Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
pghrob

Mason Rudolph - QB, Pittsburgh Steelers

Recommended Posts

Rudolph has regressed to the point that he shouldn’t be starting.  If something happens to Duck the Steelers should give Lynch a shot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Duck gets the start against Cleveland.  At this point, I wouldn't be completely surprised if yesterday was Rudolph's last game as a starter for the Steelers (barring an injury).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like Rudolph is thinking too much and reacting too slowly and the scrutiny from the incident with Garrett may be getting to him.

Throw in that defensive coordinators have more tape on him and his depleted weapons and I am not sure he is going to be able to salvage anything this season.

He may have the physical tools but I now question his mental toughness.  Look at a guy like Kyle Allen, I am not sure he is any more physically gifted than Rudolph (I think, on paper most would say he is far less so) but dude is nails mentally.  He ####s the bed and immediately forgets about it and rebounds strong.  Allen went toe-to-toe with the NO offense and would have won, but for Joey Slye getting an untimely case of the yips.  He exudes confidence and backs it up.

I don't see that in Rudolph, I see a guy worrying about making a mistake and playing accordingly.  He wasn't pulled yesterday because the team was getting killed like Carr or Rodgers, he was pulled because he couldn't hang with Ryan Finley and the winless Cincinatti Bengals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even think Rudolph has the physical tools.  He certainly does not have a strong arm.  He has a decent sized body I guess and he's a smart person by all accounts..

I've been probably the biggest Rudolph detractor on the board, but I don't really buy the narrative that Duck won the game.  James Washington made that play as much or more than Duck.  I guess Duck didn't lose it. 

I do think Duck deserves the next shot because Mason has just looked awful, but I'm not expecting Minshew. 

Edited by kittenmittens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

ESPN's Adam Schefter reports Mason Rudolph (shoulder) is expected to miss Week 17 against the Ravens.

Rudolph could actually be out "for at least a few weeks", so Devlin Hodges' reign as the team's incumbent starter could trickle into the postseason. Paxton Lynch was also promoted as Pittsburgh's backup in the event of an emergency. Hodges was benched following two first-half interceptions and only returned once Rudolph was forced from the game with said injury. One would imagine the former will have a short leash in the regular season finale despite the lack of viable options behind him.

SOURCE: Adam Schefter on Twitter

Dec 23, 2019, 1:15 PM ET

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

Steelers place QB Mason Rudolph (shoulder) on injured reserve.

The team will move forward with Devlin Hodges and Paxton Lynch as their available options under center in Sunday's must-win matchup against the divisional foe Ravens. The organization wanted fans to believe Rudolph was the answer once Ben Roethlisberger went down, but that obviously proved egregious as the second-year signal-caller averaged 190.5 passing yards and a 61.4 percent completion rate in eight woeful starts. The Steelers would be crazy not to force Rudolph to compete for a reserve role in 2020 given how little he showed when called upon this year. Pittsburgh can sneak into the postseason with a win and Titans loss on Sunday.

SOURCE: Brooke Pryor on Twitter

Dec 24, 2019, 9:47 AM ET

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports Mason Rudolph's season-ending shoulder injury was "more severe than it appeared."

Rudolph thought he had "just" a dislocated shoulder in Week 16, but he had actually suffered a "posterior sternoclavicular dislocation." It's an injury that can "threaten several vital structures near the medial clavicle, including the trachea and aorta." Rudolph had to undergo emergency surgery. He is expected to be back to full health in roughly two months.

SOURCE: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Jan 1, 2020, 12:05 AM ET

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Rudolph did not say what Garrett is accusing of him saying he should be conferring with attorney's ASAP and laying the groundwork for a defamation and slander lawsuit against Garrett.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy played plenty enough for us to get a good look at him and he seems to suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JohnnyU said:

This guy played plenty enough for us to get a good look at him and he seems to suck.

I would disagree with that. I thought for a guy making the first starts of his career he was decent. He really only had 1 awful game which was the Browns game, and had a bad half against the Bengals. So 1.5 bad games out of 10 appearances.

