What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

RB Ezekiel Elliott, LAC (2 Viewers)

bigupsetter said:
It's already Thursday, Elliot is eligible, if it goes the NFL's way they will start next week.
Click to expand...
Except this is not true.  If it were, Elliot wouldn't have been able to play last week. 

The court's stay didn't come down until Friday.  As of Thursday, he wasn't eligible, so using this logic, he wouldn't have been able to play last week.

It's a commonly posted, previously debunked, belief that the NFL must make suspensions before a certain point in the week.  There is no "deadline" as such specified in the NFL rule book, policy handbook, or CBA.  Theoretically, if the court issued a denial of Zeke's request for an injunction at 12:58 on Sunday, the NFL could suspend him, effective at 12:59.

 
Jerry is threatening to sue the league if Goodell's contract is extended. It's blatantly obvious why he is doing it.

If Elliott's suspension is reduced, I guarantee that Jerry will drop the lawsuit.

 
bigupsetter said:
Its either an NFL rule, or unspoken one. Plus is Goodell really going to throw more gasoline on the fire know as Jerry Jones?
Click to expand...
It's true the NFL gives teams time to prepare for their next game by notifying teams and players of suspensions early in the week.

Here, they issued Elliott's suspension months ago.  The Cowboys have had more than sufficient notification.

And moreover, as a courtesy the league granted Elliott permission to play week 1 regardless of the pending court decision at that time, and it blew up in their faces.  That action became evidence for Elliott's side supporting their irreparable harm argument.

The NFL is going to hold Elliott out of games the millisecond the courts clear them to do so.

 
Joe Summer said:
Jerry is threatening to sue the league if Goodell's contract is extended. It's blatantly obvious why he is doing it.

If Elliott's suspension is reduced, I guarantee that Jerry will drop the lawsuit.
Click to expand...
Jerry is acting the way you might expect a billionaire that isn't getting his way to act.

Goodell isn't going to reduce Elliott's suspension.  What's blatantly obvious is that the line in the sand has been drawn, and neither side is backing down.

 
bigupsetter said:
Its either an NFL rule, or unspoken one. Plus is Goodell really going to throw more gasoline on the fire know as Jerry Jones?
Click to expand...
It's an unspoken courtesy.  It's a WRITTEN NFL rule that players who get suspended can appeal their case 1 time to the commissioner, and that's the end of the process.  If Zeke doesn't think he has to abide by the WRITTEN rule in the CBA, why should the NFL feel beholden to honor the unspoken courtesy of not enforcing suspension after an unofficial "deadline" in a given week?

 
davearm said:
Jerry is acting the way you might expect a billionaire that isn't getting his way to act.

Goodell isn't going to reduce Elliott's suspension.  What's blatantly obvious is that the line in the sand has been drawn, and neither side is backing down.
Click to expand...
You're probably correct, but why do you think Goodell won't reduce to end this charade?  Didn't Brady get reduced?

 
ILUVBEER99 said:
You're probably correct, but why do you think Goodell won't reduce to end this charade?  Didn't Brady get reduced?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that a reduced suspension isn't on the table because the NFL wants to show they are tough on domestic abuse. This stance is a by product of how they dropped the ball in the Ray Rice and Greg Hardy situations. 

 
ILUVBEER99 said:
You're probably correct, but why do you think Goodell won't reduce to end this charade?  Didn't Brady get reduced?
Click to expand...
My understanding is the 6 game suspension for DV is specified in an amendment the league made to the CBA.  Many folks think Goodell just pulled this number out of thin air, but the reality is it was specified by the league's updated DV policy before this case arose.  In the Brady case, Goodell came up with the number himself.

Beyond that, Elliott's side might not agree to accept a reduced suspension.  The NFLPA seems hell bent on seeing this through.  Reducing isn't their end game.  Taking the teeth out of the Commissioner's unilateral power to mete out punishment seems to be their end game.

 
32 Counter Pass said:
My understanding is that a reduced suspension isn't on the table because the NFL wants to show they are tough on domestic abuse. This stance is a by product of how they dropped the ball in the Ray Rice and Greg Hardy situations. 
Click to expand...
This, plus what I just mentioned about the NFLPA's motives.  A reduction serves neither side's goals.

