Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Official Dynasty & Redraft: RB Ezekiel Elliott, Cowboys


Faust

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

To be fair, it could be that there were some indications that he may have done it (but nothing conclusive), and they preferred to err on the side of caution because 1) they wanted to appear they are taking the issue of domestic violence seriously and 2) don't want another Ray Rice type of "black eye" where a smoking gun emerges later.

My thoughts as well.  After that Ray Rice/Giants kicker, they felt the need to suspend a player for public perception alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dr. Octopus said:

To be fair, it could be that there were some indications that he may have done it (but nothing conclusive), and they preferred to err on the side of caution because 1) they wanted to appear they are taking the issue of domestic violence seriously and 2) don't want another Ray Rice type of "black eye" where a smoking gun emerges later.

I understand your point, but they nailed Josh Brown earlier so it's obvious to the public it's a big concern of theirs.

To believe Zeke is innocent, you have to be believe there's some kind of conspiracy or something & I'm just not buying that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Football Jones said:

I understand your point, but they nailed Josh Brown earlier so it's obvious to the public it's a big concern of theirs.

To believe Zeke is innocent, you have to be believe there's some kind of conspiracy or something & I'm just not buying that.

I don't necessarily believe he's innocent (I actually have no clue) but I'm just giving you an alternative theory that's pretty plausible. If they really had some kind of slam dunk evidence wouldn't law enforcement in the jurisdiction be interested in seeing it?

It's also possible he's guilty as hell of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Football Jones said:

I understand your point, but they nailed Josh Brown earlier so it's obvious to the public it's a big concern of theirs.

To believe Zeke is innocent, you have to be believe there's some kind of conspiracy or something & I'm just not buying that.

Also agree, NFL players obviously have money and have been brushing over incidents that people get paid off under the table for years (speculation)

However in the rare case an NFL player does get exploited it'll backfire. Possibly this case.  I believe he did it.  I just don't agree with the mess of the NFL and how they handled it so am rooting for the NFLPA to prevail THIS season.  (Yes I own him, but thoughts regardless)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

I don't necessarily believe he's innocent (I actually have no clue) but I'm just giving you an alternative theory that's pretty plausible. If they really had some kind of slam dunk evidence wouldn't law enforcement in the jurisdiction be interested in seeing it?

It's also possible he's guilty as hell of course.

All I can say is the burden of proof is less in non-criminal cases. Lots of tricky strings to pull to get a conviction in court even if a defendant is truly guilty.

I'll admit there's a lot of ways to look at this thing, but I keep coming back to the results of the NFL's exhaustive investigation.

 

Edited by Football Jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, WiDDoW_MaKeR said:

Really? I would love for you to explain this comment. Especially considering that there hasn't been a single piece of hard evidence that incriminated Elliott in this case. I have a STRONG feeling that you won't reply with an explanation. 

BTW, I stand by every comment that I made. You are taking my quote out of context, where I had already explained exactly what I was referencing toward. By saying "in the eyes of the investigators" I meant, clearly they didn't find evidence to prove that it happened. The only real evidence in this case, is the evidence that directly conflicts with the story of the accuser. At no point in this entire investigation has Zeke been accused of lying, covering up, etc... Not only has he cooperated with the entire case, he even went above and beyond with his honesty in revealing that he did drugs in college, which he didn't really need to do. That only speaks volumes of his honesty, that he was willing to admit something that stains his character, even when he really could have avoided that question, or lied. So, considering that all of the evidence is on Elliott's side.... and that the evidence conflicts with the accuser... AND the fact that there is clear evidence of the accuser asking a friend to also lie to the police... on top of the fact that more evidence came out later where she was talking to another friend about blackmailing Elliott for money with their sex tapes.... I would LOVE to hear why you believe that the investigators probably believe that Elliot did commit a crime. Enlighten me?

I don't have specific knowledge of the Elliott case.  I'm speaking in general terms.  And what I'm telling you is that very often, investigators believe a crime has been committed, the accused is guilty, yet the DA chooses not to file charges, because their high burden of proof can't be met (for any number of reasons).

Is Elliott one such person that's actually guilty but not charged?  I don't know.  I'm not assuming he is or isn't.