Prior to the Browns game, he had a 4-2 record as a starter, 65% completions, an 11-4 TD/INT ratio, 0 lost fumbles(very rare for a young QB) a 6.6 YPA(which is admittedly low) and not a single game with a passer rating below 80. That was despite having an o-line that took 2 steps back last year, and a very banged up skill position group, that was mostly relying on rookies, or guys who had never started before(Snell, Washington, Johnson)

I'm not saying Rudolph is some star in the making. But I certainly don't think he sucked. Considering the circumstances, I thought he played ok, and he impressed me more than a lot of QB's held in higher regard. If i were the Steelers, I'd have zero interest in adding a QB in the draft. Frankly, they don't pick high enough to get anyone I feel confident is better than Rudolph. 

Edited by travdogg
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, travdogg said:

I would disagree with that. I thought for a guy making the first starts of his career he was decent. He really only had 1 awful game which was the Browns game, and had a bad half against the Bengals. So 1.5 bad games out of 10 appearances.

Prior to the Browns game, he had a 4-2 record as a starter, 65% completions, an 11-4 TD/INT ratio, 0 lost fumbles(very rare for a young QB) a 6.6 YPA(which is admittedly low) and not a single game with a passer rating below 80. That was despite having an o-line that took 2 steps back last year, and a very banged up skill position group, that was mostly relying on rookies, or guys who had never started before(Snell, Washington, Johnson)

I'm not saying Rudolph is some star in the making. But I certainly don't think he sucked. Considering the circumstances, I thought he played ok, and he impressed me more than a lot of QB's held in higher regard. If i were the Steelers, I'd have zero interest in adding a QB in the draft. Frankly, they don't pick high enough to get anyone I feel confident is better than Rudolph. 

He’s not worth a valuable roster spot in start 1 QB leagues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, JohnnyU said:

This guy played plenty enough for us to get a good look at him and he seems to suck.

Putting a rookie QB into that Pittsburgh offense...what do people expect? Do people realize who his WR/RB's were? Not saying he will be great, but It's still early IMO. Anyone remember Troy Aikman's rookie year?

Edited by GROOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, menobrown said:

If Rudolph did not say what Garrett is accusing of him saying he should be conferring with attorney's ASAP and laying the groundwork for a defamation and slander lawsuit against Garrett.

This is equal to saying if you dont take the stand in your own trial then you must be guilty. It's a pretty bad standard to expect from people. 

How is he going to prove Garret is wrong? He can't. Which is why there is no lawsuit

This would be a frivolous lawsuit. zero chance at winning

Edited by Dr. Dan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dr. Dan said:

This is equal to saying if you dont take the stand in your own trial then you must be guilty. It's a pretty bad standard to expect from people. 

How is he going to prove Garret is wrong? He can't. Which is why there is no lawsuit

Not that I am advocating a lawsuit, but wouldn't the burden be on Garrett to prove that Rudolph said it? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Ghost Rider said:

Not that I am advocating a lawsuit, but wouldn't the burden be on Garrett to prove that Rudolph said it? 

no, in spite of what the Democrats would like you to believe, that's not how our legal system works. the burden of proof is on the individual bringing the lawsuit. Otherwise you could sue anyone for any made up reason and tell them to "prove it or you lose."

Ghost, prove you didnt call my business and get me fired under false accusations, or pay me a million dollars. 

Edited by Dr. Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Ghost Rider said:

Not that I am advocating a lawsuit, but wouldn't the burden be on Garrett to prove that Rudolph said it? 

No, for Rudolph to win he’d have to prove that Garrett is lying. All Garrett would have to do to win is continue to claim that he thought Rudolph said it. Whether Rudolph did or not is irrelevant because Garrett only has to BELIEVE that he said it. So unless there are texts from Garrett saying that he’s lying about it or he told someone else and that person comes forward, there is no way for Rudolph to win a lawsuit.

Rudolph’s attorney did apparently just release a statement threatening a lawsuit, but there is really just zero chance of that happening. 

It really is mind boggling that Garrett would open this back up though. If anyone advised him that this would be a good idea, that person should stop giving him advice.

Edited by GroveDiesel
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, I could see exactly why Garrett is doing this. 10-15 years from now when he retires, nobody will remember who Mason Rudolph was. Everyone will talk about what a great career Garrett had and how it was marred just a bit by that time he beat a scrub backup QB with his own helmet, but that ultimately it was excusable because that guy called him the N-word after all....

