Tyreek Hill

[Hankmoody 3,174]

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.

[JamieMurphy 196]

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.

[Vision6 18]

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

[NightStalkers 15]

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...

[Kevrunner 198]

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. 

[Milkman 1,626]

Reading anything Mike Florio writes is a waste of time. 

[NightStalkers 15]

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.

[ConnSKINS26 4,759]

2 hours ago, Vision6 said:

Based on the propaganda I watched.....

lmao

You think "When They See Us" is propaganda? 

[Gottabesweet 849]

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.  

[The Frankman 2,019]

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 July 22 by The Frankman

[rockaction 14,577]

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. 

[Stinkin Ref 1,010]

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... 

[tangfoot 1,380]

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.

[The Frankman 2,019]

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 July 22 by The Frankman

[rockaction 14,577]

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. 

[Stinkin Ref 1,010]

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....

[Kevrunner 198]

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.

[steelers1080 999]

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. 

[HULLOBUDMAN 40]

14 minutes ago, steelers1080 said:

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. 

I think that is about right although you do need to remember that KC was not only missing Hunt during the stretch you are talking about but Watkins also. A healthy Watkins for an entire year (yes, I know a tall order) as well as added weapon in Hardman may decrease the effect of missing Hunt. 

Last year there was also talk that the Chiefs loved Darrel (not Damien) Williams so much that they kept him on the active roster because they thought he would get signed away on the PS. He didnt do alot with his limited opportunities last year but someone I will be watching as a Chiefs fan through the preseason.

[Ilov80s 20,148]

51 minutes ago, steelers1080 said:

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. 

That is the range I have him as well. He probably has a little regression coming just because of how bananas the offense was last year but it's hard to envision anyway he doesn't have 1000 and 10 at a minimum. He isn't a target hog so he is going to be less consistent than Thomas or Juju but he has WR1 overall  potential again. 

[JamieMurphy 196]

He's starting to go late in the first round in high stakes drafts behind Hopkins and Adams.

[bicycle_seat_sniffer 4,635]

I got him penciled in right around wr3, overall about 7/8......redraft

[steelers1080 999]

1 hour ago, HULLOBUDMAN said:

I think that is about right although you do need to remember that KC was not only missing Hunt during the stretch you are talking about but Watkins also. A healthy Watkins for an entire year (yes, I know a tall order) as well as added weapon in Hardman may decrease the effect of missing Hunt. 

Last year there was also talk that the Chiefs loved Darrel (not Damien) Williams so much that they kept him on the active roster because they thought he would get signed away on the PS. He didnt do alot with his limited opportunities last year but someone I will be watching as a Chiefs fan through the preseason.

Thanks for the tidbit on Darrel Williams, hadn't heard much about him at all.

And, I don't think Watkins has any significant impact on the team. The chance that he plays 13 games is below 10% in my opinion. The Chiefs made a poor decision when they paid him and I think they might move on next year if they sign Tyreek if Watkins gets hurt again, even with his $7 mil dead cap hit. 

[Hankmoody 3,174]

On 7/22/2019 at 5:48 PM, 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).

EZE pulled down a woman's shirt in front of the whole world.  If you or I did that we'd be on the sex offender registry for life.

[ILUVBEER99 1,196]

10 minutes ago, Hankmoody said:

EZE pulled down a woman's shirt in front of the whole world.  If you or I did that we'd be on the sex offender registry for life.

If was stupid of him, but the woman was in his group and had a consensual sexual relationship with him.

 

[ConnSKINS26 4,759]

15 minutes ago, ILUVBEER99 said:

If was stupid of him, but the woman was in his group and had a consensual sexual relationship with him.

So? Do you think she asked him to do it? Being in a consensual sexual relationship with someone doesn't give you the legal right to do whatever you want to their body in public. Or private for that matter.

