Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

RB Ezekiel Elliott, DAL


Faust

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

The court could rule that agreed upon procedures were not followed in adhering to the CBA. If that were the case, they could force the NFL to re-hear Elliott's appeal (although they couldn't force RG to hear the appeal . . . there is no such provision stated in the CBA). Of course, the league could then deny the appeal anyway (which they would), so ultimately Zeke is likely putting off the inevitable.

Right or wrong, his decisions in some cases keep going to court. I dont think thats the best interest of the NFL, even if they do win. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mavis said:

Right or wrong, his decisions in some cases keep going to court. I dont think thats the best interest of the NFL, even if they do win. 

You are right, it doesn't look good that the NFL keeps going to court.  But, you, I, die-hard fans, die-hard FFer's, and legal guys might look at these situations & question what Goodell is doing wrong to have to keep going to court; I'd be willing to bet that the average guy/girl sees it differently.  They see players taking the NFL to court & ultimately losing.  Probably doesn't negatively influence their perception of the NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bayhawks said:

You are right, it doesn't look good that the NFL keeps going to court.  But, you, I, die-hard fans, die-hard FFer's, and legal guys might look at these situations & question what Goodell is doing wrong to have to keep going to court; I'd be willing to bet that the average guy/girl sees it differently.  They see players taking the NFL to court & ultimately losing.  Probably doesn't negatively influence their perception of the NFL.

They dont always lose. They win in some settings and lose in others, point is "NFL In Court" is the headline. Not good for NFL, unless some want to spin it that NFL in court is a good thing, even if they win...which they win on technicalities that players agreed to this nonsense, not because they are fair. 

Its in the NFLs best interest as well to let this go to a real independent arbitrator or board. 

NFLPA will address this in 2020, no doubt about it. 

Edited by Mavis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Bayhawks said:

You are right, it doesn't look good that the NFL keeps going to court.  But, you, I, die-hard fans, die-hard FFer's, and legal guys might look at these situations & question what Goodell is doing wrong to have to keep going to court; I'd be willing to bet that the average guy/girl sees it differently.  They see players taking the NFL to court & ultimately losing.  Probably doesn't negatively influence their perception of the NFL.

I don't know of any average person who even knows the NFL players are taking the NFL to court. And I don't know of any die hard fans or whatever who would look at these suits and the outcomes and let it affect their perception of the NFL or alter their choices to watch or not to watch a game. Most people I know just roll their eyes and this and have the opinion of, "just stay out of trouble and enjoy your millions... is that really so hard?" If anything athletes being cry babies about things and acting like they have it so hard and unfair is more off putting than how the league has handled/mishandled these incidents. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, timschochet said:

Someone pmed me a request that I post the article I read which thinks there will be no restraining order. Here it is: 

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/si/nfl/2017/09/06/ezekiel-elliott-suspension-court-themmqb-morning-huddle-newsletter-jacob-feldman%3fsource=dam

Just one guy's opinion, but who knows? 

Makes sense.  It's wrong from an ethical perspective, but highly likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mavis said:

They dont always lose. They win in some settings and lose in others, point is "NFL In Court" is the headline. Not good for NFL, unless some want to spin it that NFL in court is a good thing, even if they win...which they win on technicalities that players agreed to this nonsense, not because they are fair. 

Its in the NFLs best interest as well to let this go to a real independent arbitrator or board. 

NFLPA will address this in 2020, no doubt about it.

There is serious doubt about that.  This idea was wide spread before the negotiated the last CBA, as well.  The reality is that the majority of the players don't care about this issue because they never have to deal with Goodell having absolute disciplinary power.  They are more concerned with maximizing their income.  If they have to trade less money for less power for Goodell, they won't make that trade.  If they have to trade more games for less power for Goodell, they won't make that trade.  Again, you, I, die-hard fans, Zeke, Brady, Hardy, Peterson, etc-we are concerned about this issue, but for the majority of NFL players, it's not as important as the money the can make, the playing schedule, etc. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dr. Dan said:

I don't know of any average person who even knows the NFL players are taking the NFL to court. And I don't know of any die hard fans or whatever who would look at these suits and the outcomes and let it affect their perception of the NFL or alter their choices to watch or not to watch a game. Most people I know just roll their eyes and this and have the opinion of, "just stay out of trouble and enjoy your millions... is that really so hard?" If anything athletes being cry babies about things and acting like they have it so hard and unfair is more off putting than how the league has handled/mishandled these incidents. 