By the time Garrett retires, nobody will remember the exact details and he’ll get the benefit of the doubt because he’ll matter and Rudolph won’t and that’s how things work. 

So ultimately the hit now to his reputation bringing it up again will likely pay dividends in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dr. Dan said:

This is equal to saying if you dont take the stand in your own trial then you must be guilty. It's a pretty bad standard to expect from people. 

How is he going to prove Garret is wrong? He can't. Which is why there is no lawsuit

This would be a frivolous lawsuit. zero chance at winning

He wouldn’t have to prove Garrett wrong. The burden of proof would be on Garrett to prove he was telling the truth which is the best defense to a defamation lawsuit. The biggest issue would be Rudolph showing proof he was damaged financially by what Garrett claims which would be tough. It’s not like he would be getting any endorsements that he’s now lost and his play on the field is likely to prove more detrimental to him getting a big second contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

He wouldn’t have to prove Garrett wrong. The burden of proof would be on Garrett to prove he was telling the truth which is the best defense to a defamation lawsuit. The biggest issue would be Rudolph showing proof he was damaged financially by what Garrett claims which would be tough. It’s not like he would be getting any endorsements that he’s now lost and his play on the field is likely to prove more detrimental to him getting a big second contract.

maybe the law is different in Wisconsin, but my attorney wife says the burden is always on the petitioner 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dr. Dan said:

no, in spite of what the Democrats would like you to believe, that's not how our legal system works. the burden of proof is on the individual bringing the lawsuit. Otherwise you could sue anyone for any made up reason and tell them to "prove it or you lose."

Ghost, prove you didnt call my business and get me fired under false accusations, or pay me a million dollars. 

This is wrong. It’s not political at all either. This is a civil lawsuit and unlike your example, Rudolph wouldn’t have to prove Garret is making a claim that he called him the N word because Garrett put it out in print. You can’t just smear some ones reputation without the ability to back it up.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dr. Dan said:

maybe the law is different in Wisconsin, but my attorney wife says the burden is always on the petitioner 

The burden of proof would be on Rudolph to prove that Garrett made a defamatory statement which is pretty easy. It’s out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dr. Dan said:

maybe the law is different in Wisconsin, but my attorney wife says the burden is always on the petitioner 

Let’s put it this way. Do you think if you called me a child molester in the press it would be up to me to prove I wasn’t a child molester if I sued you for defamation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are people getting boards mixed up.

Omnipotent claims saying they know what was or wasn't said.

Political rants.

Arrogance of some so up on holier than thou high horses they can't get  down without a parachute.

Law school takes?

I thought this was the Shark Pool.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Are people getting boards mixed up.

Omnipotent claims saying they know what was or wasn't said.

Political rants.

Arrogance of some so up on holier than thou high horses they can't get  down without a parachute.

Law school takes?

I thought this was the Shark Pool.  

What?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

Let’s put it this way. Do you think if you called me a child molester in the press it would be up to me to prove I wasn’t a child molester if I sued you for defamation?

If you're suing me, in Wisconsin, the burden of proof is on you. During the trial process the details of my accusation would come out, and then you could prove me to be a liar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

The burden of proof would be on Rudolph to prove that Garrett made a defamatory statement which is pretty easy. It’s out there.

but if its true its not defamatory, so Rudolph has to prove that it's not true

Edited by Dr. Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dr. Dan said:

If you're suing me, in Wisconsin, the burden of proof is on you. During the trial process the details of my accusation would come out, and then you could prove me to be a liar. 

I’ll back out now. I think either you’re not understanding you’re wife’s take or she’s not understanding your question.

Ive explained what the burden is. To show a statement was made and that it was defamatory. Rudolph surely wouldn’t have to prove he didn’t say it - how would that make sense? 

If what you’re saying is true people could basically say anything about anyone with no ramifications.

Edited by Dr. Octopus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dr. Octopus said:

I’ll back out now. I think either you’re not understanding you’re wife’s take it she’s not understanding your question.

Ive explained what the burden is. To show a statement was made and that it was defamatory. Rudolph surely wouldn’t have to prove he didn’t say it - how would that make sense? 

If what you’re saying is true people could basically say anything about anyone with no ramifications.

