Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Stinkin Ref said:

It’s one thing to make fake football decisions based on what little or no information you have. Kinda like in poker. It’s another thing to adamantly judge and convict a dude based on what little or no information you have. Both of those things happened in here. Hill was called a monster and a child abuser in here because of what they thought happened recently.  He HAD to be guilty. I was called names and had my character and integrity called into question simply for wanting to see how things played out.  The Chiefs organization was called classless, etc. Those that threw out snap judgments and convictions maybe need to look in the mirror and and do a little self reflection. 

It was easy to jump to conclusions and convict him, there were a lot seats and company on that bus.  That was easy to do. Mob mentality, go along with the masses, sit at the cool kids table. It was harder to sit back and wait for details. That made you a bad guy, etc. Again, its one thing to make fantasy decisions, its another to make pretty serious accusations, determinations, and judgements, and to be wrong.  Some egg on some faces and some belly full of crow. 

Hill should be a slam dunk top five WR, and Mahomes stock and possibilities of actually following up last year with another uber elite year are increasing. They added another explosive piece to an already loaded offense.  Lots of fantasy points coming.  

Your patience paid off for sure this time.  Other times it doesn't.  I had a friend close to the Lions organization a few years back that told me Calvin was gonna retire and there wasn't even a sniff of it anywhere.  I posted it in here and got scolded and mocked and ridiculed as much if not more than you did in here.  So I get where you're coming from.  In that case though, those who were 'patient and waited for the real news to come out' got burned.  A few people traded him and were HEAVILY rewarded because they weren't patient.

I suppose you are right that people who threw the book at him right away should have been patient... and yes I fully agree with you that they shouldn't have traded him for peanuts... but from a fantasy standpoint, all I'm saying is that sometimes 'waiting for all the details to come out" can hurt you and you have to act preemptively to win this fake football game we all play.  So I don't blame those who ultimately lost out, but got a decent return for him at the time.  Sucks for them and didn't work out but patience can be a good or bad thing in fantasy football/the stock market/etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Foosball God said:

:shrug: I'm with him on this.  Doesn't make a lot of sense in the context of some other suspensions.  But, it really doesn't make much difference one way or the other I just hope Hill's son is out of danger whomever the culprit is.

This I agree with completely. I hope the child is out of danger, and the suspensions don’t make a whole lot of sense. Herndon gets four games for DWI, but the NFL seems reluctant to punish in domestic violence cases. I don’t believe Hunt would have been suspended without the video. As a matter of fact, I seem to recall that the NFL was going to let him walk, and then the video was released. They need to reassess how they approach these cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, twistd said:

This I agree with completely. I hope the child is out of danger, and the suspensions don’t make a whole lot of sense. Herndon gets four games for DWI, but the NFL seems reluctant to punish in domestic violence cases. I don’t believe Hunt would have been suspended without the video. As a matter of fact, I seem to recall that the NFL was going to let him walk, and then the video was released. They need to reassess how they approach these cases.

 

Just now, twistd said:

This I agree with completely. I hope the child is out of danger, and the suspensions don’t make a whole lot of sense. Herndon gets four games for DWI, but the NFL seems reluctant to punish in domestic violence cases. I don’t believe Hunt would have been suspended without the video. As a matter of fact, I seem to recall that the NFL was going to let him walk, and then the video was released. They need to reassess how they approach these cases.

 

1 minute ago, twistd said:

This I agree with completely. I hope the child is out of danger, and the suspensions don’t make a whole lot of sense. Herndon gets four games for DWI, but the NFL seems reluctant to punish in domestic violence cases. I don’t believe Hunt would have been suspended without the video. As a matter of fact, I seem to recall that the NFL was going to let him walk, and then the video was released. They need to reassess how they approach these cases.

 

1 minute ago, twistd said:

This I agree with completely. I hope the child is out of danger, and the suspensions don’t make a whole lot of sense. Herndon gets four games for DWI, but the NFL seems reluctant to punish in domestic violence cases. I don’t believe Hunt would have been suspended without the video. As a matter of fact, I seem to recall that the NFL was going to let him walk, and then the video was released. They need to reassess how they approach these cases.

bro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TDCommish said:

Looks like inactive dynasty owners are the winners here while those who were swayed by posters (here and other forums, FBG rankings, Twitter, etc.) speculating long suspensions or worse and sold cheap are the real losers here. Maybe there's a lesson to be learned here.