That's kind of my point.  We get annoyed by it; fans of the Cowboys, fans of the Patriots, etc-they get annoyed by it.  But, I highly doubt that the NFL being sued by players is "bad for the NFL."  It's not affecting their bottom line, and since they win all the time, the aren't losing any of the powers/rights they have acquired through collective bargaining. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bayhawks said:

That's kind of my point.  We get annoyed by it; fans of the Cowboys, fans of the Patriots, etc-they get annoyed by it.  But, I highly doubt that the NFL being sued by players is "bad for the NFL."  It's not affecting their bottom line, and since they win all the time, the aren't losing any of the powers/rights they have acquired through collective bargaining. 

Exactly. Some folks are quick to point fingers at how much of a scummy business the NFL is or Goodwell is for doing what they're doing. Goodell is the head of a lucrative business that should be looking out for one thing, they're own well being. They are being sued by an employee. Of course they're going to do everything in their power to stack the deck against the employee. Why wouldn't they? They're going to win, so what difference does this all make? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bayhawks said:

That's kind of my point.  We get annoyed by it; fans of the Cowboys, fans of the Patriots, etc-they get annoyed by it.  But, I highly doubt that the NFL being sued by players is "bad for the NFL."  It's not affecting their bottom line, and since they win all the time, the aren't losing any of the powers/rights they have acquired through collective bargaining. 

You are speaking for a lot of people when you say we or You, I and other die hard fans. I get you have your views which I understand, but I dont take your same view for how others would see the NFL always being in court.

And why is it "we" are just assuming players feel the same way now? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dr. Dan said:

Exactly. Some folks are quick to point fingers at how much of a scummy business the NFL is or Goodwell is for doing what they're doing. Goodell is the head of a lucrative business that should be looking out for one thing, they're own well being. They are being sued by an employee. Of course they're going to do everything in their power to stack the deck against the employee. Why wouldn't they? They're going to win, so what difference does this all make? 

It also works on the other side of the coin, some folks are quick to side with the NFL/Owners/Commish because they dont like a player/team. 

Goodell is not the head of any business, he works as an employee for that business which is headed by the owners. A board of directors who can fire the "chairman" at any time. 

Edited by Mavis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Bayhawks said:

There is serious doubt about that.  This idea was wide spread before the negotiated the last CBA, as well.  The reality is that the majority of the players don't care about this issue because they never have to deal with Goodell having absolute disciplinary power.  They are more concerned with maximizing their income.  If they have to trade less money for less power for Goodell, they won't make that trade.  If they have to trade more games for less power for Goodell, they won't make that trade.  Again, you, I, die-hard fans, Zeke, Brady, Hardy, Peterson, etc-we are concerned about this issue, but for the majority of NFL players, it's not as important as the money the can make, the playing schedule, etc. 

Mike Golic addressed this on the radio this morning. He said 6 players per season on average are suspended. He said there is no way the other 2,000 players are going to dig in their heels on this issue and miss paychecks. For good reason Goodell's power is way more of an important issue to fantasy football players than actual NFL players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Dr. Dan said:

Exactly. Some folks are quick to point fingers at how much of a scummy business the NFL is or Goodwell is for doing what they're doing. Goodell is the head of a lucrative business that should be looking out for one thing, they're own well being. They are being sued by an employee. Of course they're going to do everything in their power to stack the deck against the employee. Why wouldn't they? They're going to win, so what difference does this all make? 

Yeah, I agree with much of this.  But I disagree with a huge piece that you aren't giving voice to.  As someone who manages a large team of folks, every now & then we have a serious issue with an employee.....and my first concern is to find out, as best possible, the facts of the situation....with a goal toward knowing the truth.

I don't believe that Goodell's behavior in this case or in previous cases (e.g. Brady) suggests that he cares one iota about the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

Mike Golic addressed this on the radio this morning. He said 6 players per season on average are suspended. He said there is no way the other 2,000 players are going to dig in their heels on this issue and miss paychecks. For good reason Goodell's power is way more of an important issue to fantasy football players than actual NFL players.

 

That can't be right. There are more than 6 players suspended already and the season hasn't even started.

I see your point but the number is probably closer to "dozens" and not "six"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Phenomena said:

 

That can't be right. There are more than 6 players suspended already and the season hasn't even started.

