Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
he already said he didn't want to reveal his source....to anybody....guess you are wanting Joe's "source" stamp of approval or something....TheWinz said:
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.
Legal Landscape For Tyreek Hill - 7.8.19 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Joe Bryant
- Start date
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
guess I don't really get this post......this is what is going on with Hill right now....so if you go into a thread about Hill this is what you are going to see.....when news breaks on the actual suspension, etc.....you will probably "hear" about it way before coming to footballguys....its gonna be pretty big news....if you get any type of notifications on your phone, etc.....it will be scrolling across every sports related TV show....if you don't want speculation and back and forth, I would suggest not clicking on a Hill thread until you hear about the suspension elsewhere....Biabreakable said:
Biabreakable
Footballguy
I normally avoid these threads like the plague. Been through this with Peterson before.
The only reason I was reading it is because Joe thought it needed its own thread. So I thought there might have been some news or something.
Thanks. Can you elaborate what you mean here?Milkman said:
TheWinz
Footballguy
You don't yell "FIRE" in a movie theater. You don't yell "BOMB" on a plane. And you don't say "source" in the Shark Pool, unless you are willing to reveal it. It's that simple, and I think most would agree. Now, back to the show...
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
I'm fine with it....mostly because I have the ability to think for myself...and this is a freaking fake football forum....lol
Last edited by a moderator:
TheWinz
Footballguy
First - you are not a mod for this thread
Second - do not imply others don't think for themselves
Third - this is a real football forum, albeit fantasy football
Fourth - perhaps you should engage in other threads instead of living in this one. your last 15 posts have been in here.
Fifth - have a nice day
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
I wasn't the one telling people not to post...or tracking where they post..or how many times they have posted in a thread.....or telling them where to go post.....lol...sorry I didn't know you were a mod...my bad....take care...moving on
Last edited by a moderator:
Milkman
Footballguy
Good thing it's not important to me what you think. Feel free to put me on ignore sir so my posts don't offend you anymore. I'll do the same. Have a nice day.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
How does one do this? Not you but there may be some one I think I would be better off not reading posts from anymore.
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
I think you have to click on my profile and then you can hit a button in there or something...
check that...you click on your own profile page and in in the drop down box you pick ignore users and then you type my name in....
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
I looked and saw nothing there. Great detective work. Then again I guess you know that you ran to the moderators to get me banned for doing barely anything after you instigated...... so maybe it wasn't so difficult to figure out after all.
ETA: Found it. Bliss.
Last edited by a moderator:
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
not me sir....I got banned for awhile before you...I was probably reported by several....thought it was weak like you did.....for my joking post about an I told you so post being in the "editing room"....whatever I'm past that...thing is I don't mind a little back and forth in these forums....I think thats why they should exist...I like hearing other opinions and view points and have often had my mind changed by posters in here....I don't mind being wrong and called out when I am ....others struggle with that.....I have never ignored anybody and have also never gotten personal to any other poster in here....kind of like you, any gray area around that for me was coming from "defending" myself or defending my point of view....the mods came in here and felt they needed to be playground police and make sure everybody was playing nice in the sandbox....talking 1% or passive aggressive or whatever....I think to truly get the most out of posters and opinions, points of view need to be discussed....and things looked at from different angles...and its ok to disagree and to talk about disagreeing...and to talk about who has been right and wrong....I may not say it the right way all the time and context may come across wrong so I will apologize for that when it happens....but this situation has taken a lot of twists and turns....many people have been wrong and right about the approach and knee jerk judgments without knowing the details....its all good, we are adults, its a message board, not just a stats board....IMO back and forth dialouge should be allowed and encouraged....I benefited from posts like yours and others....good luck this year if you ever see this, hope your drafts go well...
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
I doubt anyone is stressing over it; I am certainly not. But people come here for football info and updates, and anyone could pop in and say, "I have a source that says Tyreek Hill is getting suspended for two years." That kind of unsubstantiated stuff just muddy the waters for those wanting good and accurate info. Sure, you could argue that there are better places to get info, but I think you get my point.Young 8 said:
Milkman
Footballguy
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
Can’t you just ignore it then....and move on.....maybe some posters give it more credit than you do....so to them it might be “good info” and it doesn’t muddy the waters....should they not have a chance to decide for themselves....all you have to do is quit reading when it starts with “my source says”...
