Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Official Dynasty & Redraft: RB Ezekiel Elliott, Cowboys


Faust

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, ourmanflint said:

CA5 did not address anything but the jurisdiction issue. The only judge that addressed the merits of the case sided with Zeke and stated he was treated unfairly. Along with Mazzant that's 2 judges who have sided with Zeke on the idea of fundamental unfairness. Zero judges have ruled against Zeke on the merits of his case. 

Fundamental unfairness of the process.  No judges have weighed in on the merits of the case for either side, nor will any.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ourmanflint said:

CA5 did not address anything but the jurisdiction issue. The only judge that addressed the merits of the case sided with Zeke and stated he was treated unfairly. Along with Mazzant that's 2 judges who have sided with Zeke on the idea of fundamental unfairness. Zero judges have ruled against Zeke on the merits of his case. 

I meant the 2nd circuit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, davearm said:

Fundamental unfairness of the process.  No judges have weighed in on the merits of the case for either side, nor will any.

Zeke's case is all about "fundamental fairness". That's how he did and will still get a TRO. Everyone knows we're not talking about the actual DV case here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ourmanflint said:

I don't entirely agree with that. He still has to adhere to the PCP and the "credible evidence" clause. The courts are still there to enforce "fundamental fairness" in labor arbitration. Very few players have to deal with suspensions based on conduct but Goodell still serves the owners and is still subject to the court of public opinion.

The woman Goodell put in charge of the investigation decided there wasn't enough "credible evidence" to warrant a suspension,  Goodell didn't care apparently 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bayhawks said:

I meant the 2nd circuit.

There you go with CA2 again. They haven't been involved in Zeke's case and I've clearly stated why Zeke's and Brady's cases are different. Also, I don't believe there's any way CA2 gets involved this season other than, as you state, to guide SDNY. But again, the cases are different and there are 2 judges who have already ruled in Zeke's favor on the merits and not jurisdiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ourmanflint said:

Zeke's case is all about "fundamental fairness". That's how he did and will still get a TRO. Everyone knows we're not talking about the actual DV case here.

That's what I inferred from "merits of his case".

I feel pretty confident that he's not going to find a judge that will overturn the suspension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Cowboysfan8 said:

The woman Goodell put in charge of the investigation decided there wasn't enough "credible evidence" to warrant a suspension,  Goodell didn't care apparently 

Exactly. So where does the credible evidence come from? Eventually it all comes down to his accuser. Who's that? Foghorn Leghorn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, davearm said:

That's what I inferred from "merits of his case".

I feel pretty confident that he's not going to find a judge that will overturn the suspension.

He can worry about that later. He's only trying to get his TRO reinstated or go for another one in New York. He only has to show reasonable chance of succeeding which he can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ourmanflint said:

He can worry about that later. He's only trying to get his TRO reinstated or go for another one in New York. He only has to show reasonable chance of succeeding which he can.

The en banc hearing is a hail mary that will almost certainly fall incomplete.

New York precedent is pretty clearly established.

This is a question of when, not if Elliott runs out of legal maneuvers.

Meanwhile the NFL considers him suspended as of now.

Edited by davearm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ourmanflint said:

He can worry about that later. He's only trying to get his TRO reinstated or go for another one in New York. He only has to show reasonable chance of succeeding which he can.

I don't think he can show a reasonable chance of succeeding. Goodell has the power to do whatever he wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ourmanflint said:

There you go with CA2 again. They haven't been involved in Zeke's case and I've clearly stated why Zeke's and Brady's cases are different. Also, I don't believe there's any way CA2 gets involved this season other than, as you state, to guide SDNY. But again, the cases are different and there are 2 judges who have already ruled in Zeke's favor on the merits and not jurisdiction.

And I’ve clearly stated how they are similar.  They deal with the same subject: the power of the commissioner as bargained for on the CBA.  It’s why Zeke will ultimately serve his 6 game suspension, either this year or next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, davearm said:

That's a bit dramatic.  You make it sound like Goodell wants to suspend as many NFL stars as possible.

