ffmail4me
Footballguy
I just traded Golladay and Eifert for Hill in one of my PPR dynasty leagues. I keep going back and forth whether I should have even considered, much less made this trade.
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!
WR Tyreek Hill, MIA (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter amnesiac
- Start date
I think there could be different layers to this....without knowing the details its tough...if it was just outright that Hill took the kid and bent his arm behind his back and broke it, he would be is serious trouble, but arrangements probably would have been made for the child to stay with the mother and Hill not be allowed around the child for awhile, etc.....it could be something like they are both partially responsible, like they are having a disagreement and one of the parents is holding the child and the other tries to grab the child and it goes bad and the kid is injured....not sure how "easy" it is for a 3 year old to break an arm, but I could see that happening....it could be that they are both saying it was an accident, he fell down the stairs, but the doctor's opinion says otherwise....so CPS is calling BS and making a move until one of the parent's says what really happened....it could also be that the child was left unsupervised and was injured and the parents are responsible for that...I think there are a ton of different ranges where this could fit in....but I do know the absolute last thing they want to do is to remove the child from parental custody, especially from BOTH parents, even if it is to a relative or whatever.....that is a big deal....so in my mind, it seems to be leaning toward a scenario where they are both somehow at fault....
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
If both parents live together how could they take away the child from just one of the parents?
smbkrypt24
Footballguy
I know this wasn't directed towards me, but in the state of Indiana it is technically a removal by changing the household composition. So if they wanted to remove from one of the parents and not the other they would tell the non-offending parent you can not live with the offending parent. Whether that means the non-offending parent moves out of the home with the child or the offending parent moves out of the home and the non-offending parent and child remain.
If this was the case for T. Hill and either person was not wiling to leave the home that would mean they chose the other parent over their child.
ChuckLiddell
Footballguy
Wow, I would not even contemplate giving up a 1 for a guy who at best is one step away from a very long suspension, nonetheless one who is looking at least 60% sure to face one (which I think is the case). Not to mention the possibility that he is released as KC has set that precedent pretty loudly very recently. His career may already be over. If it isnt, it is likely one mis-step away from it. Thats far too much risk for a first round pick in my opinion. Even though the pick itself carries similar risk (which is a very solid argument in favor of making that move), I still would rather take my shot on a clean, shiny new toy than on a guy who realistically may never see an NFL field again, or may have to wait a season to see one, possibly/probably on a team other than KC. You also have to factor in the wasted roster spot if he is suspended. Roster spots are valuable in my dynasty league - wasting one on a full season suspension is a big price to pay. Did it with Martavis - didnt pay off at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
smb answered correctly....they basically put responsibility on the non offending parent to "figure it out" and have a plan.....CPS looks at it like the child being with at least one parent is better than not being with any....and they consider almost ANY possible option (living with relatives, etc) that can be made as long as the child is with at least one parent.....they will exhaust almost any resource to do this....that is why this is kind of strange because arrangements like that were not made, so it seems to lead to some sort of dual responsibility where they feel the child isn't safe with either parent.....or like smb said....they are sticking to their story and choosing each other over the child...
Last edited by a moderator:
Where did I say it was normal to have his child removed from the home?
The worst case scenario is getting charged with a crime.
No one ever said it meant NOTHING was going on. What I said was removing a child from one's home does not usually lead to criminal charges in the state of Kansas. The child was removed from his home on April 5th. If it was a sure thing end for him he'd not have been working out with the Chiefs this week.
You have put a ton of words in my mouth and totally inaccurately portrayed what I said. A decent person would apologize for being so wrong, I don't expect that from you.
"sure thing end for him" isn't Hill's decision to make...so I could still see him working out with the Chiefs....
jvdesigns2002
Footballguy
I don't play dynasty so I have no skin in the game here. With that said--my gut instinct is that this cannot end well. This story is just starting gain traction and once it gets full national attention (right now it seems like it's mainly being followed by hardcore football fans and fantasy players)--it's going to snowball and go viral. Hill's past will be brought up again and even if there is suspicion that he broke his 3-year olds arm--I don't see him getting the benefit of the doubt. The Chiefs will be forced to make a decision on him even if the evidence against him isn't perfectly clear and transparent because of what the public's perception will be. The NFL and NFL teams do not make decisions based solely on the findings of law enforcement. Public perception and the court of public opinion can have a big impact here too.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
What do you mean by this? Sure if he knew 100% he was going to be arrested, I would imagine that he would not have showed up for voluntary workouts - but no one is saying or thinking any outcome is determined yet. \
Him showing up for workouts seems fairly normal under the circumstances and doesn't speak to anything at this point. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point though.