Milkman seems to be an invested poster in here and not just someone looking for attention or something....that doesn’t mean I take everything his source says as the gospel, but at least I have the opportunity to decide for myself and there really is no harm/no foul here as everybody can decide for themselves what they want to pay attention too and what they don’t....
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Hankmoody
Footballguy
I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm disagreeing that they will find him in violation of that part of the Policy. I can't fathom how you justify at least a 6 game suspension, but it's your opinion, you're entitled to it, and I'm not going to debate that.Bayhawks said:
Just because they are investigating based on the initial allegations doesn't mean that's the only conclusion they can reach. They can decide the original allegations are unfounded but he did actually commit other, lesser offenses. You have, indeed, said "it's 6 games, end of story" in a post I quoted.
https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/777110-legal-landscape-for-tyreek-hill-7819/?do=findComment&comment=22007696
"this situation definitely is covered by this policy, and therefore the 6-game baseline would apply. "
Except it may not be.
Sorry, but the snippet of my post that you included doesn’t say “it’s 6 games, end of story.” It was the last sentence of a response to your post where you suggested that the NFL’s investigation wasn’t necessarily an investigation of a violation of the policy because “He hasn't really done any of those things though. The closest we have is "maybe" he threatened her, but there's no way that meets felony level. There is zero evidence of any other violation. So it doesn't have to fall into the minimum 6 game criteria.”
I responded that since the investigation started as a result of possible child abuse, it did fall under the policy, and therefore the 6-game baseline (as laid out on the policy) would apply.
By just posting the last line, without context, you made it look different than what I really posted.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hankmoody
Footballguy
I don't know where you're getting this "I said they weren't investigating" thing. I never said that. My only point has been that any violations may or may not (not, in my opinion) rise to the level your are insisting upon. And again, you have this weird obsession with the idea that since the investigation started as a result of possible child abuse that that's the only conclusion they can reach. I don't know where you get that from, it's unfounded. They can absolutely find him guilty of violating the Personal Conduct Policy without the 6 game minimum.
"If Hill is going to be punished by the NFL, it will be under this policy. He is being investigated by the NFL for a violation of this policy. Maybe they will determine he doesn’t deserve any punishment (which I think is what Hankmoody is saying), but IF the NFL punished him, it will be under the this policy. And IF that happens, the 6-game baseline applies."
There's another example of you insisting it's "6 games or nothing". You do know that 6 game suspension isn't the only possible outcome right? 6 games is only the minimum mandate "With regard to violations of the Personal Conduct Policy that involve" X Y or Z. There are a bajillion other things in that policy that aren't in regard to X Y and Z, just look at all the bullet points on page 2.
Hairy Snowman
Footballguy
I don’t know where you’re getting this “I said it’s 6 games or nothing,” I never said that.
Saying the 6-game baseline applies DOES NOT mean it’s 6 games or nothing. It means that this punishment applies to this situation. I know it can be more, I know it can be less. That’s what the term “baseline” indicates. If I said the death penalty applies in a 1st-degree murder investigation (in a state that has the death penalty), I’m not guaranteeing the suspect will be put to death, but that this punishment is applicable to that investigation.
For some reason, you continue to insist that me saying the 6 game baseline applies (to this investigation) means that it is guaranteed that the punishment will be 6 games, no more, no less.
I’ll try to be clear: I’ve never posted that, and that’s not what it means. It means that since the NFL is investigating a possible violation of this particular policy, then the 6 game baseline which is cited within said policy is applicable.
Could the NFL find this policy wasn’t violated, but discover another violation resulting in a shorter suspension (as you’ve suggested)? Yes. Could the NFL suspend Hill for more than 6 games? Yes. Could the NFL decide no violation occurred & give no suspension? Yes. Do I think the NFL will hand down at least 6 games? Yes, I do.
I hope that clears it up.
Last edited by a moderator:
HULLOBUDMAN
Footballguy
Not trying to stir the pot, just minimize the confusion:
base·line
/ˈbāsˌlīn/
noun
noun: baseline; plural noun: baselines
1.
a minimum or starting point used for comparisons
It can very easily be interpreted that you were saying minimum 6 games whether you intended that or not.
base·line
/ˈbāsˌlīn/
noun
noun: baseline; plural noun: baselines
1.
a minimum or starting point used for comparisons
It can very easily be interpreted that you were saying minimum 6 games whether you intended that or not.