Not in my league. In my league, the inactive owners who didn’t respond to my offers of Tyreek are definitely the losers here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should say inactive owners who owned Tyreek Hill are the real winners and not the active owners who owned him and saw him to drop to the 70s in some FBG rankings and/or read all the posts here. The info here probably helps the majority of the time. This time it definitely did not and this is a big one. In the end, it's still the owner's responsibility to make his own decision.

Edited by TDCommish
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ConnSKINS26 said:
5 hours ago, TDCommish said:

Looks like inactive dynasty owners are the winners here while those who were swayed by posters (here and other forums, FBG rankings, Twitter, etc.) speculating long suspensions or worse and sold cheap are the real losers here. Maybe there's a lesson to be learned here.

 

Can't really make these generalizations. I'm an active repeat champ in the league where I have Tyreek and refused to sell for a 1st, 2nd, or devy. He was worth way too much to me to panic like that. I never thought he'd never play again, and it never smelled right to me for some reason. 

This feels like a weird defense mechanism to me. "I can't feel bad about my moves because I just fell victim to being an active owner! Ahh the pitfalls of being too GOOD at this!" lol

Absolutely agree.  I didn't even consider selling him cheap.  Even if he missed the entire 2019 season it's a dynasty league and when he gets back he's a game-changer.  It would have taken a 95% value offer to get me to bite on the risk and that was never gonna happen.  The one offer I did make was to a rebuilding owner for Bell straight up, which today wouldn't even be that bad a value given that Hill does still pose some moderate long-term risk.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Deamon said:

Your patience paid off for sure this time.  Other times it doesn't.  I had a friend close to the Lions organization a few years back that told me Calvin was gonna retire and there wasn't even a sniff of it anywhere.  I posted it in here and got scolded and mocked and ridiculed as much if not more than you did in here.  So I get where you're coming from.  In that case though, those who were 'patient and waited for the real news to come out' got burned.  A few people traded him and were HEAVILY rewarded because they weren't patient.

I suppose you are right that people who threw the book at him right away should have been patient... and yes I fully agree with you that they shouldn't have traded him for peanuts... but from a fantasy standpoint, all I'm saying is that sometimes 'waiting for all the details to come out" can hurt you and you have to act preemptively to win this fake football game we all play.  So I don't blame those who ultimately lost out, but got a decent return for him at the time.  Sucks for them and didn't work out but patience can be a good or bad thing in fantasy football/the stock market/etc.

The fantasy football side of it doesn’t really matter that much to me...it was always the other bs....

Edited by Stinkin Ref

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, twistd said:

Sorry, i have no idea how I did that.

F5'ing the page after a submission can do that as can inadvertently multi-clicking the submit button before the page advances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Deamon said:

Your patience paid off for sure this time.  Other times it doesn't.  I had a friend close to the Lions organization a few years back that told me Calvin was gonna retire and there wasn't even a sniff of it anywhere.  I posted it in here and got scolded and mocked and ridiculed as much if not more than you did in here.  So I get where you're coming from.  In that case though, those who were 'patient and waited for the real news to come out' got burned.  A few people traded him and were HEAVILY rewarded because they weren't patient.

I suppose you are right that people who threw the book at him right away should have been patient... and yes I fully agree with you that they shouldn't have traded him for peanuts... but from a fantasy standpoint, all I'm saying is that sometimes 'waiting for all the details to come out" can hurt you and you have to act preemptively to win this fake football game we all play.  So I don't blame those who ultimately lost out, but got a decent return for him at the time.  Sucks for them and didn't work out but patience can be a good or bad thing in fantasy football/the stock market/etc.

I remember that! Glad I listened!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Raptors409 said:

It’s like playing blackjack. Even if you’re counting cards, you’re not going to hit against a 6.

You sit back and let the dealer beat you like a man. Worst case scenario here was that Hill comes back next year or missed some games.

It was never like his next 3-4 years were in jeopardy.

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What it comes down to in this particular situation is how you felt about the situation, how you read it and read into it, and what you were willing to do if you owed him or were willing to gamble if you wanted to trade for him. There are no right or wrong answers in a situation like this and each and every owner whether or not you owned him or not had to figure out if he was worth the risk to either keep him or trade for him. Some owners received offers that they thought were too good to keep him so they traded him away. Others made offers to assume that risk and might be rewarded because of it. Some owners wanted to wash their hands of the whole situation and gave him away for whatever they could get for him. Each and every owner in every dynasty/keep fantasy league across the country had to make a call what they wanted to do with tyreek and they made it. Some will be rewarded some won’t. Some will be sorry with how they handled it. But in the end I’m assuming everyone did what they felt was right in their own individual situation. 