And if what you're saying is true, people could basically sue anyone for anything and tell them to prove it's not true, or pay you money... 

Drafting a lawsuit now to just sue everyone for calling me a child molester. Prove you didn't! #millionaireovernight 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dr. Dan said:

but if its true its not defamatory, so Rudolph has to prove that it's not true

One more time. Rudolph would have the burden of proof that Garrett made a statement and that it was defamatory (it caused a damage to his reputation). The burden would then be on the defendant to offer a defense. The statement being true would be the best defense he could offer. Garrett would need to prove it was true.

This isn’t a black and white thing (no pun intended). The law rarely is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

One more time. Rudolph would have the burden of proof that Garrett made a statement and that it was defamatory (it caused a damage to his reputation). The burden would then be on the defendant to offer a defense. The statement being true would be the best defense he could offer. Garrett would need to prove it was true.

This isn’t a black and white thing (no pun intended). The law rarely is. 

If Garrett dlesnt have audio proof that Rudolph said something racist, then Rudolph wins?

Dont you see how dangerous that is?

Edited by Dr. Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dr. Dan said:

And if what you're saying is true, people could basically sue anyone for anything and tell them to prove it's not true, or pay you money... 

Drafting a lawsuit now to just sue everyone for calling me a child molester. Prove you didn't! #millionaireovernight 

You’re not understanding at all. If I claimed you called me a child molester I would need to prove that you did so. So yes, the burden of proof would be on me to do so. If you did it during an interview on television or in print (like Garrett did) it would be easy for me to satisfy that burden of proof. Then the burden would shift to you to show that your statement was accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dr. Dan said:

If Garrett dlesnt have audio proof that Rudolph said something racist, then Rudolph wins?

No not necessarily. Garret’s statement that it was said could be found to be more credible in court. There’s other defenses to defamation as well that aren’t necessary to get into here. 

One more time. I give an interview that says Dr. Dan likes to molest children in his office and that destroys your business. You sue me. How would you prove you weren’t a child molester? Why would you think you had to prove you weren’t a child molester? I made the statement making that claim. Shouldn’t I need to prove it or should I just be allowed to go around making false claims that ruin a persons livelihood?

Edited by Dr. Octopus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dr. Dan said:

This is equal to saying if you dont take the stand in your own trial then you must be guilty. It's a pretty bad standard to expect from people. 

 

No idea what rant you are on with this but a fringe player like Rudolph getting accused of saying something like this is potentially damaging to his career and his earning both in the NFL and after  if he did in fact say nothing.

 

Share this post


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

No, for Rudolph to win he’d have to prove that Garrett is lying. All Garrett would have to do to win is continue to claim that he thought Rudolph said it. Whether Rudolph did or not is irrelevant because Garrett only has to BELIEVE that he said it. So unless there are texts from Garrett saying that he’s lying about it or he told someone else and that person comes forward, there is no way for Rudolph to win a lawsuit.

Rudolph’s attorney did apparently just release a statement threatening a lawsuit, but there is really just zero chance of that happening. 

It really is mind boggling that Garrett would open this back up though. If anyone advised him that this would be a good idea, that person should stop giving him advice.

I am a fan of Garret from his college days.     Right now Garret probably thinks everyone thought he was lying and he most likely is. This could have almost just went away but he opened it again. Very puzzling indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This morning Rudolph tweeted this and Giardi posed this question to McCann:

 

@MikeGiardi

·

 

Has he got a case for slander

@McCannSportsLaw

?

@Rudolph2Mason

 

1000% False. Bold-Faced Lie. I did not, have not, and would not utter a racial-slur. This is a disgusting and reckless attempt to assassinate my character. https://twitter.com/sportscenter/s

 

And this is McCann's reply to Giardi's question:

@McCannSportsLaw

Yes, Mason Rudolph could sue Myles Garrett for slander. But Rudolph must prove actual malice (not easy) and he better be prepared for pretrial discovery and what would be asked of him. I detail how Rudolph v. Garrett would work in this story: https://si.com/nfl/2019/11/22

That article McCann linked he wrote back in November when this all happened and the last section of the article he details that Rudolph could sue Garrett for slander but then goes on to explain the process and obstacles.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And going over my twitter timeline and catching up to morning news I see that in fact Rudolph's attorney's seem to be laying the groundwork for a possible lawsuit, point blank saying in their opinion Garrett has exposed himself to legal liability and pointing out that what Garrett said was uttered in California. Attorney's tweet below.

https://twitter.com/YoungerAssoc/status/1228692699345121280

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a very strange situation, wonder if Garett has somehow convinced himself that Rudolph said something to justify his behavior in his own mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Dr. Octopus said:

I’ll back out now. I think either you’re not understanding you’re wife’s take or she’s not understanding your question.