Baseline isn’t my word. It is directly from the NFLs policy. What I intended to do was use the terminology from the NFLs policy.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hankmoody
Footballguy
Exactly. You're not stirring the pot, just saying what I have been all along. If it's a baseline, then there is no "it could be less". And it's not a baseline of the Policy, it's only a baseline if certain provisions of the policy are met. But there's no sense discussing it with some people beyond a certain point, so I'm done with this one.
Last edited by a moderator:
HULLOBUDMAN
Footballguy
You asked the question "I dont know where you getting I said 6 games". I just gave a plausible explanation of why your posts were being interpreted that way. Whether they are your words or someone else's words, it is your post.
Maybe your question was rhetorical and I missed that. If so, my apologies.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
joey
Footballguy
but this thread saves us from having to deal with this in the "official" Tyreek Hill thread.
oh wait, no it doesn't :(
HairyGOATee
Footballguy
I think he'll play this year.
Arctic Dawgs
Footballguy
Hope so. Just gave up pick 1.06 in a rookie draft at min salary in a Auction contract league a couple days ago.
Tanner9919
Footballguy
from the NFL policy, whats the minimum he's like to receive, if any? is it 2/4/6/8 games?
TheWinz
Footballguy
Young 8
Footballguy
trader jake
Footballguy
Totally wrong on this one. Today's 0 games announcement may be the most shocking 'protect the shield' announcement of them all. Props to those that more accurately predicted it.
@hankmoody. Have to admit that I read this completely incorrectly. Thanks for the back & forth, without insults/name-calling.
TheDirtyWord
Footballguy
The larger, more societal issue at play here is no matter what the NFL decided in this matter it was going to provoke backlash. The question was simply from whom.
...and if an entity like the NFL (among others) makes the realization that all roads leads to backlash...then they’ll simply go about acting in their best interest. Meaning - if everything is an issue, then nothing is.
Is there anyone who thinks the Chiefs might either jettison and/or suspend Hill, even after the NFL has stated no suspension is coming?
Personally, I think this is unlikely but there are others with more information.
Young 8
Footballguy
Thanks. Big news obviously. It's like anything else, you take the info you have and make the best call you can. We did that. We thought it would be 2-4 but clearly missed there.
Last edited by a moderator:
Milkman
Footballguy
In the beginning I was predicting 0 games. Then the edited recording came out of left field. I admit I got shook. I was being told in the begining he was innocent. Tyreek himself didn't even know about the recording. Started hearing whispers his fiancee is/was bat#### crazy and it was her hurting the kids about 2 months ago.
This still might not be over but looks like there is compelling evidence that she fabricated a lot of the abuse stories. Sucks for Hill that he might been forced to plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit in 2014.
Career year coming for Hill though. 15+ TDs........
This still might not be over but looks like there is compelling evidence that she fabricated a lot of the abuse stories. Sucks for Hill that he might been forced to plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit in 2014.
Career year coming for Hill though. 15+ TDs........
Hankmoody
Footballguy
Or it could just be "there's not sufficient proof that he violated any policy".
10-4 sir. I don't think it's so much as "reading correctly" as what we were fed and click-baited with. This looked really scathing initially with all the innuendo and suggestion that was being bantered about, but once we got a peek behind the curtain it just turned out to be a little dude with some levers and a projector.
trader jake
Footballguy
Not sure that's always been the case with these suspensions anyway. To me the NFL has largely made it up as they've gone along with their personal conduct suspensions, but that's a discussion to have in some other thread I guess. No idea if Tyreek did or did not do anything here, but I'm not a fan of players having their careers greatly altered without the NFL having proof.
Hankmoody
Footballguy
Seems as good a place as any - in a legal landscape thread that's dead otherwise. What have they "made up" along the way? EZE had significant proof he'd done wrong - including video evidence of him involuntarily undressing a woman in public. That her reaction wasn't overly visceral is pretty incidental, he did something pretty despicable.
Absolutely. Today's news changed his rankings across the board.When I checked a couple weeks T. Hill was ranked (composite) in the 20s for dynasty WRs. Maybe a miss there too.