A player has to do something wrong to end up in Goddell's cross-hairs.  99.x% of players will not have to worry about it, so it's not a huge priority in CBA negotiations.

Where did I "make it sound like Goodell wants to suspend as many players as possible?"  That is something you've incorrectly inferred.  It isn't about the number of people he will suspend - it's about the arbitrary process by which he will make his determinations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bayhawks said:

And I’ve clearly stated how they are similar.  They deal with the same subject: the power of the commissioner as bargained for on the CBA.  It’s why Zeke will ultimately serve his 6 game suspension, either this year or next.

If "credible evidence" really matters, then the commissioner's power is limited.  In which case Zeke won't be suspended - because the evidence isn't credible enough to warrant a suspension.  Something the NFL's own lead investigator has already opined on.

 

So if as you and others have asserted - "credible evidence" and its importance - then Zeke should be free and clear, protected by the check/balance of the courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ourmanflint said:

Exactly. So where does the credible evidence come from? Eventually it all comes down to his accuser. Who's that? Foghorn Leghorn?

There you go again, arguing against a straw man.  Just because you say the evidence comes from his accuser doesn’t change the fact that the NFL specifically stated what the suspension was based on, and it wasn’t her testimony.  You can keep saying otherwise, but that doesn’t change the facts: once Zeke got involved in a domestic violence situation, Goodell has the power to authorize an investigation, then HE gets to decide what evidence he believes, then HE gets to decide the punishment.  He could have said “I’m suspending you because I believe her,” but he didn’t.  He said the photos, medical evidence, & other testimony.  If you want topical those things apart, you’re free to do so, but when you keep talking about her testimony, you’re arguing something that isn’t relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bayhawks said:

There you go again, arguing against a straw man.  Just because you say the evidence comes from his accuser doesn’t change the fact that the NFL specifically stated what the suspension was based on, and it wasn’t her testimony.  You can keep saying otherwise, but that doesn’t change the facts: once Zeke got involved in a domestic violence situation, Goodell has the power to authorize an investigation, then HE gets to decide what evidence he believes, then HE gets to decide the punishment.  He could have said “I’m suspending you because I believe her,” but he didn’t.  He said the photos, medical evidence, & other testimony.  If you want topical those things apart, you’re free to do so, but when you keep talking about her testimony, you’re arguing something that isn’t relevant.

He still needs - if challenged - to justify to the courts that the evidence is "credible."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alex P Keaton said:

If "credible evidence" really matters, then the commissioner's power is limited.  In which case Zeke won't be suspended - because the evidence isn't credible enough to warrant a suspension.  Something the NFL's own lead investigator has already opined on.

 

So if as you and others have asserted - "credible evidence" and its importance - then Zeke should be free and clear, protected by the check/balance of the courts.

Not at all.  Goodell gets to determine what is credible; that’s his role as commissioner, which Zeke agreed to, as part of the players union.  Same reason Brady ultimately lost; didn’t matter that the science should have exonerated him-Goodell seemed the Wells report credible, suspended him based on that, & the 2nd circuit said he has the power to do that, because the players gave it to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bayhawks said:

Not at all.  Goodell gets to determine what is credible; that’s his role as commissioner, which Zeke agreed to, as part of the players union.  Same reason Brady ultimately lost; didn’t matter that the science should have exonerated him-Goodell seemed the Wells report credible, suspended him based on that, & the 2nd circuit said he has the power to do that, because the players gave it to him.

If this is really true, then I have no idea why people in here keep pretending that "credible evidence" is at all relevant. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alex P Keaton said:

He still needs - if challenged - to justify to the courts that the evidence is "credible."

No, he doesn’t.  The courts are not supposed to look at the facts of the case; the 2nd specifically he can make factual or legal mistakes, as long as he was following the principles of the CBA, they can’t over-rule him.  Even if a district court ignores this, the NFL will win in appellate court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alex P Keaton said:

If this is really true, then I have no idea why people in here keep pretending that "credible evidence" is at all relevant. 

