fred_1_15301
Footballguy
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).
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
QB Mason Rudolph, PIT (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter pghrob
- Start date
Chaka
Footballguy
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.
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.
kittenmittens
Footballguy
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
JohnnyU
Footballguy
GROOT
Footballguy
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?
Last edited by a moderator:
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Not that I am advocating a lawsuit, but wouldn't the burden be on Garrett to prove that Rudolph said it?
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
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.
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.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
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.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
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.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
The burden of proof would be on Rudolph to prove that Garrett made a defamatory statement which is pretty easy. It’s out there.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
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?
Bracie Smathers
Footballguy
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.
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.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
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.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
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.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
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?
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Summer Wheat
Footballguy
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.
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.
@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.
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
https://twitter.com/YoungerAssoc/status/1228692699345121280
Bracie Smathers
Footballguy
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
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.
Yenrub
Footballguy
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"?
Bracie Smathers
Footballguy
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.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
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.
Bracie Smathers
Footballguy
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?
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
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.
Bracie Smathers
Footballguy
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
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.
Bracie Smathers
Footballguy
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.
Double down on what you think you said and thank God for people who disagree with your dismissal of free speech.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
So he made this statement to Mina Kimes during an interview that was going to appear on SportsCenter in confidence?
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
I’m not sure why you need to mischaracterize what I say - I did not dismiss free speech at all.
DallasDMac
Footballguy
Is this the Lawyer Pool now?
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Don't rule out the XFL reaching a level of popularity consistent with the start of mainstream fantasy options for it.
There may yet be room to discuss Rudolph's actual football career in here!
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
I do apologize though for helping to side-track things and will truly let it return to football. I do find the other stuff interesting but at this point I’ll just wait for it to play out.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
There is zero chance Garrett was called the N word and was incensed enough to rip off Rudolph’s helmet and whack him on the side of the head with it and not tell a soul on the field, on the sideline, in the locker room, or post game that Rudolph used a racial slur. That is not human nature.
Garrett fans can believe what they want but it just doesn’t make sense and as Judge Judy says “if it doesn’t make sense. It isn’t true”.
The really bizarre thing is that Garrett could have easily avoided the issue, just say it’s in the past, you’re glad to be reinstated and you just want to look forward to the 2020 season.
Garrett fans can believe what they want but it just doesn’t make sense and as Judge Judy says “if it doesn’t make sense. It isn’t true”.
The really bizarre thing is that Garrett could have easily avoided the issue, just say it’s in the past, you’re glad to be reinstated and you just want to look forward to the 2020 season.
Bracie Smathers
Footballguy
It isn't schtick.
The guy is actually a legit fantasy champ so he says Rudolph is a buy-low with a high ceiling.
--------------------------------------------------
Drake Jordan@DynastyChamp1
Yes, Mason Rudolph IS this year's Lamar Jackson -
Drake Jordan@DynastyChamp1
These losers hopping into my mentions wouldn't last more than 5 minutes in the (high stakes) ring with me. Im one of the best fantasy football players of all time for a damn good reason pal.
The guy is actually a legit fantasy champ so he says Rudolph is a buy-low with a high ceiling.
--------------------------------------------------
Drake Jordan@DynastyChamp1
Yes, Mason Rudolph IS this year's Lamar Jackson -
- Ben is coming off a serious arm injury at 38 years old, he is likely to be injured again -
- Mason is young (25 in July) with significant 3rd round draft capital -
- Can be aquired in the 10th round or later in fantasy drafts
Drake Jordan@DynastyChamp1
These losers hopping into my mentions wouldn't last more than 5 minutes in the (high stakes) ring with me. Im one of the best fantasy football players of all time for a damn good reason pal.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
Bracie Smathers
Footballguy
Similar threads