There are no rights or wrongs on this 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NightStalkers said:

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.

Scary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NightStalkers said:

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.

Except he hasn't had a first offense for DV under the NFL policy.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NightStalkers said:

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.

What?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Hankmoody said:

Except he hasn't had a first offense for DV under the NFL policy.

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, finfansteve said:

What it comes down to in this particular situation is how you felt about the situation, how you read it and read into it, and what you were willing to do if you owed him or were willing to gamble if you wanted to trade for him. There are no right or wrong answers in a situation like this and each and every owner whether or not you owned him or not had to figure out if he was worth the risk to either keep him or trade for him. Some owners received offers that they thought were too good to keep him so they traded him away. Others made offers to assume that risk and might be rewarded because of it. Some owners wanted to wash their hands of the whole situation and gave him away for whatever they could get for him. Each and every owner in every dynasty/keep fantasy league across the country had to make a call what they wanted to do with tyreek and they made it. Some will be rewarded some won’t. Some will be sorry with how they handled it. But in the end I’m assuming everyone did what they felt was right in their own individual situation. 

There are no rights or wrongs on this 

Huh? Seems like there were plenty of right and wrong decisions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh shoot I put this on the wrong forum was at a wedding reception and just clicked on the wrong  link sorry guys!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Milkman said:

What?

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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

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....

You mad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Milkman said:

You mad?

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?

Edited by NightStalkers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

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...

Do we know this to actually be the case? That they consider him to have a first DV offense?  I would think if the NFL considers him to have a first offense that would be pretty well known.  The player wold have wanted to know if that was the case.  I know the NFL can consider it an aggravating circumstance, but not sure an actual “first DV offense”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

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?

Do you know what Hill and his attorneys shared with the NFL investigators?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Stinkin Ref said:

Do we know this to actually be the case? That they consider him to have a first DV offense?  I would think if the NFL considers him to have a first offense that would be pretty well known.  The player wold have wanted to know if that was the case.  I know the NFL can consider it an aggravating circumstance, but not sure an actual “first DV offense”.

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Milkman said:

Do you know what Hill and his attorneys shared with the NFL investigators?

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.

Edited by NightStalkers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

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...

I guess I’m just saying if a second DV offense could result in a perma ban....the player and his reps/agents would want it to be pretty clear if he is in fact labeled as having a first DV offense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stinkin Ref said:

I guess I’m just saying if a second DV offense could result in a perma ban....the player and his reps/agents would want it to be pretty clear if he is in fact labeled as having a first DV offense. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

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.

I stopped reading at B. 

Like there's never been a black man that's pleaded guilty to something he hasn't done in this country. 

 

I'm just saying that's ^^^^^ a possibility. 

 

If that's ^^^^^ a possibility until we know what he shared you are doing this entire situation a huge disservice. 

Ok? 

No hard feelings but nothing about this case makes sense. Lets all take a step back and wait for the facts. Myself included. 

Edited by Milkman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Milkman said:

I stopped reading at B. 

Like there's never been a black man that's pleaded guilty to something he hasn't done in this country. 

 

I'm just saying that's ^^^^^ a possibility. 

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...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Milkman said:

I stopped reading at B. 

Like there's never been a black man that's pleaded guilty to something he hasn't done in this country. 

 

I'm just saying that's ^^^^^ a possibility. 

 

If that's ^^^^^ a possibility until we know what he shared you are doing this entire situation a huge disservice. 

Ok? 

No hard feelings but nothing about this case makes sense. Lets all take a step back and wait for the facts. Myself included. 

Anyone in Hill's situation would be a fool to not take the plea in this case, even if it meant admitting to something he didn't do. 

There is zero question at all that he made the smart move taking the plea, innocent or not.  

Throwing yourself at the mercy of the criminal justice system when there is guaranteed zero jail time offered would be absolutely crazy. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kittenmittens said:

Anyone in Hill's situation would be a fool to not take the plea in this case, even if it meant admitting to something he didn't do. 

There is zero question at all that he made the smart move taking the plea, innocent or not.  

Throwing yourself at the mercy of the criminal justice system when there is guaranteed zero jail time offered would be absolutely crazy. 

