What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

WR Tyreek Hill, MIA (5 Viewers)

from another poster on another forum:

I’ve worked with the KVC which is the hospital that has the foster care contract with the state of Kansas. They’re constantly over flowing with displaced kids (to the point that they were housing them in their corporate offices resulting in another interesting/tragic story the KC star broke). Point being, they show a lot of discretion before removing a kid from a home because they don’t have the capacity to safely home them in the foster care system.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ffmail4me said:
Sound logic here. Plus we still don't know which parent broke the arm of the child or how it happened. But while I won't be surprised if he's punished, the talk of a permanent ban seems absurd to me. 
Click to expand...
I mean I guess you could say its either parent since theres no video but you have to believe of the two Tyreek is the far more likely. Like 99% to 1% more likely. Shes an elementary school teacher, he's well............

 
ffmail4me said:
Sound logic here. Plus we still don't know which parent broke the arm of the child or how it happened. But while I won't be surprised if he's punished, the talk of a permanent ban seems absurd to me. 
Click to expand...
The permanent ban may be unlikely, but this is a repeat offender and a child with a broken bone.  Even if the NFL does not ban him, he could potentially be un-hireable due to the social ramifications.  Probably not, since he is so talented (AP) and talent does make NFL personnel and fans forgive easier, but if what he did is as awful as what we are thinking it may have been, I would not rule out the possibility that he never sees an NFL field again.  I do agree that is unlikely though.  I dont think a full year off is unlikely at this point though.  Depends what facts come to light - or circumstantial evidence that the NFL spins as facts.

 
Good point.  most elementary teachers don’t beat up kids 😉 although some of these high teachers beat off...oh never mind 😁

 
ChuckLiddell said:
The permanent ban may be unlikely, but this is a repeat offender and a child with a broken bone.  Even if the NFL does not ban him, he could potentially be un-hireable due to the social ramifications.  Probably not, since he is so talented (AP) and talent does make NFL personnel and fans forgive easier, but if what he did is as awful as what we are thinking it may have been, I would not rule out the possibility that he never sees an NFL field again.  I do agree that is unlikely though.  I dont think a full year off is unlikely at this point though.  Depends what facts come to light - or circumstantial evidence that the NFL spins as facts.
Click to expand...
He's playing in the NFL again if he's not charged or there isn't any video that pops up. The question is where and if he's playing this year. 

I'm still thinking he's a chief if there is no serious evidence pointing to him breaking his kids arm. The chiefs know what happened unless he lied to them which he knows what happened to Hunt when they found out Hunt lied. He told them the truth or a lie they can't catch him in. 

The chiefs didn't cut Hunt until they found out he lied. Tyreek is twice as valuable as Hunt too. I think they stick by him because there is no video and his fiancee and him have a) a true plausible explanation b) lying their asses off but can't be caught in said lie. 

He gets a year suspension at most and no suspension at best. 

I'm no expert but I'm going to guess the kid is returned to the home in the next couple months and Hill serves a 2-4 game suspension because the NFL simply can't figure what happen or the fiancee takes the blame. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FreeBaGeL said:
Tyreek's history, the NFL's ever tightening moral stance, an actual broken bone, etc. 
Click to expand...
Also, disciplining a child with a switch, although I am disgusted by it, is different than losing one's patience and breaking the kid's arm in a fit of anger. Not saying that is what happened, could have been an accident, and could have been someone else not Tyreek.  But in no realm of reality is breaking an arm considered a form of discipline, whereas the switch is. If this case with Hill is a case of a parent losing their cool, then that is 100 times worse than a controlled disciplinary action (that sucks).  So I absolutely could see Hill getting a worse punishment than AP.

Again, acknowledging we're putting the cart before the horse because we don't know just what happened yet. 

 
Why would Hill not be mentioned on the second police report if they were investigating if he broke his sons arm?

 
What if the fiancee says the child broke his arm falling down the stairs or maybe some weird accident where the parents and kids were running around the house rough housing. 

Does Hill get suspended for a year for that? Even if it's a lie but both parents are saying that's what happened. 

 
Milkman said:
What if the fiancee says the child broke his arm falling down the stairs or maybe some weird accident where the parents and kids were running around the house rough housing. 