 

 

The term credible evidence, as you and I use it, isn’t the same as what we’re talking about here.  Credible means believable, and Goodell is the one who has to believe it, because the CBA gives him that role.  You and I don’t find this evidence to be credible, but Goodell did, & that’s what matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, beerbuff said:

I don't think he can show a reasonable chance of succeeding. Goodell has the power to do whatever he wants.

If he gets the SDNY judge to grant him the TRO, he can probably buy himself some time.  The NFL will appeal for over-rule, but that should take at least a few weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Bayhawks said:

The term credible evidence, as you and I use it, isn’t the same as what we’re talking about here.  Credible means believable, and Goodell is the one who has to believe it, because the CBA gives him that role.  You and I don’t find this evidence to be credible, but Goodell did, & that’s what matters.

If only Goodell needs to believe it, then it is completely irrelevant.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Alex P Keaton said:

Please explain.

Legally, the CBA is binding.  Courts are very unlikely to interfere in CBA arbitration issues.  Since the NFLPA agreed to this system where Goodell is judge, jury, executioner, AND appellate “court”, HIS decision about what evidence is credible is all that is relevant.

Edited by Bayhawks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, davearm said:

That's a bit dramatic.  You make it sound like Goodell wants to suspend as many NFL stars as possible.

A player has to do something wrong to end up in Goddell's cross-hairs.  99.x% of players will not have to worry about it, so it's not a huge priority in CBA negotiations.

This is the kind of lackadaisical thinking that got the NFLPA into its current predicament. The circumstances are less dramatic, but this way of thinking evokes the WWII poem “first they came for a stranger and I did nothing, then they came for my neighbor and I did nothing, then they came for my father and I did nothing, then they came for me.” The fact that most players aren’t being treated unfairly is irrelevant; NO PLAYER should be treated unfairly. If the players stand by and allow one of their own to get suspended without a fair trial/process then all of them are at risk in the future.

Under the current CBA the players are forced to have a ton of faith in Goodell to act fairly and virtuously. Unfortunately he has a track record of not doing that.  Also there are shady elements to this case.  There are at least hints that this matter could possibly extend beyond a case of a player not receiving due process into a case of a player being intentionally scapegoated for the league’s PR benefit.  Am I saying that EE is definitely innocent of all charges?  No, I can’t say that.  But the police found the accuser in this case not credible and then the NFL’s own investigator found her not credible.  In a he-said / she-said type of case her credibility is everything and she’s been universally found not to be credible.  The fact that the league ignored that reality and decided to bulldoze forward with the max punishment anyway is something the NFLPA should fight against with every resource they can muster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, electric Ape said:

This is the kind of lackadaisical thinking that got the NFLPA into its current predicament. The circumstances are less dramatic, but this way of thinking evokes the WWII poem “first they came for a stranger and I did nothing, then they came for my neighbor and I did nothing, then they came for my father and I did nothing, then they came for me.” The fact that most players aren’t being treated unfairly is irrelevant; NO PLAYER should be treated unfairly. If the players stand by and allow one of their own to get suspended without a fair trial/process then all of them are at risk in the future.

Under the current CBA the players are forced to have a ton of faith in Goodell to act fairly and virtuously. Unfortunately he has a track record of not doing that.  Also there are shady elements to this case.  There are at least hints that this matter could possibly extend beyond a case of a player not receiving due process into a case of a player being intentionally scapegoated for the league’s PR benefit.  Am I saying that EE is definitely innocent of all charges?  No, I can’t say that.  But the police found the accuser in this case not credible and then the NFL’s own investigator found her not credible.  In a he-said / she-said type of case her credibility is everything and she’s been universally found not to be credible.  The fact that the league ignored that reality and decided to bulldoze forward with the max punishment anyway is something the NFLPA should fight against with every resource they can muster.