Absolutely. Any one of us would have taken that deal. I'm not a lawyer but is that a better deal than is normally offered in similar cases? If it is......why was such a sweet plea deal offered? 

So many rumors floating around about this case. For instance I heard the nurse thought the girls injuries were self inflicted. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, NightStalkers said:

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...

Now you're moving the goalposts.  He has no first DV violation under the policy to trigger an indefinite ban for a 2nd offense.  Yes, his legal past can be held against him but this policy was written after his plea agreement (which has had a whole lot of wtf shone on it lately anyway) and there's no way the NFLPA would let that be a significant aggravating circumstance.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Milkman said:

I stopped reading at B. 

Like there's never been a black man that's pleaded guilty to something he hasn't done in this country. 

 

I'm just saying that's ^^^^^ a possibility. 

 

If that's ^^^^^ a possibility until we know what he shared you are doing this entire situation a huge disservice. 

Ok? 

No hard feelings but nothing about this case makes sense. Lets all take a step back and wait for the facts. Myself included. 

This is exactly why I didn't jump up and down in outrage when the news came out.

Watch When They See Us and get a look at how the criminal justice system treats young black males accused (or falsely) accused of a crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JamieMurphy said:

This is exactly why I didn't jump up and down in outrage when the news came out.

Watch When They See Us and get a look at how the criminal justice system treats young black males accused (or falsely) accused of a crime.

Based on the propaganda I watched.....

lmao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hankmoody said:

Now you're moving the goalposts.  He has no first DV violation under the policy to trigger an indefinite ban for a 2nd offense.  Yes, his legal past can be held against him but this policy was written after his plea agreement (which has had a whole lot of wtf shone on it lately anyway) and there's no way the NFLPA would let that be a significant aggravating circumstance.

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

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:

Anything that has Mike Florio's position regarding Hill is a waste of time to read.  He has clearly shown a bias against Hill in everything he has says regarding Hill's case.  Just look at the most recent thing he said that the Chiefs were going to trade Hill, not going to resign him. There has been nothing out there that has pointed to this happening.  The Chiefs have stuck by Tyreek throughout this mess, so for Florio to bring this up is complete nonsense and shows that Florio clearly has an agenda. 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kevrunner said:

Anything that has Mike Florio's position regarding Hill is a waste of time to read.  He has clearly shown a bias against Hill in everything he has says regarding Hill's case.  Just look at the most recent thing he said that the Chiefs were going to trade Hill, not going to resign him. There has been nothing out there that has pointed to this happening.  The Chiefs have stuck by Tyreek throughout this mess, so for Florio to bring this up is complete nonsense and shows that Florio clearly has an agenda. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vision6 said:

Based on the propaganda I watched.....

lmao

You think "When They See Us" is propaganda? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m in the minority, I’m glad nothing happened.  Not the NFL’s business in a custody case.  They couldn’t get their hands on sealed documents involving who is the worse parent etc. Yes, the NFL couldn’t have suspended him for a threat on an audio tape, but it’s all he/she said case and her track record isn’t the best either. Shotty media reporting by KCTV made him look a lot worse and when the real thing came out it was an argument between two parties which the police couldn’t solve.  The NFL wasted a bunch of time and money with the Zeke situation and it wasn’t worth another offseason of bad publicity for what it seems like 4th year in a row regarding a high profile player.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it amazing Jarran Reed just got 6 games when he was accused of domestic violence in 2017 but never charged or even arrested, but Hill got nothing. Peter King takes it a step further:

Quote

1. I think this is what I cannot understand in the Tyreek Hill case. There is a broken arm suffered by his 3-year-old son, and there’s an accusation on a recording from his fiancée that Hill abused his son, and there is this quote from Hill to his fiancée: “You need to be terrified of me too, #####.” There is a murkiness to it all, and we don’t know who is telling the truth, and the local authorities are not entirely forthcoming, and there is a he-said, she-said tinge to the entire story. But this entire episode is not worth some sanction by the league? Even if it’s only because of his ominous threat against the woman? How does Ezekiel Elliott get six games for his he-said, she-said domestic violence incidence and Hill skates because of his? I know nothing of the evidence. But the inconsistency of the two rulings, and of Hill getting nothing, cries out for an explanation. It just doesn’t feel right. At all.

Edited by The Frankman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Albert Breer (?) in MMQB intoned that the disciplinary procedures and the new CBA discussions might have something to do with it.  

