony/child support. He almost seemed to know there is a recording going on. I say again why is he putting himself at risk? His problem right now is he has a conviction on his record and is still putting himself into jeopardy with the same accuser of his conviction. The truth may never be fully revealed one way or another but something is wrong in that house and they keep adding kids to the mix. The chiefs should either use 3 franchise tags and then let him walk or make any offer backloaded with tons of behavior conditions as I think that something new will come up, either him actually doing another violent act or her lying again. For suspension ramifications I don't see this as doing much to change things. If he has some proof this never happened then he can say I am innocent. But the burden of proof is on him not the league. The threat he said about her being terrified is his own words and he doesn't have a lot of defense for that. In the end I feel for the kids, as this is the poster child for a dysfunctional household.
  16. I think I saw earlier in the other Hill thread that one of the Ravens had been suspended for 4 games for threatening violence against a woman. He got 4 games. I don't think he had the previous offense that Hills has, which still counts to the league even if he wasn't an NFL player. With that recording a min of 4 games at least. It likely will be 6-8 with his record. At that is if he only has the recording as the only evidence against him. If scenario 2 happens he is gone for the year. Real thing to think about is RG is unpredictable and does things as he sees fit for good or bad. The CBA gives him the right to do that. Dynasty you should be selling now unless you can take the risk involved now and in the future. For redraft he could be back for the playoffs.
  17. Personally I wouldn't own zeke or Hill in dynasty. If I did I would look to trade them. Risk vs talent is a key point. I would not give more than a third for either which means I wouldn't own either as no one would move them for that. If somehow I had either I would move them for equal value which in zeke's case is likely a good return. For me it is to hard to develop the value of a stud and risk it on possibly losing them for suspensions or bans. I did the same with Gurley as normally arthritis doesn't get better. All 3 of these players could have great seasons this year but if you can get equal value why risk it?
  18. I think a permanent ban is out now. However a suspension is possible due to the threat on the recording. As with the most recent zeke investigation being looked at it is possible they still go after him. Once Goodell gets a set against someone he usually does something, like said above they didn't recommend a suspension with zeke in his DV case and he still got 6 games.
  19. I think one of the most important things is that the child was not allowed to be visited by Hill but could be visited by the mother in a supervised visit. That may be an important distinction the league may use against Hill. Regardless if the rumors of the child having bruises etc are accurate then someone has to be held accountable for that. The league can't bring in the wife but they can Hill. He has to prove to them (Potentially if the league takes the stance) that the mother did it all. If he does provide evidence against her the state of Kansas can use it to prosecute her. Why would she go to jail if she didn't do it? If she did do it then she should go. If she didn't do it then and if she covers for him and the league finds out he is lying then Hill doesn't get the big contract and can't pay her off. The league will take it's time on this and find out as much as they can on this matter. Season is 4 months away. Hill has no or little rights unlike a court of law with the current CBA. League says there has been child in a dangerous environment in your house forcing the removal of the child, a verbal threat to the mother, Hill's lack of visitation rights and say that we believe that Hill did it all. This is an easy stance to take with the previous DV history. Hill has to overcome all of that. The moment the child was removed from the home for safety reasons it put Hill in immediate jeopardy with the league. Unless I have missed something and that is very possible, but the child still isn't back in the home. The longer this goes on the harder for the league to not act in harsh way, as this isnt' being regarded by a Kansas judge as a trivial matter.... The only way I see this coming out in Hills' favor if she goes to jail for him in hopes of getting some of his next contract or if the league just wants to turn a blind eye. That would be highly dangerous for the league business wise. Hill also has to sweat this out for whatever stature of limitations are on this type of crime in Kansas as they can reopen or decide to prosecute at any time. Any contract that Hill gets will have clauses on what money he gets and when even if he doesn't get suspended at all (unlikely). Any team signing Hill wont' just give him a huge bonus upfront with the risk he involves. They will do it with roster bonuses backloaded at the end of the contract.