Edited July 24 by ConnSKINS26

[ILUVBEER99 1,196]

2 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

So? Do you think she asked him to do it? Being in a consensual sexual relationship with someone doesn't give you the legal right to do whatever you want to their body in public. Or private for that matter.

it was dumb of him but not a crime.  She didn't have an issue with it.

[ConnSKINS26 4,759]

11 minutes ago, ILUVBEER99 said:

it was dumb of him but not a crime.  She didn't have an issue with it.

But if she did decide she had an issue with it, it was a crime. That's what made it dumb. Putting your fate totally in someone else's hands on an immature whim, with the previous incident that was being investigated all over the news, is what probably pissed off the league office about it. Not the actual act. That dumbassery is why Zeke seemingly has his own chair in Goodell's office over every little incident, right or wrong. 

[CentralPA 789]

...and Tyreek is hurt.  Limped off practice field.

[Stinkin Ref 1,010]

24 minutes ago, CentralPA said:

...and Tyreek is hurt.  Limped off practice field.

heard Schefter is reporting bruised quad...

[CentralPA 789]

7 minutes ago, Stinkin Ref said:

heard Schefter is reporting bruised quad...

Yep, just saw the tweet.  Good news.

[Young 8 193]

11 minutes ago, CentralPA said:

Yep, just saw the tweet.  Good news.

Hopefully just a charley horse.

[HULLOBUDMAN 40]

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/07/30/report-tyreek-hill-bruised-his-quad/

You tell tell Florio didnt write this article. 

[Bayhawks 2,190]

1 hour ago, Young 8 said:

Hopefully just a charley horse.

Someone was probably just teaching him Muay Thai🙄

Thats believable, right?

[brun 727]

1 hour ago, HULLOBUDMAN said:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/07/30/report-tyreek-hill-bruised-his-quad/

You tell tell Florio didnt write this article. 

Deleted my comment. Decided it wasn't that funny.

Edited July 30 by brun

[Dr. Octopus 10,206]

1 hour ago, brun said:

Deleted my comment. Decided it wasn't that funny.

Neither is this one.

[Milkman 1,626]

Stupid on KCs part to put Tyreek in harm's way. He just needs to get his timing right with Mahomes. 

[brun 727]

1 hour ago, brun said:

Deleted my comment. Decided it wasn't that funny.

 

26 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

Neither is this one.

It's a hell of a thing, deleting a post. You take away all its got and all its ever gonna have.

[ConnSKINS26 4,759]

2 hours ago, Bayhawks said:

Someone was probably just teaching him Muay Thai🙄

Thats believable, right?

 

Can we not do this all season in this thread? Jesus

[Milkman 1,626]

27 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

 

Can we not do this all season in this thread? Jesus

Don't quote him. I have him on ignore for a reason.......lol. 

[Keith1 83]

So, where are people drafting Hill ? Late 1st round (after the top echelon of RBs are gone and after Hopkins and Davante Adams) ? Before Michael Thomas or Julio ?

And does the fact that the slightest infraction would seemingly lead to a lengthy suspension, cause you to be a bit gun-shy with taking him say late in the 1st round (of a 1/2 point PPR league) ?

[TripItUp 2,721]

1 minute ago, Keith1 said:

So, where are people drafting Hill ? Late 1st round (after the top echelon of RBs are gone and after Hopkins and Davante Adams) ? Before Michael Thomas or Julio ?

And does the fact that the slightest infraction would seemingly lead to a lengthy suspension, cause you to be a bit gun-shy with taking him say late in the 1st round (of a 1/2 point PPR league) ?

Big money/expert drafts he's going around the turn.   Softer drafts somewhere in the 2nd round.

[Stinkin Ref 1,010]

5 minutes ago, Keith1 said:

So, where are people drafting Hill ? Late 1st round (after the top echelon of RBs are gone and after Hopkins and Davante Adams) ? Before Michael Thomas or Julio ?