Does Hill get suspended for a year for that? Even if it's a lie but both parents are saying that's what happened. 
Click to expand...
Well there is obviously some other piece to the puzzle floating around out there or else there never would have been an investigation in the first place.  So either a doctor said the kid's injuries weren't consistent with their story, or Espinal said Hill broke the arm originally and then changed her story, or the kid said that one of the parents did it, or there was a witness that said abuse was involved, or something else.

If the kid just broke his arm and everyone said he fell down the stairs then the investigation never would have happened.  So obviously that ship has already sailed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Milkman said:
Why would Hill not be mentioned on the second police report if they were investigating if he broke his sons arm?
Click to expand...
I've been reading your comments in this thread for some time and it appears that you are having a difficult time understanding that there's a difference between the police department and CPS.

 
Milkman said:
What if the fiancee says the child broke his arm falling down the stairs or maybe some weird accident where the parents and kids were running around the house rough housing. 

Does Hill get suspended for a year for that? Even if it's a lie but both parents are saying that's what happened. 
Click to expand...
Doubt they are pulling the kid from the home for that. Word around the campfire was that it was a spiral fracture. Can usually tell if it appears to be from abuse. Kid is what? 4 years old? Im sure they asked him how his arm was broken. She reportedly also told some stories when she left him for a short while not long ago.

 
tangfoot said:
I've been reading your comments in this thread for some time and it appears that you are having a difficult time understanding that there's a difference between the police department and CPS.
Click to expand...
His name isn't on the court records either. 

 
Milkman said:
Why would Hill not be mentioned on the second police report if they were investigating if he broke his sons arm?
Click to expand...
We only saw the first page of the police reports. He could have been mentioned within, all details are within. She could have been covering for him with the second report. Who knows.

 
Milkman said:
I'm still thinking he's a chief if there is no serious evidence pointing to him breaking his kids arm. The chiefs know what happened unless he lied to them which he knows what happened to Hunt when they found out Hunt lied. He told them the truth or a lie they can't catch him in. 

The chiefs didn't cut Hunt until they found out he lied. Tyreek is twice as valuable as Hunt too. I think they stick by him because there is no video and his fiancee and him have a) a true plausible explanation b) lying their asses off but can't be caught in said lie. 
Click to expand...
I think this is giving Tyreek's reasoning ability a lot more credit than he deserves and the Chief's decision making so black and white.  I'm not saying it's not true, just that I believe one of the following to be more likely:

1. Tyreek was honest with KC about the situation, it's as bad as we thought, but there isn't video or other evidence to prove that he did it.  KC and Tyreek keep their mouths shut, nobody is the wiser.

2. Tyreek lies about the situation, KC realizes he is lying or doesn't care to verify if he's lying or not.  All they care about is if he's charged or if there is some kind of evidence that can be put into public light verifying if he did it.  Status quo until such information is made public.

Again, these are my opinions on the matter, right or wrong, fair or not.

barackdhouse said:
Also, disciplining a child with a switch, although I am disgusted by it, is different than losing one's patience and breaking the kid's arm in a fit of anger. Not saying that is what happened, could have been an accident, and could have been someone else not Tyreek.  But in no realm of reality is breaking an arm considered a form of discipline, whereas the switch is. If this case with Hill is a case of a parent losing their cool, then that is 100 times worse than a controlled disciplinary action (that sucks).  So I absolutely could see Hill getting a worse punishment than AP.

Again, acknowledging we're putting the cart before the horse because we don't know just what happened yet. 
Click to expand...
AP's disciplinary action included intensive beating of the genitals with said switch, which I think is no better than breaking an arm, IMO.  I also doubt if the disciplinary action was actually controlled.  If it had been a thicker switch and had broken a bone, would you consider them equally as heinous?

 
FreeBaGeL said:
Well there is obviously some other piece to the puzzle floating around out there or else there never would have been an investigation in the first place.  So either a doctor said the kid's injuries weren't consistent with their story, or Espinal said Hill broke the arm originally and then changed her story, or the kid said that one of the parents did it, or there was a witness that said abuse was involved, or something else.

If the kid just broke his arm and everyone said he fell down the stairs then the investigation never would have happened.  So obviously that ship has already sailed.
Click to expand...
Can you imagine Tyreek Hill coming into a predominantly white upscale hospital with his gold teeth (he's doesn't talk real well either just saying) and dressed out like a thug with a 3 year old child that has a broken arm. I'm not real big into conspiracy theories of racism but it does happen. Then you take his history into account. 

