Jump to content

The Reuben Foster Legal File Thread


J-ALL-DAY

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Uncle_Rico said:

I appreciate this line of thinking, I really do. It's quite possibly the best way to prevent future domestic violence.

But the other side is that from here on if you draft anyone that you've committed to supporting the precedent has been set that they are allowed one domestic violence incident while maintaining the support of the organization. If not then you are offering differing levels of support to different players and probably because of talent level. And then the players know that as an organization you're only willing to make exceptions to the most talented players because you really care more about winning than actually helping them get better as individuals. 

It's a tricky situation and I don't know all the answers but I think as an organization there should be specific issues (domestic violence and sexual assault to name a couple) that are not in any way tolerated. And any player who gets involved in that type of situation is putting themselves at risk of losing their job and being a part of what the Niners are building. 

Again, all of this being said we're still finding out what happened in Reuben's case and he is presumed innocent until details come out to the contrary.

 

Except no one here is presuming he is innocent or giving him the benefit of the doubt. I don’t doubt that he put himself in a bad situation, but we’ve seen a number of situations in recent years of false reports, or at least reports that didn’t turn into charges, against a number of our players (Crabtree and Kap are two that stand out). Foster is immature no doubt and that was one of my big turnoffs towards him going into the draft, but I really think we need to wait until the facts come out before making any big moves. We can sit here and speculate based on the comments his girlfriend made all day, but how do we know that anything she said was true? What is her credibility? It’s entirely possible she was in the wrong and physically engaged him. I’m not saying one way or the other, just that we need to wait for the facts to come out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Uncle_Rico said:

I appreciate this line of thinking, I really do. It's quite possibly the best way to prevent future domestic violence.

But the other side is that from here on if you draft anyone that you've committed to supporting the precedent has been set that they are allowed one domestic violence incident while maintaining the support of the organization. If not then you are offering differing levels of support to different players and probably because of talent level. And then the players know that as an organization you're only willing to make exceptions to the most talented players because you really care more about winning than actually helping them get better as individuals. 

It's a tricky situation and I don't know all the answers but I think as an organization there should be specific issues (domestic violence and sexual assault to name a couple) that are not in any way tolerated. And any player who gets involved in that type of situation is putting themselves at risk of losing their job and being a part of what the Niners are building. 

Again, all of this being said we're still finding out what happened in Reuben's case and he is presumed innocent until details come out to the contrary.

 

Personally, I think they took a shot. I also think Lynch will hesitate a lot more now to draft guys with a background. Maybe not until we build a stronger locker room, or better organizational resources to surround players. Even if we try to avoid drafting guys with risk of arrests, it will happen anyway, so the resources are needed either way. I would probably be a hypocrite if I said we should do that for everyone, not only our first rounders, or our most talented players. If it happened to Cole Hikutini, I wouldn't waste energy and I'd probably say cut him. Then again, I feel like it shouldn't be assessed based on talent, but rather on time. Had Reuben been here for many years and had multiple issues over the years, I'd say cut him. But the fact is, Lynch said he would support him and surround him with resources not even 10 months ago. As a GM, if you give up on a player you publicly vouched for not even a year in, that's not really a strong message, in my opinion. But really, you can't really go all that wrong in this situation. Either you keep Foster and fulfill your promise to help him, or you cut him and say that you simply cannot condone any instance of DV.

Although it does appear like Foster has been very cooperative and the story isn't too bad overall. So who knows what happens. I'm fine with any the front office does, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, rudyZ said:

 

Although it does appear like Foster has been very cooperative and the story isn't too bad overall. So who knows what happens. I'm fine with any the front office does, really.

I said it earlier...it's just kind of meh. We all know that different rules apply in different situations, and it's not like any of us really have a say in the matter. I traded him in the mock draft because I don't care to see him turn it around, and given that it's just a one year league, he really doesn't help much if he's suspended for at least 6 of the games lol. But I don't have to like the guy to love the 49ers. I stopped really caring about the players individually a long time ago. I know how the game works, and I understand it. I don't have to like it, but again, it's just the way it is. The game is entertainment for me and nothing more. To me what matters is having fun watching the games, having fun talking about it with great people, etc. It's not like I'm carrying the weight of any decision the team makes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gore Whore 21 said:

Except no one here is presuming he is innocent or giving him the benefit of the doubt. I don’t doubt that he put himself in a bad situation, but we’ve seen a number of situations in recent years of false reports, or at least reports that didn’t turn into charges, against a number of our players (Crabtree and Kap are two that stand out). Foster is immature no doubt and that was one of my big turnoffs towards him going into the draft, but I really think we need to wait until the facts come out before making any big moves. We can sit here and speculate based on the comments his girlfriend made all day, but how do we know that anything she said was true? What is her credibility? It’s entirely possible she was in the wrong and physically engaged him. I’m not saying one way or the other, just that we need to wait for the facts to come out. 