And does the fact that the slightest infraction would seemingly lead to a lengthy suspension, cause you to be a bit gun-shy with taking him say late in the 1st round (of a 1/2 point PPR league) ?

matter of preference I guess....you could make a case for him anywhere from 1-6 probably....if looking for a tiebreaker the schedule may be something to consider...

KC week 14-16...

at NE 

vs DEN

at CHI

not that that should necessarily be a deal breaker for any Chief because they may somewhat match up proof....but its not the greatest playoff schedule

[hispeedthinmint 133]

19 minutes ago, Keith1 said:

So, where are people drafting Hill ? Late 1st round (after the top echelon of RBs are gone and after Hopkins and Davante Adams) ? Before Michael Thomas or Julio ?

And does the fact that the slightest infraction would seemingly lead to a lengthy suspension, cause you to be a bit gun-shy with taking him say late in the 1st round (of a 1/2 point PPR league) ?

Few weeks ago I stole him in the 4th in a redraft

[Stinkin Ref 1,010]

44 minutes ago, hispeedthinmint said:

Few weeks ago I stole him in the 4th in a redraft

good for you....but I don't think that really applies now....and a few weeks ago that wasn't necessarily stealing....

Edited July 30 by Stinkin Ref

[Kevrunner 198]

There is some internet chatter that a contract  extension is likely close to being announced, around 3 years for $45 to $48 million.  With Adam Schefter also reporting that Drew Rosenhaus was discussing a new deal with the Chiefs today,  it appears that an extension is very likely/close to happening.  It will be interesting to see the final numbers.  The $45 to $48 million value is not coming from Schefter. 

[Milkman 1,626]

26 minutes ago, Kevrunner said:

There is some internet chatter that a contract  extension is likely close to being announced, around 3 years for $45 to $48 million.  With Adam Schefter also reporting that Drew Rosenhaus was discussing a new deal with the Chiefs today,  it appears that an extension is very likely/close to happening.  It will be interesting to see the final numbers.  The $45 to $48 million value is not coming from Schefter. 

Has to be more than Watkins got so if it is a 3 year deal I would think it's in the 55-60 range. Tyreek might have given the Chiefs a discount though.....

[Tool 1,041]

1 hour ago, Kevrunner said:

There is some internet chatter that a contract  extension is likely close to being announced, around 3 years for $45 to $48 million.  With Adam Schefter also reporting that Drew Rosenhaus was discussing a new deal with the Chiefs today,  it appears that an extension is very likely/close to happening.  It will be interesting to see the final numbers.  The $45 to $48 million value is not coming from Schefter. 

Hope the Chiefs have some out clauses, I'm sure they will. Hill seems like a troubled guy.

I'm having a hard time valuing him in dynasty. He may be available in my league but makes me nervous to make a legit play for him. On the other side, upside is obviously very tempting.

[Kevrunner 198]

32 minutes ago, Milkman said:

Has to be more than Watkins got so if it is a 3 year deal I would think it's in the 55-60 range. Tyreek might have given the Chiefs a discount though.....

He could be giving the Chiefs a discount in the short term with the understanding of the contract being renegotiated in a year or 2 as long as he stays trouble free.   Just a guess.    We will see when the numbers are released.  If it is in the $45 to $48 million range, it will give a lot of credibility to the Twitter source who released the info.  They have been pretty accurate so far, just the complete opposite of the media regarding Hill’s situation.   

[kittenmittens 1,038]

4 minutes ago, Kevrunner said:

He could be giving the Chiefs a discount in the short term with the understanding of the contract being renegotiated in a year or 2 as long as he stays trouble free.   Just a guess.    We will see when the numbers are released.  If it is in the $45 to $48 million range, it will give a lot of credibility to the Twitter source who released the info.  They have been pretty accurate so far, just the complete opposite of the media regarding Hill’s situation.   

He narrowly avoided getting a lot less, so giving up a little discount is probably mutually advantageous for Tyreek and KC