Jump to content

Around the NFC East


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Woz said:

Because it isn't against the rules of the game, and it isn't damaging the shield as much as say beating your wife?

Its still damaging to the shield. I think the only reason he hasn't gotten punished is that Mara owns the Jints

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Thaiphoon said:

Its still damaging to the shield. I think the only reason he hasn't gotten punished is that Mara owns the Jints

Not to the same degree, though. It's minor grade in comparison to some of the bigger issues the NFL has had of late.

However, the fact he's with the Giants probably doesn't hurt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Woz said:

Not to the same degree, though. It's minor grade in comparison to some of the bigger issues the NFL has had of late.

However, the fact he's with the Giants probably doesn't hurt.

I don't disagree its minor. Its why I don't expect a suspension. A lesser punishment, maybe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ezekiel Elliot suspended 6 games by the NFL for domestic violence. So, it appeares that Morris & McFaden are going to get a lot of run the first 6 games for the Cowboys.

I'm sure Elliot will appeal though, so his suspension may get reduced to 4 games in the end. I guess that's a wait and see.

The Cowboys offense will be greatly affected without Elliot running the ball. I'm sure it will affect Dak & the passing game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeezy Fanatic said:

Objectively I kind of think 6 games seems like too much. Hopefully it's a wake up call for him to stop doing dumb stuff.

 

biasedly, screw him, it's not enough games

Apparently Elliot's representatives are pointing out that the accuser admitted they were lying about the whole thing. If this is true, the NFL is really going to lose a lot more credibility - not that they have much to begin with on issues like this - suspending players before they've been convicted of anything is never something I've been an advocate for.  

Edited by turtle28
Link to post
Share on other sites

Matthews is out of Philly but they got Ronald Darby at CB. 

Glad about this for this season. Jeffrey may not play all 16 and Torrey Smith is all but washed out. Wentz is not everything people are expecting him to be. I think his slump hits them hard this season. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2017 at 11:13 PM, Thaiphoon said:

Turtle - you don't have to be convicted of a crime to get fired or punished at work. 

Right, but if you get accused of something and it turns out to not be true you should get your job back and get back pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, turtle28 said:

Right, but if you get accused of something and it turns out to not be true you should get your job back and get back pay.

Except that it hasn't been proven to not be true.

Draw a distinction between the standards of proof in criminal (beyond reasonable doubt) and civil cases (preponderance of evidence) as well as the standards of proof that the NFL is going to need (much lower).

The fact that the prosecutors didn't bring charges (which is what happened, he wasn't charged and didn't face court) is immaterial to the punishments are meted out by the NFL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2017 at 1:04 PM, mike23md said:

Matthews is out of Philly but they got Ronald Darby at CB. 

Glad about this for this season. Jeffrey may not play all 16 and Torrey Smith is all but washed out. Wentz is not everything people are expecting him to be. I think his slump hits them hard this season. 

Yeah I definitely agree. Phila is always overhyped so much and I just never get it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Thaiphoon said:

Except that it hasn't been proven to not be true.

Draw a distinction between the standards of proof in criminal (beyond reasonable doubt) and civil cases (preponderance of evidence) as well as the standards of proof that the NFL is going to need (much lower).

The fact that the prosecutors didn't bring charges (which is what happened, he wasn't charged and didn't face court) is immaterial to the punishments are meted out by the NFL.

Well I don't agree with that. I think it's a bunch of crap that players can get suspended if they're not convicted of anything. It just seems to go against the fabric of our society.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, turtle28 said:

Well I don't agree with that. I think it's a bunch of crap that players can get suspended if they're not convicted of anything. It just seems to go against the fabric of our society.

Give you an example of how I can be fired or punished without committing a crime.

 

Let's say I work for PepsiCo. If I go around telling everyone that Pepsi sucks and Coke is much better, I have committed no crime. I have not been convicted of anything. However, what I'm doing is detrimental to the brand. Detrimental to the company. So PepsiCo would be well within their rights to punish me up to and including termination.

In Zeke's case, he got the MOST lenient penalty that is called for under the CBA in regards to DV. The least severe punishment is a 6 game suspension. However, even if its the first time, the punishment could be MUCH harsher. Zeke literally got the minimum here. And I think that has more to do with the first time nature as well as the fact that he wasn't charged. However, the NFL still has to do something to protect their brand. Just like PepsiCo would need to in my example.

Link to post
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.   Paste as plain text instead

  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...