 
My understanding is that a reduced suspension isn't on the table because the NFL wants to show they are tough on domestic abuse
Click to expand...
except Elliot hasn't been convicted anywhere of domestic abuse, he's as innocent as Roger Goodell is 

 
The disingenuous thing I find here is that let's say Zeke had a serious high-ankle sprain that forced him to sit out games... would anyone be surprised if he suddenly dropped the case against him to serve the suspension while hurt (aka MLB strategy)? Or does the NFL rule state the suspension starts once you are designated healthy to play?

 
The Frankman said:
The disingenuous thing I find here is that let's say Zeke had a serious high-ankle sprain that forced him to sit out games... would anyone be surprised if he suddenly dropped the case against him to serve the suspension while hurt (aka MLB strategy)? Or does the NFL rule state the suspension starts once you are designated healthy to play?
Click to expand...
If he gets hurt, drops the appeal, and serves the suspension while rehabbing, there would be nothing preventing that from happening.  That would be the truest test of Zeke's "it's my reputation" claim.  If he continued with the appeal, while hurt, you'd have to believe that he truly believes that he did nothign wrong.

 
The Frankman said:
The disingenuous thing I find here is that let's say Zeke had a serious high-ankle sprain that forced him to sit out games... would anyone be surprised if he suddenly dropped the case against him to serve the suspension while hurt (aka MLB strategy)? Or does the NFL rule state the suspension starts once you are designated healthy to play?
Click to expand...
It's not his choice to make, is it? This is the NFLPA fighting.

 
The Frankman said:
The disingenuous thing I find here is that let's say Zeke had a serious high-ankle sprain that forced him to sit out games... would anyone be surprised if he suddenly dropped the case against him to serve the suspension while hurt (aka MLB strategy)? Or does the NFL rule state the suspension starts once you are designated healthy to play?
Click to expand...
Pretty sure injury status isn’t considered. Healthy or not the suspension would be applied. To my recollection l, if a player is hurt they’ve never waitied for them to get healthy in order to suspend them.

As for MLB, MLB suspensions are kind of a joke - when they suspend a starting pitcher for “4 games”, that’s 1 start. :doh:  

 
Bayhawks said:
If he gets hurt, drops the appeal, and serves the suspension while rehabbing, there would be nothing preventing that from happening.  That would be the truest test of Zeke's "it's my reputation" claim.  If he continued with the appeal, while hurt, you'd have to believe that he truly believes that he did nothign wrong.
Click to expand...


Jed said:
It's not his choice to make, is it? This is the NFLPA fighting.
Click to expand...
Yeah i guess what I'm getting at is the NFLPA represents the players' desire. If he gets hurt and Jerry Jones/Zeke go to the head of the NFLPA and say "drop this ASAP"... what are they going to do? They would have to listen, no?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
At times, when reading through this thread, I seriously wonder what kind of professional workplace environment some folks are familiar with...in the professional world, it is entirely reasonable for your employer to punish you for putting yourself in a bad/inappropriate situation under the auspices of personal conduct policy.  You don't have to actually do anything wrong to be punished - merely being in the wrong place at the wrong time is grounds enough for discipline, and in the professional arena that's an acceptable standard that I'm OK with. You look bad, you in any way make your employer look bad, out comes the hammer. Why do people have a difficult time accepting that? It's been that way forever.

 
I have to admit, I'm not really understanding Jones' lawsuit threat.  Isn't there an owner's committee that determines whether or not Goodell's contract is renewed? What possible grounds would Jones have to sue?  Because Goodell was a meanie to his running back?

 
nittanylion said:
At times, when reading through this thread, I seriously wonder what kind of professional workplace environment some folks are familiar with...in the professional world, it is entirely reasonable for your employer to punish you for putting yourself in a bad/inappropriate situation under the auspices of personal conduct policy.  You don't have to actually do anything wrong to be punished - merely being in the wrong place at the wrong time is grounds enough for discipline, and in the professional arena that's an acceptable standard that I'm OK with. You look bad, you in any way make your employer look bad, out comes the hammer. Why do people have a difficult time accepting that? It's been that way forever.
Click to expand...
People keep trying to argue it's a criminal law case when it's not... it covers everything outlined in the NFL CBA Personal Conduct Policy with an actual precedent to boot (Brady). 