They took his kid from his home on April 5th. If it was as many of you say doom and gloom the Chiefs would have cut him or told him to stay home. There was a lot of speculation before we knew his kid was removed from his home if he would show up for Chiefs OTA's and fact he did, and Chiefs allowed him to about 10 days after his kid was taken should be a sign that just because it happened it's not the end for him.
Regarding the bolded that is exactly what I was arguing yesterday which you I believe told me to calm down and just listen to the social worker from another state and another guy is putting words in my mouth saying I'm saying it's no big deal-this despite it being me who actually posted the link in here of his kid being removed from his him because I thought it was in fact a newsworthy item and a big deal.
This should not so complicated so let me try again. Ever since this story broke I've been concerned. I've done several redrafts since and can't believe people keep taking him in top 30, I"d not touch him until around player 60 at best. This is a major concern and his child being removed was a negative blow. What it does not mean however is case closed, it's just further cause for concern. His workout video where he acted like nothing was wrong, showing up to Chiefs practice was something in the positive direction but his child getting removed was the worst news I've heard since this story broke but it does not mean he's getting charged with a crime, cut or suspended. These things might happen, no one knows.
I agree and not just because Hill but way they structured Watkins contract was to give them an easy out after 2019.
Aunt Jemima
Footballguy
This is a decent summary of where things are at and more evidence that everyone is still guessing....
https://arrowheadaddict.com/2019/04/19/tyreek-hill-legal-situation-lawyer-perspective/
https://arrowheadaddict.com/2019/04/19/tyreek-hill-legal-situation-lawyer-perspective/
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Because he was just offering his expert opinion on why this was bad, and wasn't making any definitive statements on the ultimate outcome and you attacked him as a "know it all" and pointed out that he practiced in another state (something he fully admitted). If you go back to my post you'll see others agreed with my stance - although I probably could have expressed it better (calmer) also.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
And I'm not sure anyone thinks this is definitive either (or that the Chiefs will cut him immediately) but it's surely not a good thing and Hill owners should be concerned.
I don't know how much has changed since 2014 when the article came out but at the time of that article the state of Kansas was considered to have the most rigorous standards for child abuse then any other state. Kansas requires clear and convincing evidence to substantiate an allegation of child abuse whereas every other state uses a preponderance of evidence.
So saying that in Kansas ,Hill has a better chance then in most if not all states of not being charged for abuse which if it goes that way we'll end up in the situation you just described and it's really kind of unchartered waters. Elliot is only person I know to get suspended without video proof but Dallas always stood by him. Can't recall a team cutting any player of note with no video evidence or criminal charges. With no video, if no charges filed, it's going to be very interesting seeing how the league and KC handles this especially if full parental right are not restored quickly which as is his removal suggests something happened to the child the least of which would be neglect.
Regarding the bolded yes I see the mob mentality is in full force today. Who cares. If everyone is thinking the same no one is thinking at all.
Your recollection of events is wrong. I was not attacking him, I was defending my position which was being shat on because I'm not a social worker so it was if my opinion, research and knowledge of child abuse investigations was not pertinent. I was the one not making a definitive statement.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Sooo anyway... doesn't seem like a whole lot of new news here yet. If I am gathering this right: the child was already taken weeks ago despite this breaking news. The State has found it possibly likely that child abuse did occur and has officially removed the child from custody. We still have no idea what actually happened, who did what, and its possible we may never know. We do know that Hill has a bad history so he's not gonna get the benefit of the doubt for good reason. The police don't seem likely to file any charges but that doesn't mean the State can't take the child away or that child abuse didn't occur, it's also doesn't mean that Goodell and the league won't drop the hammer anyway. Or that they will just "let things play out" for months or give a minimum suspension unless of course TMZ gets ahold of some damning video and then they'll take decisive action for PR purposes.
We have no idea if KC will stand by him, if they might draft a new WR in a week (which they may do anyway as the Watkins signing looks like a bust and he's easily cutable after this year), if the league will suspend him the minimum number of games, a full season, or give him a temporary vs full ban? Basically it continues to be as clear as mud...
