Raiders officially release Antonio Brown

[Cheesehawk]

9 minutes ago, Big Snack said:

well that was fun. see everyone back here for week 1 when the next self induced drama scene dominates the raiders season

Bold of you to assume we wont hear more of this saga for another 2 weeks. 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

1 hour ago, TXsteeler said:

Man AB was 100% going towards being considered a consensus top 2 all time WR with a chance at superseding Rice in at least some people's minds.

It's like that wasn't enough and now he has to pass TO and Moss for biggest Diva WR of all time.

And those people would be nutty. 

Edited August 20, 2019 by PapaShogun

[VigilantZombie]

In ABs mind he is already better than Rice.

[Steelersfan43]

2 minutes ago, wwhickok said:

In ABs mind he is already better than Rice.

And this is his goal(to beat Rice for his stats)

https://www.dkpittsburghsports.com/2019/05/31/antonio-brown-jerry-rice-video-steelers-raiders-dk/

 

[RaidersAreOne]

 

[RaidersAreOne]

3 minutes ago, Steelersfan43 said:

And this is his goal(to beat Rice for his stats)

https://www.dkpittsburghsports.com/2019/05/31/antonio-brown-jerry-rice-video-steelers-raiders-dk/

I remember reading AB is only slightly behind Rice was at at his age. 

[VigilantZombie]

1 minute ago, RaidersAreOne said:

 

Resolution? When the NFL and Arbitrator tell him to stop being a whiny B.. his tantrum is gonna start all over again 

[VigilantZombie]

1 minute ago, RaidersAreOne said:

I remember reading AB is only slightly behind Rice was at at his age. 

And Rice was a good teammate.

[Soko]

31 minutes ago, BayRaider said:

Obviously I think the helmet thing is ridiculous overall and AB is blowing it way out proportion, but why is he not getting a one year grace period like Rodgers and Brady got?

That makes sense on paper - other players got a year grace period after their ban, AB’s helmet gets banned officially in 19’, so he deserves a grace period as well. 

I don’t have a ton of knowledge on the subject, but from what I’ve seen in limited time on google, the NFL can simply word their statement as: we gave all players one year (from the official ban in 18) until they have to use one of the approved helmets. A phrase with that effect - that makes it less about the time of the ban + a year, and more about having until 2019 to use an approved helmet - would pretty much squash AB’s only argument. 

There’s probably a tweet or official message that I haven’t read and am missing, but it seems like the NFL would have an easy case against this appeal if they worded things a certain way. 

[y*so*blu]

2 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

Christ that's impressive, Blu. What were you drinking?! Must be that bud stuff people call beer. 

Here would be my attempt after several crafties;

 

I'd dposng drnk right nw anI'm petty sure I can stil vocus better than a sobr AV. What's this guys deal% The leegaue requiing the new helmets cz they want to pprotectyour brain, dude. 

Two Angry Orchards, a pitcher of strawberry margaritas, and enough vodka to get me the rest of the way. Still insisted on typing correctly for some reason ... I blame my Minnesotan uptight-ness. 

[TXsteeler]

1 hour ago, PapaShogun said:

And those people would be nutty. 

Before AB started going crazy he was on pace to beat Rice's records and was considered a standup guy, while in the middle of one of the most dominant stretches of NFL history across any position.

Now though...

[RaidersAreOne]

 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

7 hours ago, TXsteeler said:

Before AB started going crazy he was on pace to beat Rice's records and was considered a standup guy, while in the middle of one of the most dominant stretches of NFL history across any position.

Now though...

Was never gonna beat Rice in touchdowns.

Edited August 21, 2019 by PapaShogun

[jebrick]

16 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

That makes sense on paper - other players got a year grace period after their ban, AB’s helmet gets banned officially in 19’, so he deserves a grace period as well. 

I don’t have a ton of knowledge on the subject, but from what I’ve seen in limited time on google, the NFL can simply word their statement as: we gave all players one year (from the official ban in 18) until they have to use one of the approved helmets. A phrase with that effect - that makes it less about the time of the ban + a year, and more about having until 2019 to use an approved helmet - would pretty much squash AB’s only argument. 

There’s probably a tweet or official message that I haven’t read and am missing, but it seems like the NFL would have an easy case against this appeal if they worded things a certain way. 

He got the same 1 year as Brady and Rogers and the 30 other players. Last season was the extension for those 33 players.   Just because he was too busy on his social media to read the rules is not a NFL problem

[Soko]

9 minutes ago, jebrick said:

He got the same 1 year as Brady and Rogers and the 30 other players. Last season was the extension for those 33 players.   Just because he was too busy on his social media to read the rules is not a NFL problem

No, because his helmet wasn’t technically on the “banned list” since it didn’t get tested until just recently. Once the other players’ helmets got on the banned list, they got a year grace period. That’s what Brown wants. 

But yeah, all the NFL would have to do is say that the players were given until 2019 to use one of the approved helmets (worded specifically that way, opposed to not using one of the banned helmets) and then Brown loses his argument.