Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

DETROIT LIONS 2021: Lions Draft: OT-Sewell is #1 Brad Holmes first draft is complete. Grades?


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Pipes said:

For those bashing the Lions why are the Patriots getting a free pass here?  They are the ones the first hired him and gave him a prime gig in the NFL allowing him to ultimately land a head coaching job.  Did they not do their due diligence as well? 

Probably because this is a Lions thread filled with Lions fans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 9.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Not successfully you couldn’t 

I believe this is the first win the Lions have ever had in January.

I’m usually not one to get caught up in “celebrity” lives, but as a parent my ♥️ goes out to Matthew & Kelly. Her six hour brain surgery morphed into a twelve hour procedure, but she’s walking and

5 hours ago, bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

Innocent until proven guilty....and background check only show convictions

I have done tons of background checks, and all arrest show up unless one was expunged or sealed.  If you got arrested for disturbing the peace and the charges were dropped or you were found not guilty, it would show up in the background check. Maybe it differs from state to state. It sounds like the front office only cared about the convictions. 

Edited by simey
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, simey said:

I have done tons of background checks, and all arrest show up unless one was expunged or sealed.  If you got arrested for disturbing the peace and the charges were dropped or you were found not guilty, it would show up in the background check. Maybe it differs from state to state. It sounds like the front office only cared about the convictions. 

It also depends upon how far back a particular department has digitalized their records.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, PlasmaDogPlasma said:

I don't understand how you can say that when neither one of them knew about this.

Knew about what.  A case dismissed 22 years ago?  Why would they?  Why would it matter?

They did their background checks, he came back clean... as he should.

Edited by matuski
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, matuski said:

Knew about what. 

The indictment for sexual assault

Quote

A case dismissed 22 years ago? 

Yes

Quote

Why would they? 

Because actual due diligence would reveal it

Quote

Why would it matter?

Because some people frown on sexual assault.

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

Knew about what.  A case dismissed 22 years ago?  Why would they?  Why would it matter?

They did their background checks, he came back clean... as he should.

In 2010, Ben Roethlisberger also had sexual assault charges against him dropped (unlike Patricia, he wasn't even indicted). Assume for a moment that the case wasn't a national story at the time, and had gone completely under the radar. If Ben were interviewing for a HC job in 2030, would you say it was unimportant for teams to look into the incident?

(To be clear, I'm not equating Patricia and Roethlisberger. I'm simply saying that the mere fact that charges were dismissed does not automatically mean no crime was committed, and it does not absolve future employers from looking into the incident to determine exactly what happened.)

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

In 2010, Ben Roethlisberger also had sexual assault charges against him dropped (unlike Patricia, he wasn't even indicted). Assume for a moment that the case wasn't a national story at the time, and had gone completely under the radar. If Ben were interviewing for a HC job in 2030, would you say it was unimportant for teams to look into the incident?

(To be clear, I'm not equating Patricia and Roethlisberger. I'm simply saying that the mere fact that charges were dismissed does not automatically mean no crime was committed, and it does not absolve future employers from looking into the incident to determine exactly what happened.)

Correct.

 

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

The indictment for sexual assault

Yes

Because actual due diligence would reveal it

Because some people frown on sexual assault.

Some people frown on lynching someone based on an allegation

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, matuski said:

Correct.

Really? Because there's a good chance that he did, in fact, commit rape. It's one thing to say it shouldn't cost him the hypothetical job, but your position is that no one should even bother raising the question?

What about Harvey Weinstein? He was investigated by the NYPD in 2015 and never charged. Not worth looking into that one, either? Is it your view that the lack of charges means Ambra Battilana was never assaulted?

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, zftcg said:

Really? Because there's a good chance that he did, in fact, commit rape. It's one thing to say it shouldn't cost him the hypothetical job, but your position is that no one should even bother raising the question?