I see your point but the number is probably closer to "dozens" and not "six"

Maybe 6 was the number for disciplinary reasons and not failed drug or PED tests?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Phenomena said:

 

That can't be right. There are more than 6 players suspended already and the season hasn't even started.

I see your point but the number is probably closer to "dozens" and not "six"

Well, when you factor in that players on the same team care about others getting suspended, that has an effect. So way more than 6 or even 12.

You think the entire Patriots team wasnt upset Brady got suspended by Goodell? 

And right or wrong and agree with what zeke did or not or believe the sides or not, I'm sure some team mates are not happy with how Goodell did it this way effecting their team. 

More than 6 care about this, even more than a dozen. Too assume that only peopel suspended care is not fair by any means. 

Edited by Mavis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mavis said:

Well, when you factor in that players on the same team care about others getting suspended, that has an effect. So way more than 6 or even 12.

You think the entire Patriots team wasnt upset Brady got suspended by Goodell? 

And right or wrong and agree with what zeke did or not or believe the sides or not, I'm sure some team mates are not happy with how Goodell did it this way effecting their team. 

More than 6 care about this, even more than a dozen. Too assume that only peopel suspended care is not fair by any means. 

There's a big difference in "not caring" and "not being willing to die on that hill".

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Mavis said:

You are speaking for a lot of people when you say we or You, I and other die hard fans. I get you have your views which I understand, but I dont take your same view for how others would see the NFL always being in court.

And why is it "we" are just assuming players feel the same way now? 

There is no outrage; the NFL isn't losing money, advertisers, power, etc.  While viewership was down last year, the accepted belief is that was due to the election.  There are plenty of indicators that most people don't care about the NFL being in court.  There is virtually nothing to lend credence to the idea that the NFL being taken to court is "bad for the NFL."

With regards to the players, it's not an assumption; it's a fact.  When the players had the chance to change Goodell's power, it wasn't important enough to them, so they didn't force the issue.  You are the one assuming when you assert the players will address it in 2020. If they do force a change, I'll be surprised, but until then, the fact is that it isn't as important to them as you seem to think it is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

There's a big difference in "not caring" and "not being willing to die on that hill".

Exactly.  When the NFLPA starts asking its  members what their priorities are as they begin negotiations, I just can't see anything about suspensions generating a lot of buzz and becoming among the top priorities.  There are just so many other issues that affect everyone in a much bigger way.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Alex P Keaton said:

Yeah, I agree with much of this.  But I disagree with a huge piece that you aren't giving voice to.  As someone who manages a large team of folks, every now & then we have a serious issue with an employee.....and my first concern is to find out, as best possible, the facts of the situation....with a goal toward knowing the truth.

I don't believe that Goodell's behavior in this case or in previous cases (e.g. Brady) suggests that he cares one iota about the truth.

Yep. You're absolutely right on this one. 


I do support an innocent until proven guilty approach to these types of things from Goodell, but he doesn't care about the truth. I mean look at Whitehead... Goodell sets this precedent of handing out suspensions and even punishing some teams based off player behavior, so Dallas over reacts and cuts Whitehead before the facts even come out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting read:

"The NFL has spent millions of dollars and a great deal of time trying to buttress their conclusions in the Ezekiel Elliott case. The NFL argued in the Deflategate case that they are entitled by the process to do whatever the commissioner wants.

There is no way within the system to prove innocence. If the NFL lessens sentences or doesn’t invoke discipline, it is largely random and at their choice."

http://www.stradleylaw.com/ezekiel-elliott-case-nfl-policy/

TL;DR.  This graphic from the article sums it all up:

http://www.stradleylaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Screen-Shot-2015-09-09-at-5.11.11-PM-e1441836977257.png

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, oldmanhawkins said:

Exactly.  When the NFLPA starts asking its  members what their priorities are as they begin negotiations, I just can't see anything about suspensions generating a lot of buzz and becoming among the top priorities.  There are just so many other issues that affect everyone in a much bigger way.  

Yep. I would imagine the majority of NFL players would be more concerned about their work/practice conditions, negotiating with the NFL a longer season/larger roster sizes, more money, etc. Suspensions may not come up or be an issue they want to push as a top priority because there are many others that would be more of a concern. 