There's just something about this case that doesn't make sense. The Chiefs would have cut him already if it was clear he broke his childs arm in anger given his and the NFLs history but here we are 45 days later and he's still a chief and his name is still not on the report. 

His fiancees parents don't like him either. Who can blame them after what he did to her but I heard it's because he won't marry her. They've been engaged for what? 5 years?

 
Maven25 said:
I think this is giving Tyreek's reasoning ability a lot more credit than he deserves and the Chief's decision making so black and white.  I'm not saying it's not true, just that I believe one of the following to be more likely:

1. Tyreek was honest with KC about the situation, it's as bad as we thought, but there isn't video or other evidence to prove that he did it.  KC and Tyreek keep their mouths shut, nobody is the wiser.

2. Tyreek lies about the situation, KC realizes he is lying or doesn't care to verify if he's lying or not.  All they care about is if he's charged or if there is some kind of evidence that can be put into public light verifying if he did it.  Status quo until such information is made public.

Again, these are my opinions on the matter, right or wrong, fair or not.

AP's disciplinary action included intensive beating of the genitals with said switch, which I think is no better than breaking an arm, IMO.  I also doubt if the disciplinary action was actually controlled.  If it had been a thicker switch and had broken a bone, would you consider them equally as heinous?
Click to expand...
It seems the Chiefs want an excuse to keep him. They think they have one or they would have cut him already. 

If they keep him and he plays at some point this year he's seriously undervalued right now. 

 
Maven25 said:
AP's disciplinary action included intensive beating of the genitals with said switch, which I think is no better than breaking an arm, IMO.  I also doubt if the disciplinary action was actually controlled.  If it had been a thicker switch and had broken a bone, would you consider them equally as heinous?
Click to expand...
On the first bolded I may have had my story wrong about AP - I had heard it that one or more of the strikes had accidentally caught some of the genitals and drew blood there, but that it was *not* intentional. Other than to say that the disciplinary act was intentional, again as I understood the story, and not emotionally driven. But perhaps I heard the story the wrong way. If it was an emotional outburst on AP's part, then yes I would concede the overall point.  If Hill broke his kid's arm, I think we know for sure it was an emotional angry outburst. And I think there is a large difference between a conscious decision to discipline a child (in a diabolical and heinous fashion, IMO) and losing one's patience and acting violently on emotion. 

If there is truth to what I'm trying to say here, then Hill could absolutely get much worse than AP. But if I have the facts of the AP story wrong, then yeah I guess his story would be a good precedent example. I know a lot of people outside of FF forums weren't bothered by AP using a switch. They will be bothered by Hill if it goes down that way.

 
Milkman said:
It seems the Chiefs want an excuse to keep him. They think they have one or they would have cut him already. 

If they keep him and he plays at some point this year he's seriously undervalued right now. 
Click to expand...
Absolutely.  He's definitely shown his talent and ability.  Barring any evidence being brought to light, I don't think they move on.

 
Milkman said:
The chiefs didn't cut Hunt until they found out he lied. 
Click to expand...
I would argue that him lying was a convenient excuse for why they didn't cut him earlier.  It seems likely that they cut him once there was no longer any plausible deniability regarding what he did, and knew full he was lying long before he was cut... And of course the bad PR associated with video.  If they didn't know he was lying before the video, they were most likely willfully ignorant of it. 

This isn't Cheifs specific, every team would do the same. 

It's all about the optics.  These teams will do whatever it takes to win, unless the PR gets too bad. 

 
kittenmittens said:
I would argue that him lying was a convenient excuse for why they didn't cut him earlier.  It seems likely that they cut him once there was no longer any plausible deniability regarding what he did, and knew full he was lying long before he was cut... And of course the bad PR associated with video.  If they didn't know he was lying before the video, they were most likely willfully ignorant of it. 

This isn't Cheifs specific, every team would do the same. 