Also, King sounds weirdly justice-bound as always. He seems to be saying that if you did it once, you must do it again. Never mind that Zeke or Jarran may have been punished wrongly; something must be done in King's world. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, The Frankman said:

I find it amazing Jarran Reed just got 6 games when he was accused of domestic violence in 2017 but never charged or even arrested, but Hill got nothing. Peter King takes it a step further:

IIRC...the "victim" in the Zeke case met with the NFL several times....Espinol declined all requests...I realize the investigators recommended no suspension in Zeke's case but Rog suspended anyway....he maybe saw something directly from Zeke's victim that he personally did not like....don't know for sure... :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Frankman said:

I find it amazing Jarran Reed just got 6 games when he was accused of domestic violence in 2017 but never charged or even arrested, but Hill got nothing. Peter King takes it a step further:

Sounds to me like the NFLPA needs to talk to Tyreek and his lawyer to determine how they approached the league investigators that was different than these other players who were suspended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ezekiel Elliot is considered a repeat offender, but if you look at the previous offenses it isn't even close; Hill has much worse ones. I'm researching Jarran Reed's background and I don't even think he has a previous offense.

Face value, we may not know everything of Hill's but we do know there was a verbal threat and a child has a broken arm (Hill contested Espinal broke it)... I would think Hill as a repeat offender would get a game or two just because of the comment. @rockaction yeah King sounds stunned, but Sports Illustrated does give a fairer take of the situation in this article by Michael McCann (SI’s legal analyst).

Edited by The Frankman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Frankman said:

Ezekiel Elliot is considered a repeat offender, but if you look at the previous offenses it isn't even close; Hill has much worse ones. I'm researching Jarran Reed's background and I don't even think he has a previous offense.

Face value, we may not know everything of Hill's but we do know there was a verbal threat and a child has a broken arm (Hill contested Espinal broke it)... I would think Hill as a repeat offender would get a game or two just because of the comment. @rockaction yeah King sounds stunned, but Sports Illustrated does give a fairer take of the situation in this article by Michael McCann (SI’s legal analyst).

Yeah, I've really tried to steer away from the Hill situation because I'm not sure what I can add to it. Even the writers can only speculate, as the process isn't transparent in the least. I think my tone was off about King: I can understand where he's coming from, it's just that the logic didn't really hold. That said, Hill's non-suspension certainly seems to deviate from precedents set prior, that's for sure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Frankman said:

Ezekiel Elliot is considered a repeat offender, but if you look at the previous offenses it isn't even close; Hill has much worse ones. I'm researching Jarran Reed's background and I don't even think he has a previous offense.

Face value, we may not know everything of Hill's but we do know there was a verbal threat and a child has a broken arm (Hill contested Espinal broke it)... I would think Hill as a repeat offender would get a game or two just because of the comment. @rockaction yeah King sounds stunned, but Sports Illustrated does give a fairer take of the situation in this article by Michael McCann (SI’s legal analyst).

I believe Hill was able to explain the context of the comment as not a "physical threat" ....but in the heat of the moment comment about how she should be scared of him too because he has dirt/bad information on her.....if that was the context, it really changes that part of the narrative.....if people don't acknowledge that the context could be different then of course the comment sounds really bad...

Hill has publicly denied ever abusing his son.....as he also did in the recorded conversation....

this was a pretty big deal....and the NFL knew they would get some pushback for zero games.....so what that tells me is that after weighing the evidence/details, they must have REALLY felt strongly about him not doing anything wrong....it would have been easy to give him a few games.....not giving him any games seems to mean that they felt really strongly he was innocent of any wrong doing or violation of the conduct policy....

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tangfoot said:

Sounds to me like the NFLPA needs to talk to Tyreek and his lawyer to determine how they approached the league investigators that was different than these other players who were suspended.

Seems that Tyreek cooperated and was forthcoming throughout the investigation, where Zeke refused to cooperate from all that I’ve read about his case.  Tom Brady refused to turnover his cell phone.  Cooperation seems to go along way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do people have Tyreek ranked right now? 
I'm assuming the KC offense regresses this year, and Mahomes only passed for more than 300 yards once after Kareem was booted from the team. The offense as a whole will not be as good without the threat of Hunt. One reason that Williams was so good was that defenses weren't keyed into the run, they were focused almost solely on trying to stop the pass. 

Right now I have Tyreek #6 behind Hopkins, Thomas, Adams, Julio, and Juju. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.