Not to mention the majority of NFL players are not getting into trouble warranting suspensions. Just because a few thugs want to be thugs, doesn't mean they have the full undivided support of their fellow law abiding union members. If anything they might want the suspensions... the threat of significant suspension/lost pay is enough for the majority of NFL players to not behave in ways that warrant a suspension. If you take that away, suddenly the NFL is the NBA; just a bunch of thugs. At some point that loses its appeal to the average Joe, ratings start to fall and money dries up a bit. It's in the best interests of the majority of the NFL players to keep the minority of NFL players who want to be thugs in check with suspensions. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is this on CBA negotiations.

Owners/Goodell? Largely the same cast of characters driving an overall business and individual prongs of that business over a period of decades.

Players?  Whole new group every negotiation who have an average career span of 48-64 game checks.

...and Goodell is paid more annually than any player in NFL history.

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

9 hours ago, Moonshine said:

Agreed. A temporary restraining order with no injunction, or a temporary restraining order with an injunction that is overturned at appeals, is likely the worst case scenario, in my opinion, for the reasons you outlined above.

The best case scenario is temporary restraining order, with an injunction, where the case runs through the offseason and the sentence doesn't start until next year.

I think the safest case scenario, from a fantasy perspective is that the restraining order is denied, he serves his six weeks and sits out 2-8, and we just get on with our lives for the second half/quarter of the season. This is the one I think is most likely, and that I'm hoping for personally as a Zeke owner. I think option 2 above is so unlikely, that a granting of the TRO will be a death note (a little dramatic) for my fantasy team this season, since it would undoubtedly result in the scenario you've outlined above.

I don't think an injunction after a TSO then an appeal would take less than 3 months. That's almost the full fantasy season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, theplayer11 said:

I don't think an injunction after a TSO then an appeal would take less than 3 months. That's almost the full fantasy season.

Brady's case was decided about 6 weeks after his appeal hearing resulted in the suspension being upheld.  It only dragged on another year b/c the NFL list & appealed.  If Zeke gets the injunction, his FF owners have to hope the courts overturn the suspension.  If he loses, he can appeal again, but it's unlikely he'd get another injunction granted, & he'd likely have to serve his suspension starting in week 8, 9, or 10.  That'd put some/all of the FF playoffs in jeopardy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bayhawks said:

Brady's case was decided about 6 weeks after his appeal hearing resulted in the suspension being upheld.  It only dragged on another year b/c the NFL list & appealed.  If Zeke gets the injunction, his FF owners have to hope the courts overturn the suspension.  If he loses, he can appeal again, but it's unlikely he'd get another injunction granted, & he'd likely have to serve his suspension starting in week 8, 9, or 10.  That'd put some/all of the FF playoffs in jeopardy.

Well this would suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bayhawks said:

Brady's case was decided about 6 weeks after his appeal hearing resulted in the suspension being upheld.  It only dragged on another year b/c the NFL list & appealed.  If Zeke gets the injunction, his FF owners have to hope the courts overturn the suspension.  If he loses, he can appeal again, but it's unlikely he'd get another injunction granted, & he'd likely have to serve his suspension starting in week 8, 9, or 10.  That'd put some/all of the FF playoffs in jeopardy.

Brady's case was decided in 6 weeks because both sides agreed to an expedited process, Brady did not seek an injunction and both sides wanted the case settled before the season started.  Now that the season is underway I don't know that Zeke's side would be in a hurry to get this settled during the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, chet said:

Maybe you should head over to the darling of the first week waiver wire thread.  You and petekrum can discuss why/why not Kupp should be on everyone's roster.  :rolleyes:

There's a very good reason that I rarely venture over here and guys like KingPrawn and petekrum reinforce that decision everytime I read their ####.

Lighten up Francis. Just a little good natured ribbing. Sorry if your feelings got hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, NJ said:

Brady's case was decided in 6 weeks because both sides agreed to an expedited process, Brady did not seek an injunction and both sides wanted the case settled before the season started.  Now that the season is underway I don't know that Zeke's side would be in a hurry to get this settled during the season.

True, but Petersons suit was settled in 8 weeks; there was no expedited process, there, unless I'm mistaken.  

The point is that an injunction likely pushes the possible suspension to later in the season; to avoid losing games near/in the FF playoffs, Zeke owners need the court to overturn the suspension.  The NFL would appeal (because they will not accept defeat until they have to), but that would not be resolved till after the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel Wallach‏ @WALLACHLEGAL  43m43 minutes ago

Expected today: NFLPA to file motion to dismiss NFL's New York lawsuit over Ezekiel Elliott arbitration. Will claim Texas case has priority.