It's all about the optics.  These teams will do whatever it takes to win, unless the PR gets too bad. 
Click to expand...
So the real question is with

No charges 

No video

Fiancee and Hill both denying 

The child is placed back in the home

Do the Chiefs cut him?

 
barackdhouse said:
On the first bolded I may have had my story wrong about AP - I had heard it that one or more of the strikes had accidentally caught some of the genitals and drew blood there, but that it was *not* intentional. Other than to say that the disciplinary act was intentional, again as I understood the story, and not emotionally driven. But perhaps I heard the story the wrong way. If it was an emotional outburst on AP's part, then yes I would concede the overall point.  If Hill broke his kid's arm, I think we know for sure it was an emotional angry outburst. And I think there is a large difference between a conscious decision to discipline a child (in a diabolical and heinous fashion, IMO) and losing one's patience and acting violently on emotion. 

If there is truth to what I'm trying to say here, then Hill could absolutely get much worse than AP. But if I have the facts of the AP story wrong, then yeah I guess his story would be a good precedent example. I know a lot of people outside of FF forums weren't bothered by AP using a switch. They will be bothered by Hill if it goes down that way.
Click to expand...
You make very good points.  I apologize if it came across brash, I think both are incredibly sad events (if true with Tyreek).  I just wanted to make it clear I personally don't think AP's situation is necessarily "less bad."  I do think the punishment will be more harsh for Tyreek if the evidence is there (convicted or not) to indicate he is guilty.  Similar to how Ray Rice's initial punishment was light and later changed, the NFL seems to be gauging punishment levels that satisfy the perceived public outry.

ETA: and by NFL, I mean Roger Goodell

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Milkman said:
Does anybody think the Chiefs don't know what happened yet? 
Click to expand...
:hey:

I’m of the opinion that the only people who will ever truly “know what happened” are the kid and whomever was with him at the time.  

I expect the Chiefs and NFL know about as much as the police and CPS do, and will eventually act based on that.  But that knowledge is going to be limited (and in some cases inferential) and may or may not be an accurate understanding of what actually happened.

 
Arodin said:
:hey:

I’m of the opinion that the only people who will ever truly “know what happened” are the kid and whomever was with him at the time.  

I expect the Chiefs and NFL know about as much as the police and CPS do, and will eventually act based on that.  But that knowledge is going to be limited (and in some cases inferential) and may or may not be an accurate understanding of what actually happened.
Click to expand...
Do the Chiefs have the police reports?

 
menobrown said:
They took his kid from his home on April 5th. If it was as many of you say doom and gloom the Chiefs would have cut him or told him to stay home. There was a lot of speculation before we knew his kid was removed from his home if he would show up for Chiefs OTA's and fact he did, and Chiefs allowed him to about 10 days after his kid was taken should be a sign that just because it happened it's not the end for him.

Regarding the bolded that is exactly what I was arguing yesterday which you I believe told me to calm down and just listen to the social worker from another state and another guy is putting words in my mouth saying I'm saying it's no big deal-this despite it being me who actually posted the link in here of his kid being removed from his him because I thought it was in fact a newsworthy item and a  big deal.

This should not so complicated so let me try again. Ever since this story broke I've been concerned. I've done several redrafts since and can't believe people keep taking him in top 30, I"d not touch him until  around player 60 at best. This is a major concern and his child being removed was a negative blow. What it does not mean however is case closed, it's just further cause for concern.  His workout video where he acted like nothing was wrong, showing up to Chiefs practice was something in the positive direction but his child getting removed was the worst news I've heard since this story broke but it does not mean he's getting charged with a crime, cut or suspended.  These things might happen, no one knows.
Click to expand...


Time after time you seem to have facts that no one else seems to.  It sure would be great if you were right more often.

 
I expect the Cheifs to do that same as they did with Hunt.  Once the negative PR side of the equation outweighs the helping them win side of the equation they will act. 

 
matttyl said:
But just want to be sure I understand what the judge is really saying, or I guess has already said.  Is he saying that the kid can't be around...

1) T Hill himself, the person.

or

2) the home that T Hill (and apparently others) lives in.

Are we already calling Hill the "offending parent", as posts on the last page or so refer to it?
Click to expand...
It is often times a lazy phrase in child services that we had to remove a child from a home.

What child services, and the judges that reassure those decisions, are doing is removing the child from a person.  They don't order children away from a location.

 
Maven25 said:
You make very good points.  I apologize if it came across brash, I think both are incredibly sad events (if true with Tyreek).  I just wanted to make it clear I personally don't think AP's situation is necessarily "less bad."  I do think the punishment will be more harsh for Tyreek if the evidence is there (convicted or not) to indicate he is guilty.  Similar to how Ray Rice's initial punishment was light and later changed, the NFL seems to be gauging punishment levels that satisfy the perceived public outry.