We have no idea if KC will stand by him, if they might draft a new WR in a week (which they may do anyway as the Watkins signing looks like a bust and he's easily cutable after this year), if the league will suspend him the minimum number of games, a full season, or give him a temporary vs full ban? Basically it continues to be as clear as mud...
kittenmittens
Footballguy
PFT is all over this this morning. They say the NFL began inquiring before it was even public information. I think it's likely they do something regardless of charges...menobrown said:
PFT is late to the game. I posted this yesterday. The NFL made an inquiry into him on March 12, a week after the first dismissed report was filed and two days BEFORE the second report was filed. But I don't think an investigation=NFL is going to do something to him, that's just not how I see it. I do think based on Kansas state law which is hard to convict for child abuse his chances of getting reprimanded by the NFL is higher then criminal charges but I for one don't equate investigation to suspension.
kittenmittens
Footballguy
My point was just that this is no longer contained to hard-core fans like us. I think public perception is the real motivator on suspensions.
I don't think you're adequately correlating any legal repercussions with league/team sanctions.
I assumed this was always the case as I always assumed the NFL was going to investigate. I just found it surprising they started the investigation before the second police report, which I think had to do with tweet the person calling herself Mrs. Robinson sent out on that same date. In fact the NFL should be applauded for how quickly they acted, she sent that tweet and same day the NFL started making inquiries.
If you have a point I'm still not getting it but I'll save you the time. Truth is you have no idea what I think of possible league or team imposed sanctions. None at all but don't let that stop you from assuming you think you do.
[Rotoworld] On Tyreek Hills situation: "It is looking like a situation that will involve a lengthy suspension, outright release or both."
https://www.rotoworld.com/football/nfl/player-news/headlines/8986581?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
https://www.rotoworld.com/football/nfl/player-news/headlines/8986581?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
To be fair the people writing rotoworld opinions are basically just FF fans like us, commenting on the same blurb we have. I'm not sure I would give any more credence to a rotoworld opinion hot take than your average message board poster.
kittenmittens
Footballguy
agreed...without knowing the details I am not sure how they make that last statement....#shock value/hot take
Anarchy99
Footballguy
I am not pro-Hill on this one, but the part you cited is 100% opinion and speculation on Rotoworld's part. A lengthy suspension or his release may be in order, but no one involved in the case or from the league is cited as a source. Essentially, they are passing off their take on it as actual news.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Ah, my mistake. Nonetheless it seems to be just that guy speculating based on the same info we've all been speculating on all day.
kittenmittens
Footballguy
Actually I think I might be the one who is mistaken. On second look, it might have been added just by rotoworld at the end there.
ffmail4me
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
I think I get the disconnect. Some of you, maybe most of you, just assume that due to his past that even if after an NFL/team investigation if they determine he did nothing wrong he's still going to get suspended and/or cut because he did something in the past. We'll agree to disagree on that.
What I would say is the NFL's guidelines for suspension are way lower then courts guidelines to charge him with a crime and I think we all understand that.Saying that I don't think if the NFL finds him not at fault they are going to suspend him just to appease the public. Major difference is legally they have to prove he is guilty, with the NFL I think it's more about Hill needing to prove his innocence but either way if they investigate him and conclude he did not harm his child they won't suspend him just to appease the mob.
The Chiefs are a different angle where if it looks like to the public, after this investigation is complete, that he did something but just enough to charge him then his roster spot would be in danger. With that I think a lot could depend on what the police might say when they wrap up the investigation. Maybe they say nothing, maybe they say they just did not have enough evidence or maybe they say after a through investigation they felt he did nothing wrong. What the police do or don't say and if/when he gets back custody of his kid are huge factors I think that will impact the Chiefs decision and the NFL's as well, if he's not charged of course.
And of course the fact his kid was removed from his home is an indicator that someone felt he needed to be protected or was not properly being cared for(I think based on timeline there is a chance his removal was for neglect, not abuse and I stress a chance). This should not need to be said but in a forum where people want to put words in your mouth or assume they know what you are thinking I guess in this case it does but his child being removed was a major negative and heavily increased my worry meter. But it also happened 15 days ago, nothing has happened to Hill since, he's still a member of the Chiefs and this thing is something I still think has a long way to go play out but bottom line is if he Chiefs and NFL don't think he did anything he's not going to get suspended.
Before they took his kid if my life depended on guessing if he was going to get suspended or not I'd have said not. Today I'd switch that answer but either way a long way to go here and for the last time IF after an investigation by the police, child services, NFL and Chiefs IF they don't conclude he did anything he's not going to get suspended because of public perception.