 

Daniel Wallach‏ @WALLACHLEGAL  7m7 minutes ago

With issues fully briefed & extensive oral argument, I expect Judge Mazzant to bypass the TRO and go straight to a preliminary injunction.

 

Daniel Wallach‏ @WALLACHLEGAL  4m4 minutes ago

However, advantage of a TRO is that it's not appealable & Judge Mazzant could then schedule a final hearing on merits w/o CA5 interference.

 

Daniel Wallach‏ @WALLACHLEGAL  19m19 minutes ago

I'm still expecting Judge Mazzant to grant a TRO/PI to Elliott. Based on "fundamental fairness" (no accuser or notes) and hearing comments.

Edited by Mavis
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ESPNs Will Cain is a licensed attorney in Texas and I believe went to Sherman HS. Not a fan of his, but here are his tweets...

 

Will Cain ‏Verified account @willcain  16m16 minutes ago

Talked to longtime Grayson County DA who was in courtroom during Zeke hearing. Said he expects Mazzant to grant Zeke's TRO.

 

Will Cain‏ Verified account @willcain  14m14 minutes ago

Mazzant asked NFL three times how different aspects of the process weren't "unfair". NFL didn't have good answers.

 

Will Cain‏ Verified account @willcain  11m11 minutes ago

Judges can give head fakes, & provide themselves cover by asking tough questions one way before ruling another, but thought was Zeke wins.

 

Will Cain‏ Verified account @willcain  12m12 minutes ago

I think lawyers overvalue thinly sliced nuanced arguments when status quo & power guide decisions. But these lawyers think Zeke wins.

 

Will Cain ‏Verified account @willcain  10m10 minutes ago

Was also told court is busy. Meaning if TRO granted could be awhile before case gets on docket. Meaning Zeke plays for most or all of 2017.

 

Will Cain‏ Verified account @willcain  9m9 minutes ago

And...fwiw (not much)...Mazzant is NOT a Cowboy fan.

Edited by Mavis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Mavis said:

ESPNs Will Cain is a licensed attorney in Texas and I believe went to Sherman HS. Not a fan of his, but here are his tweets...

 

Will Cain ‏Verified account @willcain  16m16 minutes ago

Talked to longtime Grayson County DA who was in courtroom during Zeke hearing. Said he expects Mazzant to grant Zeke's TRO.

 

Will Cain‏ Verified account @willcain  14m14 minutes ago

Mazzant asked NFL three times how different aspects of the process weren't "unfair". NFL didn't have good answers.

 

Will Cain‏ Verified account @willcain  11m11 minutes ago

Judges can give head fakes, & provide themselves cover by asking tough questions one way before ruling another, but thought was Zeke wins.

 

Will Cain‏ Verified account @willcain  12m12 minutes ago

I think lawyers overvalue thinly sliced nuanced arguments when status quo & power guide decisions. But these lawyers think Zeke wins.

 

Will Cain ‏Verified account @willcain  10m10 minutes ago

Was also told court is busy. Meaning if TRO granted could be awhile before case gets on docket. Meaning Zeke plays for most or all of 2017.

 

Will Cain‏ Verified account @willcain  9m9 minutes ago

And...fwiw (not much)...Mazzant is NOT a Cowboy fan.

And fwiw, Cain typically frames his arguments around a predetermined premise.  If something hhappens over the weekend you can pretty easily predict how he is going to weigh in on it on Monday.  He is a huge Cowboy fan.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mavis said:

Will Cain ‏Verified account @willcain  16m16 minutes ago

Talked to longtime Grayson County DA who was in courtroom during Zeke hearing. Said he expects Mazzant to grant Zeke's TRO.

 

Will Cain‏ Verified account @willcain  14m14 minutes ago

Mazzant asked NFL three times how different aspects of the process weren't "unfair". NFL didn't have good answers.

 

Will Cain‏ Verified account @willcain  11m11 minutes ago

Judges can give head fakes, & provide themselves cover by asking tough questions one way before ruling another, but thought was Zeke wins.