Ive explained what the burden is. To show a statement was made and that it was defamatory. Rudolph surely wouldn’t have to prove he didn’t say it - how would that make sense? 

If what you’re saying is true people could basically say anything about anyone with no ramifications.

It doesn't.  

It 'Proving Non-Existence' is one of the 7 fallacy's of logic (ad ignorantiam).

If Rudolph's lawyer attempts to make a case based on a fallacy of logic he's grandstanding and milking Rudolph.

No one can win a case based on a fallacy of logic.

A 'Burden of proof' fallacy defamatory case is totally groundless because the NFL 'CLAIMS' their is no evidence.

NFL reiterates it has no evidence of Mason Rudolph racial slur

Quote

 

...the NFL wants to remind everyone involved that it has nothing useful, at least not in the way of recordings.

“As we said at the time the allegation was made, we looked into the matter and found no such evidence,” NFL V.P. of communications Brian McCarthy informed PFT via email after the story regarding a potential lawsuit was posted.

That’s not entirely good news for Rudolph, because the league’s position isn’t that it determined Rudolph didn’t use a slur. The league’s position is that, despite the presence of microphones, there are no recordings of any audio they may have captured. (As noted in November, the league could have launched a full-blown internal investigation into the matter, grilling any and all relevant witnesses.)

“There was no sound recorded from the field during that game,” McCarthy added. “As with every game, there were microphones on the center or interior linemen that help amplify the ambient sound as the quarterbacks were calling signals at the line of scrimmage. But they do not record sound. Microphones are opened from the break of the huddle (or when the center places his hand on the ball in a no-huddle offense) through the snap of the ball.”

In other words, the NFL’s evidence will neither prove that Rudolph used a slur nor rule it out.

 

The NFL 'investigation' consisted of interviewing players asking what they saw and heard.  The moron Florio at PFT says that Garrett 'should' have made the claim in the locker room directly after the game about use of the N-word.

Um no.  Garrett said nothing about Rudolph grabbing his face mask or attempting to rip off his helmet and he didn't and still hasn't said a word about Rudolph kicking him in the crotch.  He was contrite and made many apologies.  To claim Garrett said nothing about Rudolph use of the N-word in the locker room right after the game constitutes proof that Garrett made it up?  No. 

We saw what Rudolph did yet Garrett said nothing about what Rudolph did to him.  We saw how he conducted himself and heard what Rudolph said directly after that game calling Garrett a total coward and  Garrett has said nothing. 

For PFT to make up a strawman argument stating Myles said nothing about use of the N-word as proof of nonexistence is a cry for help just as a 'threatened' legal case built on a fallacy of logic.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, menobrown said:

This morning Rudolph tweeted this and Giardi posed this question to McCann:

 

@MikeGiardi

·

 

Has he got a case for slander

@McCannSportsLaw

?

@Rudolph2Mason

 

1000% False. Bold-Faced Lie. I did not, have not, and would not utter a racial-slur. This is a disgusting and reckless attempt to assassinate my character. https://twitter.com/sportscenter/s

 

And this is McCann's reply to Giardi's question:

@McCannSportsLaw

Yes, Mason Rudolph could sue Myles Garrett for slander. But Rudolph must prove actual malice (not easy) and he better be prepared for pretrial discovery and what would be asked of him. I detail how Rudolph v. Garrett would work in this story: https://si.com/nfl/2019/11/22

That article McCann linked he wrote back in November when this all happened and the last section of the article he details that Rudolph could sue Garrett for slander but then goes on to explain the process and obstacles.