What about Harvey Weinstein? He was investigated by the NYPD in 2015 and never charged. Not worth looking into that one, either? Is it your view that the lack of charges means Ambra Battilana was never assaulted?

Really.

eta - Seriously, what are we gonna do?  Bring up that time he wasn't charged for something for 20 years?  When that guy is buried I think we should be "raising the question" still.

Edited by matuski
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Pipes said:

The players are young though none of their baggage is 20 years old.  I guarantee this would be a huge issue for Patricia, and he likely wouldn't been hired, if this happened in the past couple of years.

 

8 hours ago, Pipes said:

For those bashing the Lions why are the Patriots getting a free pass here?  They are the ones the first hired him and gave him a prime gig in the NFL allowing him to ultimately land a head coaching job.  Did they not do their due diligence as well? 

Yeah that was kind of my point- the allegation was the not so distant when NE hired him. Ofcourse then sexual assault was being treated differently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Grand jury found that it was reasonably likely he committed the act and should go to trial. The accuser said she couldn’t take  going through the trial. While it doesn’t damn Patricia, it certainly sounds bad and is a bad situation for the Lions. As someone that did not like the hiring, this isn’t helping.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

15 hours ago, Hankmoody said:

I'm just glad I'm not an 18 year old that has to grow up in this world.

FWIW as parent of two teens I think Instagram et al. is a huge reason why drinking and generally delinquent behavior is down in teens.  Gen X is right on the cusp of the information age where when we were 21ish the concept of online privacy didnt even exist.  A lot of people do not appreciate how much the internet has changed societial norms. Not excusing him but everyone knew what was going on spring break / South Padre even without the internet.  I made some horrible choices when I was an adolescent and I am really thankful those have been forgotten in the annals of history and no one has had license to bring them up.  People grow up and move on.

The guy has a wife and kids and as far as we know has never had one bad thing said about him in the past 20 years, wasn't tried, yet the entire sports page of the Free Press is plastered with "Matt Patricia Sexual Assault". 

Hopefully we can go back to reporting on the D Line, etc really soon, like tomorrow.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, matuski said:

Really.

eta - Seriously, what are we gonna do?  Bring up that time he wasn't charged for something for 20 years?  When that guy is buried I think we should be "raising the question" still.

I think you're conflating two different issues. Legally speaking, Patricia, Roethlisberger and Weinstein did not commit a crime, because for various reasons the state was unable to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they did.

However, the legal question is separate from the empirical question of what actually happened. The jury may not have found OJ Simpson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but I'm here to tell you that MF'er did it. As an employer, I'm not just interested in whether a potential employee was convicted of a crime. I'm interested in whether they actually committed it.

Back to Patricia, the fact that he was indicted suggests he might have done something wrong. The fact that the charges were dropped suggests that he didn't. But neither of those things prove anything conclusively. As an employer paying him millions of dollars to be the face of the franchise, the Lions can't afford to outsource their vetting to the criminal justice system and just assume that no conviction means nothing happened. That doesn't mean Patricia deserves to have his name dragged through the mud. In fact, this would have been less of a story if the team's response had been, "We became aware of this during our vetting process, we looked into it thoroughly, and we're confident he did nothing wrong." As I said upthread, among the many reasons they should have looked into it, there's also the narrow selfish perspective of wanting to avoid the exact PR issue that they're currently facing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DETROIT, MI - The statute of limitations for being accused of a crime is now over 20 years, the court of public opinion ruled today, in a landmark decision that overturned the previous ruling made by the actual court. There is no higher court to appeal to. Sentencing is expected to begin soon, but is expected to include disgrace to his wife and kids, irreparable harm to his reputation, depression, enormous legal and pr fees, and possibly the loss of his job and serious depression. The media was unavailable for comment because they were counting the clicks they get for reckless journalism. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bostonfred said:

DETROIT, MI - The statute of limitations for being accused of a crime is now over 20 years, the court of public opinion ruled today, in a landmark decision that overturned the previous ruling made by the actual court. There is no higher court to appeal to. Sentencing is expected to begin soon, but is expected to include disgrace to his wife and kids, irreparable harm to his reputation, depression, enormous legal and pr fees, and possibly the loss of his job and serious depression. The media was unavailable for comment because they were counting the clicks they get for reckless journalism. 