It is an act of folly to try to guess how any Judge will rule, so this is all speculation.  My personal opinion is, why not grant the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)?  Who is harmed by it being granted?  If the suspension is ultimately upheld, Elliott will serve out the terms of his suspension, either later this season or in 2018.  Does it really matter?  Why not err on the side of granting a TRO (and perhaps an injunction) and let this play out?  However, the one sticking point for Elliott is that the burden is on him to have exhibited to the Court, at least on a preliminary basis, that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim.  Based on the terms of the CBA and the court precedents, I don't think Elliott ultimately prevails, but the granting of a TRO may depend on the definition of "substantial likelihood" and how that is viewed by the Court in the context of "on a preliminary basis".  Since the TRO is not subject to appeal, the Judge has a very wide latitude to use it as temporary relief here.  If I had to guess, I would guess Judge Mazzant grants Elliott's request for a Temporary Restraining Order, and we revisit this issue again in a couple of weeks.  Again, this is pure speculation.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, socrates said:

It is an act of folly to try to guess how any Judge will rule, so this is all speculation.  My personal opinion is, why not grant the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)?  Who is harmed by it being granted?  If the suspension is ultimately upheld, Elliott will serve out the terms of his suspension, either later this season or in 2018.  Does it really matter?  Why not err on the side of granting a TRO (and perhaps an injunction) and let this play out?  However, the one sticking point for Elliott is that the burden is on him to have exhibited to the Court, at least on a preliminary basis, that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim.  Based on the terms of the CBA and the court precedents, I don't think Elliott ultimately prevails, but the granting of a TRO may depend on the definition of "substantial likelihood" and how that is viewed by the Court in the context of "on a preliminary basis".  Since the TRO is not subject to appeal, the Judge has a very wide latitude to use it as temporary relief here.  If I had to guess, I would guess Judge Mazzant grants Elliott's request for a Temporary Restraining Order, and we revisit this issue again in a couple of weeks.  Again, this is pure speculation.

Don't waste your time.  Will Cain is slightly less objective than Jerry Jones here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, socrates said:

It is an act of folly to try to guess how any Judge will rule, so this is all speculation.  My personal opinion is, why not grant the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)?  Who is harmed by it being granted?  If the suspension is ultimately upheld, Elliott will serve out the terms of his suspension, either later this season or in 2018.  Does it really matter?  Why not err on the side of granting a TRO (and perhaps an injunction) and let this play out?  However, the one sticking point for Elliott is that the burden is on him to have exhibited to the Court, at least on a preliminary basis, that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim.  Based on the terms of the CBA and the court precedents, I don't think Elliott ultimately prevails, but the granting of a TRO may depend on the definition of "substantial likelihood" and how that is viewed by the Court in the context of "on a preliminary basis".  Since the TRO is not subject to appeal, the Judge has a very wide latitude to use it as temporary relief here.  If I had to guess, I would guess Judge Mazzant grants Elliott's request for a Temporary Restraining Order, and we revisit this issue again in a couple of weeks.  Again, this is pure speculation.

It has been often stated that Elliott must show a "substantial likelihood" of success on the merits of his claim (and I repeated that above); however, I am not absolutely certain that is actually the threshold that Elliott must meet.  Is it necessary to show that his likelihood of success is "substantial", or is it only necessary to show that there is "some" likelihood?  What degree of "likelihood" is necessary?

Edited by socrates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slightly off topic, but something popped into my head about this yesterday.  Apparently Kenneth Dixon is serving his 4 game PED related suspension WHILE being on the NFL IR list.  He's serving them concurrently - so that next year he's eligible to return week 1 both healthy (I hope) and not suspended.

How would this apply to Zeke?  Say (God forbid, and I'm saying that as a Redskins fan!), he continues playing due to a TRO or other legal tactic, and gets hurt.  Say it's a 4-5 week kinda thing.  Could he then just give up all the fight on a dime and serve the suspension while missing games anyway due to the injury?

Edited by matttyl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, matttyl said:

Slightly off topic, but something popped into my head about this yesterday.  Apparently Kenneth Dixon is serving his 4 game PED related suspension WHILE being on the NFL IR list.  He's serving them concurrently - so that next year he's eligible to return week 1 both healthy (I hope) and not suspended.

How would this apply to Zeke?  Say (God forbid, and I'm saying that as a Redskins fan!), he continues playing due to a TRO or other legal tactic, and gets hurt.  Say it's a 4-5 week kinda thing.  Could he then just give up all the fight on a dime and serve the suspension while missing games anyway due to the injury?