My point is, you shouldn't assume (as you have done) that he is innocent because no charges were filed, and you definitely should not assume that no charges means that investigators think no crime was committed.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gottabesweet said:

@Frank_Cawley  The flip side is a fill-judge usually takes the safest approach.  A TRO is an extraordinary remedy that is not the safest route.

 

I don't agree with this.  TROs to preserve the status quo are preferred.  And that's what is at stake here.  And, by their very nature, they are limited in duration.

As for the judge, I disagree with the comments that this judge will just be a caretaker.  Judge's take their job seriously.  And all judges should be able to handle all cases.  Given that this case just started, Crotty shouldn't be holding back anything.  He'll handle it like his case.  At best, if he thinks that there is any concern or that it's a really close call, he may grant the TRO, order additional briefing and bring the parties back next week.  By that time Crotty and Failla would decide who would handle the hearing, with Failla likely taking over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, davearm said:

I don't have specific knowledge of the Elliott case.  I'm speaking in general terms.  And what I'm telling you is that very often, investigators believe a crime has been committed, the accused is guilty, yet the DA chooses not to file charges, because their high burden of proof can't be met (for any number of reasons).

Is Elliott one such person that's actually guilty but not charged?  I don't know.  I'm not assuming he is or isn't.

My point is, you shouldn't assume (as you have done) that he is innocent because no charges were filed, and you definitely should not assume that no charges means that investigators think no crime was committed.

 

So, just as I said. You wouldn't give an explanation for your comment.

Why don't you know the specifics of this case? They are public and readily available.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WiDDoW_MaKeR said:

So, just as I said. You wouldn't give an explanation for your comment.

Why don't you know the specifics of this case? They are public and readily available.   

I don't know what more I can say.  You have demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the criminal justice system.  I have tried to illuminate and correct your misconceptions, but you don't seem to be listening.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ourmanflint said:

Why Elliott > Brady on "fundamental fairness" Pash = a "collateral" witness Elliott's accuser = the key witness Easy to distinguish.

https://twitter.com/WALLACHLEGAL/status/918603592864550913

Not sure how the Brady judges knew Pash was a "collateral" witness, since the NFL refused to say what/how much of the Wells Report was modified by Pash before it was released.  What if Pash re-wrote 50% of the Wells Report?  75%?  Is he still collateral?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WiDDoW_MaKeR said:

Inconsistent information means that the accusers story wasn't backed by the evidence. Which is a polite way of saying that she wasn't telling the truth. Elliot's information certainly wouldn't matter, because he is the one being accused. All that they would need is for her story to be backed up by the evidence. Clearly, it wasn't. Especially since she clearly asked one of her friends to lie to the police when they showed up, and her friend turned that evidence over to the police.

No, it isn't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, espnespn said:

Not sure how the Brady judges knew Pash was a "collateral" witness, since the NFL refused to say what/how much of the Wells Report was modified by Pash before it was released.  What if Pash re-wrote 50% of the Wells Report?  75%?  Is he still collateral?

 

Good question. This is basically all we know.

Quote

Unfortunately, the Second Circuit reversed Judge Berman on this issue, characterizing Pash's role in the investigation as "collateral" to the issues at arbitration, and, therefore, not material or important enough to constitute a violation of fundamental fairness. According to Judge Barrington Parker (the author of the Second Circuit's majority opinion), "[t]he insights Pash might have had and the role he might have played in the preparation of the Wells Report were concerns that were collateral to the issues arbitration.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Football Jones said:

I understand your point, but they nailed Josh Brown earlier so it's obvious to the public it's a big concern of theirs.

To believe Zeke is innocent, you have to be believe there's some kind of conspiracy or something & I'm just not buying that.

Certainly, Elliott can not win the case on the grounds that the NFL doesn't have the authority to suspend him. They do.

But there is a scenario where the accuser lied about the DV, that as part of the court proceedings in the DV case she admitted lying in return for getting immunity and a sealed court record so as not to affect her future, and that the NFL cannot gain access to those records. It's a huge stretch, like an 8 week hamstring injury level stretch, but Elliot could be innocent of all charges and the NFL could be prevented from access to that evidence. I have no opinion one way or the other, but a judge could theoretically review sealed records and say the NFL has no grounds for suspension. No conspiracy, just the intricacies of court proceedings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, davearm said:

I don't have specific knowledge of the Elliott case.  I'm speaking in general terms.  And what I'm telling you is that very often, investigators believe a crime has been committed, the accused is guilty, yet the DA chooses not to file charges, because their high burden of proof can't be met (for any number of reasons).