  20. Read what I said. He could do just that. Goodell holds all the cards. Hill has to overcome a DV incident from before and there has been the child removed from his care entirely. No one has made the business case why Hill has to be let back into the league. The whole behavior/DV policy is about the league looking bad which they think costs them money. The verbal threat alone in the recording is enough to suspend him considering the overall child abuse. Goodell isn't about fairness or Hill's guilt or not he will protect the money.
  21. I think you guys need to look at an article posted on pg 61 of this thread https://sports.yahoo.com/tyreek-hill-avoids-child-abuse-030338446.html Among the article is this: Goodell can decide, based on factors he deems relevant, whether Hill engaged in wrongdoing. Goodell also has full discretion in determining an appropriate punishment. According to league protocols for first-time offenses of family violence, players are expected to receive “a baseline suspension without pay of six games.” However, this punishment can be enhanced or reduced if Goodell finds “aggravating or mitigating factors.” The fact that Hill had a prior violent incident with Espinal could lead the commissioner to impose a more severe punishment. This was published before the recording came out. His and her own words are in the public domain now. Goodell is not bound by law and order in a court. All he has to do is believe the recording of her accusing him of the abuse. He can ignore the recent text from his lawyer. The commissioner has complete authority to do whatever he feels is justified by the CBA. Why would Goodell take the business risk of allowing a possible child abuser who has a previous DV conviction to potentially have the league look bad by letting him play again? Remember he has no visitation rights to the child now. The mother has supervised rights of visitation. The state seems to know who did this, just a question of whether they can gather enough to charge Hill. In my opinion he has a better chance of getting his pay this year on the commissioners list while on appeal than getting another contract. Most of the people that think he will be back point to the fact that teams can't help themselves and bring Hill back after a while. That is up to Goodell not the teams. The league just settled with Kapernick over basically putting the word out that they didn't want him back. I would like someone to make a convincing business argument over why the league should take the chance with someone who is being accused of abuse of a 3 year old? Hill could be the 1 in a 1000 that could be completely innocent. How is that going to be proved to Goodell after the recording from the mother saying what she said? It's not a court, Goodell basically can take the stance that the recording said he was alone with the child when the arm was broken and he can literally ignore anything else. Peterson got a year for his abuse. The league is still getting crap for that and he didn't have the past DV history to my knowledge. So it comes back to the business question why would the league take the chance?
  22. My reaction was about the preference for speed/quickness over height. Neither is really the key in some respects. NFL goes thru copy cat phases. Seattle had success defending the big WR with big CBs. I think it is an overall talent thing. Look at John Ross if it was all about speed no one is faster. It is talent to gain separation and ability to work with the qb's that makes a difference. Look at JuJu he wasn't a burner. I think the 2019 class may be more known for the TE talent that affects the NFL defenses more than the other positions, as there isn't too many quality TE's that are more like Gronk and Kelce that actually force physical mismatches and there may be some in this class. Overall your watching for what the league likes is very astute but my point is that DC's in the league are always in reaction mode to what is hurting them at the time....
  23. For me I never owned him unless he was basically free. Guys like Mixon, Hunt, Zeke are just too expensive to lose the dynasty value hence I don't have any of them. I am not sure what the line is as far as character on a dynasty team but I know the risk mitigation is something people don't always consider...
  24. Honestly sometimes I think this a action reaction type of thing. 2014 draft had a lot of big WR's. League started drafting bigger DB's. Now it is the speed guys. League will likely draft faster DB's. I think that big or small talent and situation with the qb's is the key to success. Tall guys don't shrink but speed guys normally lose speed later on in their career. I think we are in between waves with the WRs...
  25. I guess my main point is that NFL is not a courtroom. Even if he is totally innocent the fact that the state took the kid away and the threat to the mother puts the entire emphasis on Hill to be proven completely innocent to the league and that will be hard about what he talked about in the recording. Regardless of politics involved Kapernick is still not playing in the league and he didn't violate the CBA. All he did was put the league in position to lose money. That is a cardinal sin for the NFL. No one is above the bottom line of the league. Like you said in some aspects there is a big mess here between the two parents but Hill can potentially cost the league money and that is the big thing on why I think the way I do as far as him not playing again.