Yes, I believe that is correct.  Elliott could dismiss his case and serve his suspension while recovering from injury.  However, he would not be paid for those games while he is suspended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, matttyl said:

Slightly off topic, but something popped into my head about this yesterday.  Apparently Kenneth Dixon is serving his 4 game PED related suspension WHILE being on the NFL IR list.  He's serving them concurrently - so that next year he's eligible to return week 1 both healthy (I hope) and not suspended.

How would this apply to Zeke?  Say (God forbid, and I'm saying that as a Redskins fan!), he continues playing due to a TRO or other legal tactic, and gets hurt.  Say it's a 4-5 week kinda thing.  Could he then just give up all the fight on a dime and serve the suspension while missing games anyway due to the injury?

This was already brought up in this thread.  Yes, most likely.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a glutton for drama and headaches apparently.  

Spent just under 21% for Elliot in my auction redraft last night.  There are 2-3 Cowboy fans in the league and I actually was just trying to bid him up but ultimately rolled the dice.  He was the 9th most expensive RB and I the 15th most expensive overall.  PPR but RB heavy scoring FWIW.

Now, I'm invested in this drama.  Let's see how it plays out,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, matttyl said:

Slightly off topic, but something popped into my head about this yesterday.  Apparently Kenneth Dixon is serving his 4 game PED related suspension WHILE being on the NFL IR list.  He's serving them concurrently - so that next year he's eligible to return week 1 both healthy (I hope) and not suspended.

How would this apply to Zeke?  Say (God forbid, and I'm saying that as a Redskins fan!), he continues playing due to a TRO or other legal tactic, and gets hurt.  Say it's a 4-5 week kinda thing.  Could he then just give up all the fight on a dime and serve the suspension while missing games anyway due to the injury?

As several other people have mentioned, he could do that.  However, that's looking at it from a primarily FF-biased point of view.  "Oh, he's gonna be out anyway?  Drop the appeal & serve the suspension while you heal, so I don't lose you for more games than I have to."  In reality, Zeke wants to get as much of his salary as he can & his "reputation" is probably the 2nd most important priority.  Him helping the Cowboys win a SB probably comes third (maybe flip-flop it with his reputation), and helping his FF owners is probably WAY down the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bayhawks said:

As several other people have mentioned, he could do that.  However, that's looking at it from a primarily FF-biased point of view.  "Oh, he's gonna be out anyway?  Drop the appeal & serve the suspension while you heal, so I don't lose you for more games than I have to."  In reality, Zeke wants to get as much of his salary as he can & his "reputation" is probably the 2nd most important priority.  Him helping the Cowboys win a SB probably comes third (maybe flip-flop it with his reputation), and helping his FF owners is probably WAY down the list.

Sorry I missed it before, it's a fast moving thread and I haven't kept completely up with it.  Anyway, if Zeke is out to get as much of his salary as he can - and it's looking like he's going to have to miss 6 games anyway, then he'd want to serve the suspension this year rather than next year (6/16s of $1.58m rather than 6/16s of $2.71m - $593k this year, or over a million if served next year). 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, socrates said:

is an act of folly to try to guess how any Judge will rule, so this is all speculation.  My personal opinion is, why not grant the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)?  ...

This issue reminds me a little bit of some of the past injury threads where FBGs transform into doctors and try to augur the extent of a lis franc injury or how a QB's PCL will affect his throwing. I think this guy Michael McCann has been a pretty good follow on this issue. He says. EE has to run the table to win and the law is stacked against him.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

This issue reminds me a little bit of some of the past injury threads where FBGs transform into doctors and try to augur the extent of a lis franc injury or how a QB's PCL will affect his throwing. I think this guy Michael McCann has been a pretty good follow on this issue. He says. EE has to run the table to win and the law is stacked against him.

While I agree, I will not ever try to predict a judge. I will talk about my beliefs, but guessing what a guy in a black robe will do is not wise.

The guys I shared the links to and even this guy, they all spin it their way a little bit. Cant trust Will Cain, Wallach or this guy regardless of if their right. Someone will be, but thats part of it in the guessing game.

This is for certain, we will know a lot about the process of this depending on how this judge rules. Means the judge thinks its enough up in the air to see time in court, doesnt mean that any party is right or wrong, but that there was enough reason to give pause that this was done correctly, CBA or not.