Agee with what you posted, but the time to have done this was when they bargained the CBA; legally they currently have very little ground to stand on-they DID agree to this system.  The courts will likely defer to that agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Bayhawks said:

Legally, the CBA is binding.  Courts are very unlikely to interfere in CBA arbitration issues.  Since the NFLPA agreed to this system where Goodell is judge, jury, executioner, AND appellate “court”, HIS decision about what evidence is credible is all that is relevant.

Then you and I are saying the same thing. The phrase "credible evidence" in any real-world or legal sense is meaningless.  Goodell could say "I based my decision on astrology, which is credible evidence" and his decision would be binding and legal.  Because he asserts that it is.

It's insane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

"We just learned of the NFL's decision to suspend Mr. Elliott for six games for allegedly engaging in 'physical force' against the accuser. Mr. Elliott and his team of representatives are extremely disappointed with the NFL's decision.

"Our offices have been engaged in this matter since last July and have worked hand in hand with the Columbus Prosecutor's office as well as the NFL with their respective investigations. Accordingly, we are fully aware of the full body of evidence that exists in connection with this matter.

"The NFL's findings are replete with factual inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions and it 'cherry picks' so called evidence to support its conclusion while ignoring other critical evidence.

"For example, both the Columbus Prosecutor's office as well as the NFL investigators expressly concluded and conveyed to our office (and others) that the accuser was lying about an alleged July 22, 2016 incident whereby she accused Mr. Elliott of pulling her out of her car and assaulting her. An allegation that was ultimately undermined by her own friend's affidavit which stated that no such assault occurred. The affidavit also outlined the accuser's plan to orchestrate a story to police to in order to corroborate her false allegation of assault. In addition, the NFL's own medical experts concluded that many of her injuries predated the week in question and likely occurred during a period of time when Mr. Elliott was not in contact with the accuser. During the upcoming weeks and through the appeal a slew of additional credible and controverting evidence will come to light."

 

NFL Cherry Picked Evidence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ourmanflint said:

"We just learned of the NFL's decision to suspend Mr. Elliott for six games for allegedly engaging in 'physical force' against the accuser. Mr. Elliott and his team of representatives are extremely disappointed with the NFL's decision.

"Our offices have been engaged in this matter since last July and have worked hand in hand with the Columbus Prosecutor's office as well as the NFL with their respective investigations. Accordingly, we are fully aware of the full body of evidence that exists in connection with this matter.

"The NFL's findings are replete with factual inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions and it 'cherry picks' so called evidence to support its conclusion while ignoring other critical evidence.

"For example, both the Columbus Prosecutor's office as well as the NFL investigators expressly concluded and conveyed to our office (and others) that the accuser was lying about an alleged July 22, 2016 incident whereby she accused Mr. Elliott of pulling her out of her car and assaulting her. An allegation that was ultimately undermined by her own friend's affidavit which stated that no such assault occurred. The affidavit also outlined the accuser's plan to orchestrate a story to police to in order to corroborate her false allegation of assault. In addition, the NFL's own medical experts concluded that many of her injuries predated the week in question and likely occurred during a period of time when Mr. Elliott was not in contact with the accuser. During the upcoming weeks and through the appeal a slew of additional credible and controverting evidence will come to light."

I hate abusers - I think punishments for men and women abusing other men and/or women should be swift and hard.

I also believe in a fair trial for cases that have two sides to it, and we've seen already with the Duke Lacrosse false rape case that lives can be ruined on assumptions. 

If Zeke truly is innocent here of domestic violence, how awful is it for him to serve 6 game for something he never did? I would be furious - nothing makes me madder than being accused of something I didn't do. I got to think most people are like that too.

If the courts of law, if the police, the DA's, all of them says Zeke isn't guilty .... who's the NFL to supersede that? I guess Roger has the power, but why wield it in such a way? To get back at Jerry Jones?

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Bayhawks said:

Agee with what you posted, but the time to have done this was when they bargained the CBA; legally they currently have very little ground to stand on-they DID agree to this system.  The courts will likely defer to that agreement.

You're 100% correct. They have almost no legal leverage to fight what's happening.