Is Elliott one such person that's actually guilty but not charged?  I don't know.  I'm not assuming he is or isn't.

My point is, you shouldn't assume (as you have done) that he is innocent because no charges were filed, and you definitely should not assume that no charges means that investigators think no crime was committed.

 

  You keep saying the same thing over and over. The guy above that you're responding to is it saying that he thinks Elliot is innocent. He doesn't know just like he doesn't know that Elliot is guilty. That's it. 

 

 Don't have to keep saying that prosecutors don't always charge somebody with a crime and less they have concrete evidence. We all understand that dude, everybody understands that. 

 You can't have it both ways. You can't say that he's likely guilty and it only means that there's not enough evidence to convict him and then turn around and condemn people were saying the opposite is true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The General said:

That guys says he still hear's something will come out tonight, the court is just running behind. 

Fantasy nerds will have to wait.

Yep.

Quote

I am hearing that Judge Crotty still plans to issue a ruling tonight on @EzekielElliott but that they are "running behind." Guess we'll see

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Football Jones said:

The problem with that is you're assuming he's innocent. We don't know, period.

I'm just saying the NFL, after an exhaustive investigation, handed down the suspension. Even as a Cowboys fan, I cant imagine the NFL having a grudge against Zeke, JJ, or the Dallas organization in general. It's preposterous. They had to find something significant.

Like I said, it is what it is. Bottom line, they should've taken the suspension at the beginning of this season.

You are presuming he is guilty. 

I make no assumptions either way. 

 

:lmao: at "I can't imagine.., they and to find something" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is fun and all but we all know there's like a 2% chance of this judge ruling in favor of Zeke/NFLPA.

Maybe next deal they can give even more power to Roger in exchange for getting to wear their shirts untucked and have league provided ice cream after the practice.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, STEADYMOBBIN 22 said:

You are presuming he is guilty. 

I make no assumptions either way. 

 

:lmao: at "I can't imagine.., they and to find something" 

I'm presuming he's guilty? I'd rather he not be, but I've extensively stated FF nerds like us will never know.

I'm assuming nothing. I'm simply putting weight into the NFL's investigation. I can't imagine them conjuring up evidence. It's not even a reasonable argument.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Football Jones said:

I'm presuming he's guilty? I'd rather he not be, but I've extensively stated FF nerds like us will never know.

I'm assuming nothing. I'm simply putting weight into the NFL's investigation. I can't imagine them conjuring up evidence. It's not even a reasonable argument.

 

New England homer just lost his mind.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't get why Zeke and his legal team are being idiots about this. Look, he WILL be suspended, it's not IF, it's just when. IDK, if Jerry and the Cowboys desperately want him to play because they falsely think they have Super Bowl aspirations or what, but this has to go down as one of the dumbest decisions ever. The Cowboys are 2-3 WITH HIM, and if he'd have just taken his suspension right away, he'd only have to miss one more game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ffinmyblood said:

I just don't get why Zeke and his legal team are being idiots about this. Look, he WILL be suspended, it's not IF, it's just when. IDK, if Jerry and the Cowboys desperately want him to play because they falsely think they have Super Bowl aspirations or what, but this has to go down as one of the dumbest decisions ever. The Cowboys are 2-3 WITH HIM, and if he'd have just taken his suspension right away, he'd only have to miss one more game.

So did you go with DMC or Morris?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ffinmyblood said:

I just don't get why Zeke and his legal team are being idiots about this. Look, he WILL be suspended, it's not IF, it's just when. IDK, if Jerry and the Cowboys desperately want him to play because they falsely think they have Super Bowl aspirations or what, but this has to go down as one of the dumbest decisions ever. The Cowboys are 2-3 WITH HIM, and if he'd have just taken his suspension right away, he'd only have to miss one more game.

As a Dallas fan, I wholeheartedly agree, but I'm more worried about it not taking effect until next season.

Poor decision in the grand scheme of things.