I've said that, assuming the allegations are all untrue, this whole situation is unfair to Patricia, but let's keep things in perspective. He hasn't lost his job, he hasn't been re-charged with a crime, he hasn't lost any money, he hasn't even been branded a rapist. Also, the word "reckless" has a very specific meaning when it comes to journalism and libel law, and I defy you to explain to me how printing a true fact -- that Patricia was indicted -- is in any way "reckless" or libelous.

This notion that, if someone is accused of but not convicted of a crime, society as a whole should be required to stick their heads in the ground and pretend nothing ever happened is bizarre. If OJ Simpson had moved into your neighborhood in 1996, would you have told your neighbors it was unfair to complain about living next door to a murderer?

Edited by zftcg
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bostonfred said:

DETROIT, MI - The statute of limitations for being accused of a crime is now over 20 years, the court of public opinion ruled today, in a landmark decision that overturned the previous ruling made by the actual court. There is no higher court to appeal to. Sentencing is expected to begin soon, but is expected to include disgrace to his wife and kids, irreparable harm to his reputation, depression, enormous legal and pr fees, and possibly the loss of his job and serious depression. The media was unavailable for comment because they were counting the clicks they get for reckless journalism. 

This is not your run-of-the-mill he said/she said situation, though.  This is a ####### grand jury indictment.  Is the bar for that higher or lower than some rando pointing a finger and screaming rape?

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

I think you're conflating two different issues. Legally speaking, Patricia, Roethlisberger and Weinstein did not commit a crime, because for various reasons the state was unable to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they did.

However, the legal question is separate from the empirical question of what actually happened. The jury may not have found OJ Simpson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but I'm here to tell you that MF'er did it. As an employer, I'm not just interested in whether a potential employee was convicted of a crime. I'm interested in whether they actually committed it.

Back to Patricia, the fact that he was indicted suggests he might have done something wrong. The fact that the charges were dropped suggests that he didn't. But neither of those things prove anything conclusively. As an employer paying him millions of dollars to be the face of the franchise, the Lions can't afford to outsource their vetting to the criminal justice system and just assume that no conviction means nothing happened. That doesn't mean Patricia deserves to have his name dragged through the mud. In fact, this would have been less of a story if the team's response had been, "We became aware of this during our vetting process, we looked into it thoroughly, and we're confident he did nothing wrong." As I said upthread, among the many reasons they should have looked into it, there's also the narrow selfish perspective of wanting to avoid the exact PR issue that they're currently facing.

Empirically speaking.  Being indicted DOES NOT suggest he did something wrong. There is no guilt attached to a dismissed accusation 22 years ago.  

The current PR "issue" is only by those dumb enough to fall for the click bait.  No reasonable argument to be made here.

Edited by matuski
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, bostonfred said:

DETROIT, MI - The statute of limitations for being accused of a crime is now over 20 years, the court of public opinion ruled today, in a landmark decision that overturned the previous ruling made by the actual court. There is no higher court to appeal to. Sentencing is expected to begin soon, but is expected to include disgrace to his wife and kids, irreparable harm to his reputation, depression, enormous legal and pr fees, and possibly the loss of his job and serious depression. The media was unavailable for comment because they were counting the clicks they get for reckless journalism. 

Bravo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, matuski said:

Empirically speaking.  Being indicted DOES NOT suggest he did something wrong. There is no guilt attached to a dismissed accusation 22 years ago.  

So OJ is 100% innocent? Got it.

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

So OJ is 100% innocent? Got it.