 

If Rudolph does file a lawsuit, would he be required to clarify what he said during the altercation or can he simply keep saying "I didn't say what Garrett said I said"? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Yenrub said:

If Rudolph does file a lawsuit, would he be required to clarify what he said during the altercation or can he simply keep saying "I didn't say what Garrett said I said"? 

He can say whatever he wants but it doesn't matter without proof and their is no proof.  He can waste his money but here is the crux of this thing.

People have used and still use the N-word.  Mason Rudolph has shown who he is by his actions on the field and in post game PCs.  Fun fact, off the field Mason likes posts of people who favor using the confederate flag.

If someone makes up ridiculous claim that four  squirrels opened up a barbershop in their backyard and someone doubted the person telling the story and that person asked them to prove it didn't happen then we can make an educated guess on who is telling the truth.

In the heat of NFL battle where a player tries to rip off another player's helmet and then kicks them in the crotch and we can clearly see that words are shared but have no audio of what was or wasn't said then we can make an educated guess on what may or may not have been said especially if one is white the other  is black and the one who made the claim was told it would be held in confidence but was shared with the media forcing him to repeat what the other had said.  

Myles did not want to come forward because he knew what Rudolph said was inflammatory but for anyone to think the N-word hasn't been or will never be said in the heat of battle on an  NFL field is living in a fairy tail world of faeries, daisy's and lollipops.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bracie Smathers said:

He can say whatever he wants but it doesn't matter without proof and their is no proof.  He can waste his money but here is the crux of this thing. 

I’ll say it one last time. Rudolph doesn’t have to prove he didn’t use the N word. He only has to “prove” that an alleged defamatory statement was made (this is pretty easy) and that statement negatively affects his reputation. The burden will then shift to Garrett to defend what he said and it will come down to credible testimony on both sides, the NFL’s findings will likely be introduced and if it ever got to the jury some element of logic and/or doubt will come into play.

I have no idea what was or wasnt said. You seem convinced what was said. I have some doubts based on logic (I mean there were a lot of African Americans on both sides surrounding Rudolph who didn’t take exception) but maybe he’s a moron and did use the word and was lucky that only Garrett heard it.

I’ve only been piping in on the “burden of proof issue” since many here seem confused by what Rudolph needs or doesn’t need to prove. I also have doubts a case is ever brought as like I said damages to Rudolph would be tough to prove as he’s not a guy that gets endorsements anyway and something like this isn’t likely to affect any future contracts. He kind of sucks as a player. Maybe he does care about clearing his name though and doesn’t care about the recovery. We’ll see. It’s fairly interesting on many levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

I’ll say it one last time. Rudolph doesn’t have to prove he didn’t use the N word. He only has to “prove” that an alleged defamatory statement was made (this is pretty easy) and that statement negatively affects his reputation. The burden will then shift to Garrett to defend what he said and it will come down to credible testimony on both sides, the NFL’s findings will likely be introduced and if it ever got to the jury some element of logic and/or doubt will come into play.

I have no idea what was or wasnt said. You seem convinced what was said. I have some doubts based on logic (I mean there were a lot of African Americans on both sides surrounding Rudolph who didn’t take exception) but maybe he’s a moron and did use the word and was lucky that only Garrett heard it.

I’ve only been piping in on the “burden of proof issue” since many here seem confused by what Rudolph needs or doesn’t need to prove. I also have doubts a case is ever brought as like I said damages to Rudolph would be tough to prove as he’s not a guy that gets endorsements anyway and something like this isn’t likely to affect any future contracts. He kind of sucks as a player. Maybe he does care about clearing his name though and doesn’t care about the recovery. We’ll see. It’s fairly interesting on many levels.

Doc,

Mason's lawyers are threatening malice meaning they claim Garrett KNOWINGLY made a false accusation which caused him harm. 

Myles did not make a public accusation, the media got a confidential leaked statement and made a confidential statement public record.

Garrett did not go public but confirmed a leaked statement attributed to him.  Myles was assured his statement was private and would not be shared.  

Private conversations are protected free speech.  Their can be no MALICE for private conversations especially when assumed they are told they are confidential.

If you disagree do you think you should be held liable for private conversations especially if you are told your words would be held in strict confidence but find yourself threatened being sued with MALICE for when an investigator of your employer told you that your statements were confidential but they went public?