Edited by Football Jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ffinmyblood said:

I just don't get why Zeke and his legal team are being idiots about this. Look, he WILL be suspended, it's not IF, it's just when. IDK, if Jerry and the Cowboys desperately want him to play because they falsely think they have Super Bowl aspirations or what, but this has to go down as one of the dumbest decisions ever. The Cowboys are 2-3 WITH HIM, and if he'd have just taken his suspension right away, he'd only have to miss one more game.

He's also attempting to salvage his name and ensure he doesn't lose out on six game checks, plus incentives that I'm sure he wouldn't meet having missed six games this year.

God knows I'd fight this too.

Edited by Moonshine
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ffinmyblood said:

I just don't get why Zeke and his legal team are being idiots about this. Look, he WILL be suspended, it's not IF, it's just when. IDK, if Jerry and the Cowboys desperately want him to play because they falsely think they have Super Bowl aspirations or what, but this has to go down as one of the dumbest decisions ever. The Cowboys are 2-3 WITH HIM, and if he'd have just taken his suspension right away, he'd only have to miss one more game.

I'm guessing this is about more than the Cowboys season to Zeke and for different reasons the NFLPA.

Edited by The General
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Football Jones said:

I'm presuming he's guilty? I'd rather he not be, but I've extensively stated FF nerds like us will never know.

I'm assuming nothing. I'm simply putting weight into the NFL's investigation. I can't imagine them conjuring up evidence. It's not even a reasonable argument.

 

Who is suggesting that they "have made up evidence?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the thing, Zeke was going to fight it either way (innocent or guilty). He says he didn't do anything, but an exhaustive investigation said otherwise.

There was a better way to handle it & still not admit guilt, but they chose this path & they have to live with the consequences even if it puts a serious dent in their 2018 Super Bowl aspirations (of which they have a better chance).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ffinmyblood said:

I just don't get why Zeke and his legal team are being idiots about this. Look, he WILL be suspended, it's not IF, it's just when. IDK, if Jerry and the Cowboys desperately want him to play because they falsely think they have Super Bowl aspirations or what, but this has to go down as one of the dumbest decisions ever. The Cowboys are 2-3 WITH HIM, and if he'd have just taken his suspension right away, he'd only have to miss one more game.

I think if they had suspended him for "conduct detrimental to the league"  he wouldn't have any recourse and would have likely served his suspension. The fact is the NFL has determined and stated that he is factually a domestic abuser. 

Again, the first thing I would've done if I was Zek's legal team was file defamation lawsuit. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, STEADYMOBBIN 22 said:

I think if they had suspended him for "conduct detrimental to the league"  he wouldn't have any recourse and would have likely served his suspension. The fact is the NFL has determined and stated that he is factually a domestic abuser. 

Again, the first thing I would've done if I was Zek's legal team was file defamation lawsuit. 

The bottom line is...This will do NOTHING to his repuattion, he was never charged with a crime, and again he WILL be suspended. Why spend the $$ to fight a losing battle??

Just now, STEADYMOBBIN 22 said:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Football Jones said:

That's the point. I don't believe they did. My guess is he's guilty of some degree of domestic violence.

So if you don't believe that the NFL has made stuff up, then why do you keep bringing that up? Who are these people that are saying these things? Besides fans, who is suggesting that the league has made stuff up to incriminate Zeke?

And guessing is the same thing as presuming. You just said a couple of posts ago that you're not presuming anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, ffinmyblood said:

Neither...could care less about who runs the ball for them..It's just Zeke being an idiot. Serve it and be done with it. (not a Zeke owner either).

Serious question, if you did not commit the domestic violence, would you just take the suspension, forfeit your guaranteed money and give up on any hopes to get endorsement deals just because you want to get it over with?

 

 I mean I get that this is messing up your fantasy football season and that you personally are exhausted by the whole ordeal, but this is somebody's life dude. This isnt a pretend game of stats. 

Edited by STEADYMOBBIN 22
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, STEADYMOBBIN 22 said:

Serious question, if you did not commit the Mestic violence, would you just take the suspension, forfeit your guaranteed money and give up on any hopes to get endorsement deals just because you want to get it over with?

 

 I mean I get that this is messing up your fantasy football season and that you personally are exhausted by the whole ordeal, but this is somebody's life dude. This isnt a pretend game of stats. 

LOL if you think he will never have any endorsement deals ever again.

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...