ETA: and by NFL, I mean Roger Goodell
Click to expand...
Oh no no not at all. It's a rough topic. 

 
smbkrypt24 said:
We have had talks before, but this is not smoke without flame.  If Goodell has any insight on what this means from child services perspective this would equal some type of suspension or exempt list status.  

Child services may not be able to pin it on T. Hill himself, but they (child services and a court system) are saying the child is not safe in his home.  Think about that.  
Click to expand...
Goodell doesn't care what it means from child services perspective.  Goodell cares what it means from an optics perspective.  If there's no video or eyewitness accusations Hill will be fine.

 
Bronco Billy said:
Well, KC released Hunt with no regard to the magnitude or circumstances involved.  Should we now expect them to do the same with Hill, or is child abuse not as egregious?  Does Hill now get placed on the Commissioners Exempt list for an extended period while the investigation ensues?
Click to expand...
The exempt list is used to keep him off the field (and as a result on TV) when it's necessary to gain more information - i.e. during the season.  There' no real need to put him on that list at this point.

 
Slider said:
Pretty sure Hunt was cut because he lied to them about his situation.
Click to expand...
Sure he was.  They totally still would have cut him had they found out he lied about it but there was no video and only the Chiefs knew.  I just don't believe it. 

Obviously that was excellent PR maneuvering by the Chiefs since people keep repeating that and many seem to believe it.  They should sell a few bridges while they are at it, IMO. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, didn’t need that Twitter video to know that Tyreek has a ten cent brain.  But that certainly provided confirmation, no doubt.

 
Tyreeks a dirtbag but it looked like he was playing along in that video. Meant to run him down and dive at his feet to play it up. Unintentionally caught his foot. 

 
fruity pebbles said:
Tyreeks a dirtbag but it looked like he was playing along in that video. Meant to run him down and dive at his feet to play it up. Unintentionally caught his foot. 
Click to expand...
If that was the case and it might be, I’m wondering why the dad of the kid didn’t say that in his comments when he posted the video, instead the dad used the term “real classy”, which seems that the dad wasn’t too happy with Tyreek.

 
Yeah I'm all for Tyreek bashing but that looked like an accident.  He was even throwing his arms up to celebrate a second before he dove/fell.

Makes no sense that he would run down there celebrating then make a sudden heel turn and tackle his own player that he was just celebrating with.

 
Kevrunner said:
If that was the case and it might be, I’m wondering why the dad of the kid didn’t say that in his comments when he posted the video, instead the dad used the term “real classy”, which seems that the dad wasn’t too happy with Tyreek.
Click to expand...
Can be both. Dad pissed but still not what Tyreek had planned. 

 
The dad is more angry than I realized, I went back to watch the video again, and also read the exact words the father uses.  I just can’t understand why the dad posted something like that against Tyreek.  The only explanation that makes any kind of sense is that this isn’t really the kid’s father who posted the video but someone else who is a Tyreek hater. 

The dad is wanting Tyreek to loose his livelihood and get cut by the Chiefs.   Tyreek volunteered to participate in this event, a very unselfish act.   For Tyreek to give up his own time, time he could be spending with his family, just can’t for the life of me see how a father would be this angry if there was any chance he thought this was an accident. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
good lord. 

i accidentally tackled a neighbor kid during flag football practice one time. 

stuff happens. 

granted, Hill is probably slightly more athletic than i am, but still.  

 
Kevrunner said:
If that was the case and it might be, I’m wondering why the dad of the kid didn’t say that in his comments when he posted the video, instead the dad used the term “real classy”, which seems that the dad wasn’t too happy with Tyreek.
Click to expand...
Am I reading the date correctly in that it took two months for the guy to post his “outrage”?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

barackdhouse
My own Top 5 worst & best preseason takes
Replies
25
Views
851
rockaction
rockaction
Ministry of Pain
How can an NFL team have WR be their No 1/2/3 priority when you just watched the Chiefs win B2B Super Bowls without them?
2
Replies
55
Views
1K
FairWarning
FairWarning
Panda13
Having 2 WR on the same team (Hill/Waddle)
2
Replies
79
Views
3K
JohnnyU
JohnnyU

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Top