They do have tremendous leverage if they were willing to threaten or bluff a work stoppage but that's not really a realistic or desired option. They might have a little leverage in the forthcoming national anthem discussions/negotiations but again I doubt they will use it. Certainly they have the option to make a barrage of unified public statements against Goodell, to demonstrate, etc to make the PR situation much much more unpleasant for the NFL but it appears that even in that way they don't want to upset the apple cart. It's pretty easy to understand why, they make a ton of money and EE's reputation has been pretty well torched so he's a hard guy to vehemently or publicly support.

If I were a player though I'd be very concerned about the escalating ways in which Goodell is wielding his God-like power. You have to wonder if the Brady decision emboldened him because what's happened to EE is pretty egregious and way beyond anything I would have guessed was possible within an American company 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, ourmanflint said:

Isn’t that what we’ve been saying for the last number of posts?  Goodell ignored evidence that should have led to a non-suspension, and focused on things that he believed showed that Zeke has abused her?  You’re citing an article from 2 months ago to reiterate what we all think happened?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, electric Ape said:

You're 100% correct. They have almost no legal leverage to fight what's happening.

They do have tremendous leverage if they were willing to threaten or bluff a work stoppage but that's not really a realistic or desired option. They might have a little leverage in the forthcoming national anthem discussions/negotiations but again I doubt they will use it. Certainly they have the option to make a barrage of unified public statements against Goodell, to demonstrate, etc to make the PR situation much much more unpleasant for the NFL but it appears that even in that way they don't want to upset the apple cart. It's pretty easy to understand why, they make a ton of money and EE's reputation has been pretty well torched so he's a hard guy to vehemently or publicly support.

If I were a player though I'd be very concerned about the escalating ways in which Goodell is wielding his God-like power. You have to wonder if the Brady decision emboldened him because what's happened to EE is pretty egregious and way beyond anything I would have guessed was possible within an American company 

The problem is that a league of almost 2,000 players is probably not going to side with a few outliers and strike for things like discipline for domestic violence, drug suspensions, franchise tags, getting placed on the commissioner's exempt list, etc. I don't see a lot of the players willing to give up their livelihood and their paychecks for a handful of extreme outcomes.

Sure, I bet most players would like to see Josh Gordon get reinstated. Would they give up a year of pay to get him back? Like with Brady, there have got to be players that would rather just see Zeke serve his suspension and move on. Some might truly be outraged. But are they willing to give up $10 million outraged?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alex P Keaton said:

Where did I "make it sound like Goodell wants to suspend as many players as possible?"  That is something you've incorrectly inferred.  It isn't about the number of people he will suspend - it's about the arbitrary process by which he will make his determinations.

The (very small) number of players impacted obviously impacts how important the issue is to the union.

Not sure how you can suggest otherwise.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alex P Keaton said:

Then you and I are saying the same thing. The phrase "credible evidence" in any real-world or legal sense is meaningless.  Goodell could say "I based my decision on astrology, which is credible evidence" and his decision would be binding and legal.  Because he asserts that it is.

It's insane.

I seem to remember a player recently got suspended because an "independent report" (that was edited by the NFL before actually being released, and the NFL refused to say what they changed) said that player was "generally aware" of some equipment violation.

But all the Salty Haters were overjoyed that Brady got railroaded by Goodell.  Now the same thing is probably going to happen to your favorite team, and I can't stop laughing.  I think the Cowboys should also lose some draft picks because Jerry Jones was at least "generally aware" of Zeke's shenanigans.  :P

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/19/judge-berman-takes-aim-at-brady-being-generally-aware-in-wednesdays-hearing/

"Tom Curran of CSN New England reports that Berman “nodded vigorously” when NFLPA lawyer Jeffrey Kessler said that “player policies say you can’t be punished for being ‘generally aware,'” and that the judge later said that “general awareness” does not “relate to the Jan. 18 [AFC Championship] game.”