 
The Frankman said:
Yeah i guess what I'm getting at is the NFLPA represents the players' desire. If he gets hurt and Jerry Jones/Zeke go to the head of the NFLPA and say "drop this ASAP"... what are they going to do? They would have to listen, no?
Click to expand...
I don't really know, but my guess is they would keep fighting, viewing it as a fight for player rights.

 
nittanylion said:
At times, when reading through this thread, I seriously wonder what kind of professional workplace environment some folks are familiar with...in the professional world, it is entirely reasonable for your employer to punish you for putting yourself in a bad/inappropriate situation under the auspices of personal conduct policy.  You don't have to actually do anything wrong to be punished - merely being in the wrong place at the wrong time is grounds enough for discipline, and in the professional arena that's an acceptable standard that I'm OK with. You look bad, you in any way make your employer look bad, out comes the hammer. Why do people have a difficult time accepting that? It's been that way forever.
Click to expand...
Hey, I didn't save all those Participation Trophies for nothing!  Just showing up should be good enough.

 
The Frankman said:
The disingenuous thing I find here is that let's say Zeke had a serious high-ankle sprain that forced him to sit out games... would anyone be surprised if he suddenly dropped the case against him to serve the suspension while hurt (aka MLB strategy)? Or does the NFL rule state the suspension starts once you are designated healthy to play?
Click to expand...
To exact scenario was one of the more legitimate arguments I heard coming from the NFL lawyers as to why this case should be ruled upon immediately and not dragged out in appeals.

 
This is not about the merits of the actual case...its about the injunction.

NFL did not appeal the injunction with Brady, the NFL did not oppose him.

This is new territory.

 
I wonder if we'd be here today if the NFL would have just given him 4 games for code of conduct instead of 6 games DV/code of conduct.

 
BassNBrew said:
Neither was rice or hardyNeither was rice or hardy
Click to expand...
Exactly. And in Hardy's case, the beaten woman didn't show up at the retrial. Despite being beaten so bad her entire rib cage area and both arms were purple with bruising. She was 'convinced' not to pursue it any farther.  Elliot's accuser decided not to pursue it any further also. 

 
Judge Droney asked NFL reps to concede Elliott would suffer more harm now 8 games in & w/ playoffs nearing than at start of season.

Judges asked NFLPA what difference it would have made to have Elliott's accuser testify at arbitration hearing.

Judges: what was sinister about Goodell meeting with 1 investigator & not the other? (Friel instead of Roberts).

NFLPA contends the four independent advisors never knew investigator Kia Roberts' doubts about credibility if accuser.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry for blowing this thread up, but I figured I'd post as much information as I can find on the subject. I'll keep posting what I find unless someone wants me to cool it.

 
Gottabesweet said:
I wonder if we'd be here today if the NFL would have just given him 4 games for code of conduct instead of 6 games DV/code of conduct.
Click to expand...
Probably not.  He might have appealed via the NFL, but likely would have just served whatever suspension they gave.

Obviously in retrospect that would have been a better path for Goodell. But he prefers to shoot first, ask questions later.

 
Serious question : if it were to be discovered/publicized that one of these judges had Zeke on his/her fantasy football team, would that judge need to be recused?

 
Moonshine said:
Sorry for blowing this thread up, but I figured I'd post as much information as I can find on the subject. I'll keep posting what I find unless someone wants me to cool it.
Click to expand...
All good.  I'm doing the same. Whatever the judges asked in the courtroom is interesting to me.

 
Amy Dash‏Verified account @AmyDashTV 1m1 minute ago

Judge made smart point. If evidence of accuser's credibility in question, how did RG suspend based on credible evidence(no video/witnesses)

 
Remember it was NFL's initial decision to let Elliott play in first Giants game, fatal error. Judge mentioned it undercut urgency argument - Amy Dash

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JohnnyU
RB Quinshon Judkins, CLE
28 29 30
Replies
1K
Views
69K
Faust
Faust
T
Travdogg's final 2025 mock draft (3 rounds) (post draft grades on page 2)
2
Replies
68
Views
5K
BassNBrew
BassNBrew
JohnnyU
RB Isaiah Davis, Jets
Replies
32
Views
4K
Faust
Faust

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top