:lmao:

Yes.  This situation is so much like OJ, I mistook Patricia for being black today.  Patricia left the press conference in a white Bronco I bet.

You should have gone with Weinstein... the fat/beard combo would have really made this effort legit.  

Or Hitler.  Hitler was white too.

Jack the Ripper had a beard right?

 

Edited by matuski
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, matuski said:

:lmao:

Yes.  This situation is so much like OJ, I mistook Patricia for being black today.

You should have gone with Weinstein... the fat/beard combo would have really made this effort legit.  

Or Hitler.  Hitler was white too.

Jack the Ripper had a beard right?

:rolleyes: 

OK, let me explain this to you slowly.

I'm not saying Patricia is like OJ. I'm using an analogy to demonstrate the problem in your logic. (In case you're not clear on what that is, here is the definition of analogy.)

You said that the fact that someone was indicted two decades ago but never convicted of a crime means that empirically speaking, apart from any legal standard, one cannot draw any inferences that they did anything wrong. I was merely pointing out that the exact same set of facts pertains to OJ.

So I'll ask again. Do you believe that OJ was empirically innocent of murder? If not, what specifically makes you view his situation differently from Patricia's (other than the beard and skin color)?

Edited by zftcg
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, zftcg said:

:rolleyes: 

OK, let me explain this to you slowly.

I'm not saying Patricia is like OJ. I'm using an analogy to demonstrate the problem in your logic. (In case you're not clear on what that is, here is the definition of analogy.)

You said that the fact that someone was indicted two decades ago but never convicted of a crime means that empirically speaking, apart from any legal standard, one cannot presume that they did anything wrong. I was merely pointing out that the exact same set of facts pertains to OJ.

So I'll ask again. Do you believe the fact that OJ was empirically innocent of murder? If not, what makes you view his situation differently from Patricia's?

If you put a backwards hat on Cosby.. no way you could tell the difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OJ as an analogy for Patricia.  OJ as an analogy more than once.  Honestly asking the difference.  Honestly asking the difference more than once.

Can't make this #### up.

Edited by matuski
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, matuski said:

OJ as an analogy for Patricia.  And serious.  Honestly asking the difference.  Honestly asking the difference more than once.

Can't make this #### up.

Doesn't understand what an analogy is. Honestly is that clueless. Even after I provided the dictionary definition.

Can;t make this #### up.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I missed the part where Patricia fled the scene in a televised police chase, was charged with murder, then taken to trial, hired Kim Kardashian's dad as a lawyer, had eye witness/murder weapon/DNA evidence presented against him, and tried on a glove.

I mean, I really think @zftcg nailed it here. 

Edited by matuski
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, matuski said:

Empirically speaking.  Being indicted DOES NOT suggest he did something wrong. There is no guilt attached to a dismissed accusation 22 years ago.  

Being indicted does suggest someone did something wrong. I was the foreperson on a grand jury for a year. We met the first Monday of every month, and heard cases to decide whether we would hand down a "true bill" or not. A true bill is an indictment, and it means there was enough probable cause that a crime was committed, and that person probably did it, and they should be tried for the crime. 

Patricia wasn't found not guilty. The accuser didn't want to go through a trial (which is not uncommon for a rape victim), so the trial didn't move forward. Guilt or innocence was never determined. Fast-forwarding to the present, a reporter did their homework on Patricia, and discovered the sexual assault charge, and brought it up. It's part of their job to find out information on their subject, and being charged with sexual assault is relevant to someone's character, whether it happened yesterday or years ago. Patricia answered the questions regarding the charge, and it seems the Lions are satisfied with it. The three involved know the truth, and the truth will remain a mystery. By the way, I think your #wannabeMeToo crap is disturbing. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, simey said:

Being indicted does suggest someone did something wrong. I was the foreperson on a grand jury for a year. We met the first Monday of every month, and heard cases to decide whether we would hand down a "true bill" or not. A true bill is an indictment, and it means there was enough probable cause that a crime was committed, and that person probably did it, and they should be tried for the crime. 