What I would say is the NFL's guidelines for suspension are way lower then courts guidelines to charge him with a crime and I think we all understand that.Saying that I don't think if the NFL finds him not at fault they are going to suspend him just to appease the public. Major difference is legally they have to prove he is guilty, with the NFL I think it's more about Hill needing to prove his innocence but either way if they investigate him and conclude he did not harm his child they won't suspend him just to appease the mob.
The Chiefs are a different angle where if it looks like to the public, after this investigation is complete, that he did something but just enough to charge him then his roster spot would be in danger. With that I think a lot could depend on what the police might say when they wrap up the investigation. Maybe they say nothing, maybe they say they just did not have enough evidence or maybe they say after a through investigation they felt he did nothing wrong. What the police do or don't say and if/when he gets back custody of his kid are huge factors I think that will impact the Chiefs decision and the NFL's as well, if he's not charged of course.
And of course the fact his kid was removed from his home is an indicator that someone felt he needed to be protected or was not properly being cared for(I think based on timeline there is a chance his removal was for neglect, not abuse and I stress a chance). This should not need to be said but in a forum where people want to put words in your mouth or assume they know what you are thinking I guess in this case it does but his child being removed was a major negative and heavily increased my worry meter. But it also happened 15 days ago, nothing has happened to Hill since, he's still a member of the Chiefs and this thing is something I still think has a long way to go play out but bottom line is if he Chiefs and NFL don't think he did anything he's not going to get suspended.
Before they took his kid if my life depended on guessing if he was going to get suspended or not I'd have said not. Today I'd switch that answer but either way a long way to go here and for the last time IF after an investigation by the police, child services, NFL and Chiefs IF they don't conclude he did anything he's not going to get suspended because of public perception.
ChiefD
Footballguy
Nah, just my opinion. There are a lot of underlying issues here for the Chiefs. The GM that drafted him, John Dorsey, is gone. But during his tenure, he drafted:
1. Kareem Hunt - GONE (character concerns) 3rd round pick
2. Marcus Peters - GONE (character issues, which were known before the draft) 1st round pick
3. KeVarae Russell - GONE (character issues, which were known before the draft - released after his first training camp) 3rd round pick
4. Tyreek Hill - ? (character issues, which were known before the draft) 5th round pick
To me, those 4 are more than likely a major reason Dorsey is gone. Now, ownership had to sign off on those picks, but I feel certain the Hunt family has been embarrassed by this. And now, it's Hill's turn because of his actions, and the Chiefs, in my opinion, will do the right thing and purge their organization of this guy.
smbkrypt24
Footballguy
In the court systems in Indiana there is two ways this could have occurred. Child services could have removed the child then went to court and the judge would have to have agreed with that decision for the child to remain out of the home.
or
child services went to court and a judge ordered the child out of them home.
regardless a judge heard the case and the child is removed. The judge then issues an order which would include placement of the child out of the home. In Indiana the court order would be 2 days after court and be in the court system.
matttyl
Footballguy
But just want to be sure I understand what the judge is really saying, or I guess has already said. Is he saying that the kid can't be around...
1) T Hill himself, the person.
or
2) the home that T Hill (and apparently others) lives in.
Are we already calling Hill the "offending parent", as posts on the last page or so refer to it?
1) T Hill himself, the person.
or
2) the home that T Hill (and apparently others) lives in.
Are we already calling Hill the "offending parent", as posts on the last page or so refer to it?
ComfortablyNumb
Footballguy
If we look at Adrian Peterson as the precedent for this type of situation, I don't see how Hill could get anything more than ADP's (almost) 1 year suspension. ADP intentionally (and repeatedly?) beat his child. With Hill, there seems to be an element of uncertainty - "he/she said", possibly an accident, etc. Unless it is determined that Hill absolutely did this, how can the league punish him more harshly than ADP?
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Tyreek's history, the NFL's ever tightening moral stance, an actual broken bone, etc.
matttyl
Footballguy
Agreed on all 3. AP didn't have a history (that I know of) before the situation discussed above, Tyreek obviously does. The NFL is also always seemly increasing their punishments for "similar" offenses - what was Zeke suspended for, and would that have been the case ~10 years before, or even 5? And then the two situations in question aren't even the same.
ffmail4me
Footballguy
Sound logic here. Plus we still don't know which parent broke the arm of the child or how it happened. But while I won't be surprised if he's punished, the talk of a permanent ban seems absurd to me.