As some of us have contended, there are terms to procedure, and that Zeke did not get fair procedure. Who are any of us to question this judge in this case who has seen more info than any of us and has more legal expertise than 99.9% of us? I say this before his judgement, because I will also trusts the judges decision either way about how he rules on procedure.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mavis said:

While I agree, I will not ever try to predict a judge. I will talk about my beliefs, but guessing what a guy in a black robe will do is not wise.

The guys I shared the links to and even this guy, they all spin it their way a little bit. Cant trust Will Cain, Wallach or this guy regardless of if their right. Someone will be, but thats part of it in the guessing game.

This is for certain, we will know a lot about the process of this depending on how this judge rules. Means the judge thinks its enough up in the air to see time in court, doesnt mean that any party is right or wrong, but that there was enough reason to give pause that this was done correctly, CBA or not.

As some of us have contended, there are terms to procedure, and that Zeke did not get fair procedure. Who are any of us to question this judge in this case who has seen more info than any of us and has more legal expertise than 99.9% of us? I say this before his judgement, because I will also trusts the judges decision either way about how he rules on procedure.

Fwiw here's McCann's article.

- It's pretty technical but it lays out what must happen to win a full season of EE. 

- I think you make good points and we all know it just depends on the judge. And I like that you're willing to hang your on the judge's decision, I agree. However Goodell has done a lot of unfair things with irrational and oblique procedure. Maybe this time he gets shut down for it, we'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course its all speculation at this point.

Personally, I believe its about 99.999% that Elliot will serve a 6 game suspension.

The only question is when.  Those of us invested in him in redraft are hoping that its pushed to 2018 or begins week 2 to get it over with.  As others have stated, worst case seems to be that its delayed and then is enforced during the stretch run of this FF season.  That would suck......

Edited by VaTerp
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems this guy is the follow, either way you lean.

 

Daniel Wallach‏ @WALLACHLEGAL  6m6 minutes ago

I have @Frank_Cawley's extensive notes from Tuesday's hearing before Judge Mazzant. Without the transcript, this is the next best thing. T/K

 

Daniel Wallach‏ @WALLACHLEGAL  3m3 minutes ago

I'm also in the process of obtaining the transcript from Tuesday's Ezekiel Elliott court hearing. Will have it shortly. Stay tuned.

Edited by Mavis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

This issue reminds me a little bit of some of the past injury threads where FBGs transform into doctors and try to augur the extent of a lis franc injury or how a QB's PCL will affect his throwing. I think this guy Michael McCann has been a pretty good follow on this issue. He says. EE has to run the table to win and the law is stacked against him.

McCann repeats the standard of "substantial likelihood"

Quote

Michael McCann @McCannSportsLaw·36m

Replying to @D_Ricker81 and @fxcant

Technically he must show he has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, but sometimes judges use TROs to get more time to review.

I have seen the standard listed both ways, as "substantial likelihood" and "likelihood of success".

I agree with McCann's take on this:

Quote

Michael McCann @McCannSportsLaw·45m

Replying to @D_Ricker81 and @fxcant

I think ultimately Elliott serves the 6-game suspension. The law is stacked against him. But when he'll serve it is much harder to predict.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa, the judge statement seems huge now that I see it as a quote.

 

Daniel Wallach‏ @WALLACHLEGAL  13s13 seconds ago

Kessler: "Not all cases require the right to confront the accuser, but this one does" (from Tuesday's hearing) h/t @Frank_Cawley

 

Daniel Wallach‏ @WALLACHLEGAL  1m1 minute ago

Judge Mazzano: "Issue is not credibility, but fundamental fairness" (from Tuesday's hearing) h/t @Frank_Cawley

 

Daniel Wallach‏ @WALLACHLEGAL  2m2 minutes ago

Judge Mazzano: "Wouldn't you agree that the alleged procedural errors are done and there's nothing left to be deciced on those issues."

 

Daniel Wallach‏ @WALLACHLEGAL  27s28 seconds ago

NFL attorney to Judge Mazzant: The "possibility" of victory undermines irreparable harm Judge Mazzant: "You can't fix procedural errors"

Edited by Mavis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank Cawley‏ @Frank_Cawley  41m41 minutes ago

NFLPA co-lead counsel Tom Melsheimer is currently involved in a two-week trial in Judge Mazzant's court.

 

Frank Cawley‏ @Frank_Cawley  40m40 minutes ago

His familiarity with Judge Mazzant undoubtedly factored into where case was filed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Joe Bryant changed the title to RB Ezekiel Elliott, DAL

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...