Patricia wasn't found not guilty. The accuser didn't want to go through a trial (which is not uncommon for a rape victim), so the trial didn't move forward. Guilt or innocence was never determined. Fast-forwarding to the present, a reporter did their homework on Patricia, and discovered the sexual assault charge, and brought it up. It's part of their job to find out information on their subject, and being charged with sexual assault is relevant to someone's character, whether it happened yesterday or years ago. Patricia answered the questions regarding the charge, and it seems the Lions are satisfied with it. The three involved know the truth, and the truth will remain a mystery. By the way, I think your #wannabeMeToo crap is disturbing. 

You don't know if being charged with any crime is relevant to a person's character if the charges are dismissed.  He did not get tried, he did not get to face his accuser and defend himself.  

And 22 years later with those who know him best rallying to defend said character... it is a farce to persist with this argument and logic.

This, like other recent examples, is an insult to the #meToo movement and its noble purpose.  This is what should be disturbing.  #wannabemeToo.

Edited by matuski
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, zftcg said:

Doesn't understand what an analogy is. Honestly is that clueless. Even after I provided the dictionary definition.

Can;t make this #### up.

He’s been purposefully obtuse since it broke. He doesn’t want to engage in discussion, just prefers willful ignorance. I’m not saying Patricia did anything wrong, you’re not saying that either, just that something did happen and it’s fair to discuss. He’s made up his mind because he likes his football team.  Priorities can be a funny thing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bigmarc27 said:

He’s been purposefully obtuse since it broke. He doesn’t want to engage in discussion, just prefers willful ignorance. I’m not saying Patricia did anything wrong, you’re not saying that either, just that something did happen and it’s fair to discuss. He’s made up his mind because he likes his football team.  Priorities can be a funny thing. 

well do we think that its odd that the accuser didn't pursue a civil case? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

well do we think that its odd that the accuser didn't pursue a civil case? 

No?

 

have you ever known someone who has been assaulted?  It’s a very traumatic event, most tend to want to forget it ever happened. Again I’m not saying Patricia did anything wrong at all, but a victim of assault not wanting to testify and not taking the case further in either criminal or civil court is something that happens every single day. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ESPN:

Quote

The Fair Credit Reporting Act does not allow felony arrests that did not result in convictions beyond seven years old to be considered in possible employment

 

Regardless of what anyone here thinks of Patricia in regards to this, saying the Lions should have taken this into consideration would be saying the Lions should have broken the law.  Per statement from the Lions, information that cannot be used in employment decisions wasn't included in the results they were given from background checks.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, GregR said:

ESPN:

 

Regardless of what anyone here thinks of Patricia in regards to this, saying the Lions should have taken this into consideration would be saying the Lions should have broken the law.  Per statement from the Lions, information that cannot be used in employment decisions wasn't included in the results they were given from background checks.

Interesting. Thanks for posting.

I didn't realize that was the law, and I retract my criticism of the Lions regarding their background check. Sounds like they did things by the book.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, bigmarc27 said:

Prosecutors had medical evidence, at least 5 witnesses...

https://www.thescore.com/nfl/news/1543620

 

Still not making judgement on whether or not he did something, but I think this article basically means this isn’t going away anytime soon.  

Well included in those witnesses are a doctor, nurse, and detective. So there is no doubt that there was sex, it’s a matter of consent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

Is matty patty in some kind of legal jeopardy still?? Man what a crazy story

My understanding is that the female in this scenario still does not want to talk about it, so legally I’m guessing he’s probably ok unless she changes her mind. It’s going to be how much comes out, how damning it is, and then how the Lions feel about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Da Guru changed the title to DETROIT LIONS 2021: Lions Draft: OT-Sewell is #1 Brad Holmes first draft is complete. Grades?

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.


×
×
  • Create New...