Daniel Kaplan of SportsBusiness Journal adds that Berman called it a “quantum leap” to go from Brady being “generally aware” of ball deflation to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s reference to a “scheme” in his ruling on Brady’s suspension appeal."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alex P Keaton said:

Then you and I are saying the same thing. The phrase "credible evidence" in any real-world or legal sense is meaningless.  Goodell could say "I based my decision on astrology, which is credible evidence" and his decision would be binding and legal.  Because he asserts that it is.

It's insane.

I think that’s a bit of a stretch, but I see what you mean now; sorry for the misunderstanding.  I agree, it’s insane, &’I was shocked when the NFLPA didn’t insist on changing it at the last CBA.  The financial part of the agreement was likely more important to more players (as Anarchy &’others have pointed out)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks - Goodell has always been unfair. All of these proceedings have been unfair. Bountygate. Tapegate. Deflategate. Rice. AP. Drop your prejudice or favoritism at the door. It's NOT a judicious process by design. The man is prosecutor, witness, judge, executioner and the appeals judge all in one. 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, STEADYMOBBIN 22 said:

I still can't figure out why EE hasnt filed a defamation lawsuit. He is not guilty in the eyes of the law but the NFL is clearly stating that they believe he is an abuser. 

Seems like a slam dunk to me. :shrug:

 

You are suggesting that a court of law determined that Zeke was "not guilty", and that is simply untrue.  To prevail in a defamation suit, Zeke would need to show that the NFL made a false claim, which would be exceedingly difficult to prove.  The burden of proof would be upon Zeke,  not on the NFL.  That would almost certainly be a PR disaster for Elliott.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, socrates said:

You are suggesting that a court of law determined that Zeke was "not guilty", and that is simply untrue.  To prevail in a defamation suit, Zeke would need to show that the NFL made a false claim, which would be exceedingly difficult to prove.  The burden of proof would be upon Zeke,  not on the NFL.  That would almost certainly be a PR disaster for Elliott.

The suspended Saints players in bountygate sued for defamation and they pushed the NFL to the brink just by pushing to depose Goodell and other administrative personnel. Eventually the suspensions were dropped. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, socrates said:

You are suggesting that a court of law determined that Zeke was "not guilty", and that is simply untrue.  To prevail in a defamation suit, Zeke would need to show that the NFL made a false claim, which would be exceedingly difficult to prove.  The burden of proof would be upon Zeke,  not on the NFL.  That would almost certainly be a PR disaster for Elliott.

On top of that, defamation suits lead to discovery, which is generally not a fun time for people with sketchy pasts. If you sue someone, they are basically allowed to bring up every bad thing you've ever done as part of their defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, zftcg said:

Yes, but in this hypothetical EE is the one who would be filing a suit. Among the many reasons he wouldn't, the league could basically throw the kitchen sink at him and trash his rep. 

You mean like calling him a woman beater and ruin any chance of getting any endorsement deals? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that most reasonable people would look at the facts in this case, and realize that Elliott was railroaded by the NFL. However, the problem is that he isn't proving innocence or guilt with the current court battle. The other problem is that Roger can basically legally do whatever the hell he wants. The NFLPA and all of the owners should be ashamed for allowing that man to carry so much authority, and then sitting by while he abuses it. The NFL has become a second arm of the justice system. Suspending players for crimes that they weren't even charged with, let alone convicted. They spend more time investigating their own players than they spend marketing them. The sport is losing viewers, and most of it has to do with the product that is on the field. People tune in to watch football, so they can see big hits, great plays, etc... That's also why everyone including Roger himself make such an amazing living from football. However, nowadays, every great play is ruined by a yellow flag, and every big hit is followed by a flag a fine. The game stops every couple minutes so that the ref's can huddle up and figure out all of the infractions that have taken place. Beyond all of that, you have to have at least a bachelors degree in legal studies to even carry on a water cooler conversation about the NFL at work. Rather than talking about football plays, everyone has to talk about penalties, fines, suspensions, social rights, court hearings, appeals, and feelings. Honestly, I can only imagine how bad the NFL would be struggling right now if it wasn't for fantasy football. Fantasy is the life blood of that league right now. 

Edited by WiDDoW_MaKeR
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...