Share this post


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

Doc,

Mason's lawyers are threatening malice meaning they claim Garrett KNOWINGLY made a false accusation which caused him harm. 

Myles did not make a public accusation, the media got a confidential leaked statement and made a confidential statement public record.

Garrett did not go public but confirmed a leaked statement attributed to him.  Myles was assured his statement was private and would not be shared.  

Private conversations are protected free speech.  Their can be no MALICE for private conversations especially when assumed they are told they are confidential.

If you disagree do you think you should be held liable for private conversations especially if you are told your words would be held in strict confidence but find yourself threatened being sued with MALICE for when an investigator of your employer told you that your statements were confidential but they went public?

Garrett just recently voluntarily made defamatory statements in an interview with a reporter. That’s all that matters at this point and it wasn’t very smart if he wanted to hide behind the fact he originally made those accusations privately.

And I’m not going into any Freedom of Speech arguments, because frankly most people show they have no idea what that concept really means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

Garrett just recently voluntarily made defamatory statements in an interview with a reporter. That’s all that matters at this point and it wasn’t very smart if he wanted to hide behind the fact he originally made those accusations privately.

And I’m not going into any Freedom of Speech arguments, because frankly most people show they have no idea what that concept really means.

What you say is important is all that matters.  Really?  I disagree.   

Share this post


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

What you say is important is all that matters.  Really?  I disagree.   

Somehow, I’m not surprised you misinterpreted that also. It’s all that matters as far as your statement that he originally made the accusations privately so they couldn’t be the basis to claim malicious defamation. 

He has now publicly and intentionally made a potential defamatory statement concerning Rudolph. I make no comment on whether it’s an accurate statement as to what took place on the day Garrett used a weapon to assault Rudolph though. I’m not sure we’ll ever know for sure, even if this does play out in court and one side wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

Somehow, I’m not surprised you misinterpreted that also. It’s all that matters as far as your statement that he originally made the accusations privately so they couldn’t be the basis to claim malicious defamation. 

He has now publicly and intentionally made a potential defamatory statement concerning Rudolph. I make no comment on whether it’s an accurate statement as to what took place on the day Garrett used a weapon to assault Rudolph though. I’m not sure we’ll ever know for sure, even if this does play out in court and one side wins.

Got the derivative post the first time you said what is important is what you say is important and what you say is important was the only thing that matters.  

He was asked about something on public record and answered truthfully.   

Malice

The intentional commission of a wrongful act, absent justification, with the intent to cause harm to others;...

...In its legal application, the term malice is comprehensive and applies to any legal act that is committed intentionally without Just Cause or excuse...

A statement given and taken in confidence is not an intentional act.  A confidential statement made public under false pretense is public record.  Being asked about a statement in public record shows no intent to commit harm especially a confidential statement that you made and  are on record as being truthful.  Garrett is one of two people who heard what was said and made a confidential statement and a public confirmation. 

No intent unless you want to go on record that Garrett intentionally leaking the confidential statement just so he could maliciously attack Rudolph.

The burden of proof is on Rudolph to prove intent of harm.  When someone claims malice they have to prove intention to harm.  They have to actually prove it.  

Their was no intent and considering he was confirming what was said on public record.  If he had gone public with intention to harm then you could pat yourself on the butt or whatever.  But their is a distinction that you can't or won't get and that is a confidential statement was made public.  Nothing further from intent could be proven under those circumstances no matter how often or public Myles Garrett confirms those statements because they were gotten under false pretext.

55 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

I’m not going into any Freedom of Speech arguments, because frankly most people show they have no idea what that concept really means.

Double down on what you think you said and thank God for people who disagree with your dismissal of free speech.

Share this post


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

A statement given and taken in confidence is not an intentional act.  A confidential statement made public under false pretense is public record. 

So he made this statement to Mina Kimes during an interview that was going to appear on SportsCenter in confidence?

Quote

"He called me the N-word," Garrett told Outside the Lines' Mina Kimes during an interview that debuted Thursday night on SportsCenter. "He called me a 'stupid N-word.'"

Edited by Dr. Octopus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Bracie Smathers said:

Double down on what you think you said and thank God for people who disagree with your dismissal of free speech.

I’m not sure why you need to mischaracterize what I say - I did not dismiss free speech at all.

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.