There are a few of us here expressing that opinion. I literally posted innocent until proven guilty in all caps a couple pages ago, but we are in the minority on this page and especially in society in general at the moment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, N4L said:

There are a few of us here expressing that opinion. I literally posted innocent until proven guilty in all caps a couple pages ago, but we are in the minority on this page and especially in society in general at the moment. 

I think a lot of this is a reaction to Aldon Smith, mine included. Even if it's coming out that this ordeal isn't as bad as when it first came out, there's still a reason to be  pissed and super concerned about Foster going forward. The guy clearly cannot get out of his own way and he's putting the FO (and team) in a nearly impossible position. There are maybe 5 players who could have screwed over Lynch and Shanny with behavior like this; Staley, Buckner, Jimmy G, Garcon...and Foster. Guys who are either leaders or supremely talented.  In short, anything Lynch and Shanny do at this point is going to be seen negatively by someone in the locker room. If they cut him it looks good  for the media and makes them consistent in punishment but they lose their one of their best players on defense. If they keep him, yes, they're giving a guy a second chance but it's logically inconsistent, he's going to take up a roster spot despite not being able to play for at least 7 games, and it's a blemish on the culture. It's a lose lose situation. I think it comes down to what is easier to recover. Passable talent at the Linebacker position, or a culture of consistency, accountability and class. 

The bigger concern is with this teams current methodology of evaluating character in prospects. Obviously, the depth of  Foster's stupidity might be a new thing, it's looking like that now...But they also had to have known pre-draft that he had a variety of character concerns, but more importantly a problem understanding the gravity of his situation as an NFL player. The Pot thing should have been a huge wake up call for Foster..yet it wasn't. He already needed to be at the point where if an argument was brewing with him and his girl, that he just needed to remove himself from the situation immediately. That had to be conveyed to him, and I don't know that it was. I do know that Lynch and Co. Brought in multiple people to mentor him, but if he needed a baby sitter, it's on Lynch and his scouts to see that ahead of time.  

That said, lots of info is coming out and at this point, there's no reason to make a hasty decision. The FO is taking the best approach right now, which is waiting. . 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rudyZ said:

Personally, I think they took a shot. I also think Lynch will hesitate a lot more now to draft guys with a background. Maybe not until we build a stronger locker room, or better organizational resources to surround players. Even if we try to avoid drafting guys with risk of arrests, it will happen anyway, so the resources are needed either way. I would probably be a hypocrite if I said we should do that for everyone, not only our first rounders, or our most talented players. If it happened to Cole Hikutini, I wouldn't waste energy and I'd probably say cut him. Then again, I feel like it shouldn't be assessed based on talent, but rather on time. Had Reuben been here for many years and had multiple issues over the years, I'd say cut him. But the fact is, Lynch said he would support him and surround him with resources not even 10 months ago. As a GM, if you give up on a player you publicly vouched for not even a year in, that's not really a strong message, in my opinion. But really, you can't really go all that wrong in this situation. Either you keep Foster and fulfill your promise to help him, or you cut him and say that you simply cannot condone any instance of DV.

Although it does appear like Foster has been very cooperative and the story isn't too bad overall. So who knows what happens. I'm fine with any the front office does, really.

Yeah, I definitely think it has an impact on how they draft going forward. And for what it's worth I still think he's a guy I'm happy we took a shot on. He had a history but nothing major as far as I recall. 

And I'm with you that Lynch took him knowing he had to provide support. I think the arrest for weed and the alleged possession of an assault rifle are perfect examples of things that you work through with someone like Foster. I just hope domestic violence is not something we establish as an issue we work through with guys if they're found to have done it.

Although domestic violence is such a broad term that my hope is as an organization we make it very clear what is acceptable and what is not. Then anyone who crosses the line knows the consequences beforehand. If Foster pushed her is that ok? Is touching her at all ok? If Lynch and Shanahan haven't made these things clear to all the players now they better work on outlining specifically what is unacceptable in the organization's eyes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious what is meant by dragged out. It could mean anything from him grabbing her hair and literally dragging her around or him just grabbing her arm and leading her outside like a bouncer would. It would make all the difference in the world for me. At least he didn't strike her but I expect a lengthy suspension anyways. Maybe the team ought to suspend him for the rest of the year regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Geek said:

I'm curious what is meant by dragged out. It could mean anything from him grabbing her hair and literally dragging her around or him just grabbing her arm and leading her outside like a bouncer would. It would make all the difference in the world for me. At least he didn't strike her but I expect a lengthy suspension anyways. Maybe the team ought to suspend him for the rest of the year regardless.

Meh, they can suspend him for the rest of the season for being stupid, but he will get what he will get from the commissioner. Almost certainly he will get six plus games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, rudyZ said:

But had John Lynch publicly committed to help Brock as he has Foster? For all we know, he was perhaps not even in the FO's plans long term. He was still on the roster then, because we didn't have a reason to get rid of him, but there was no guarantee he was going to make the team. Lynch hadn't committed to him. His incident happened to happen before the draft, the staff probably knew there was a chance they'd take someone like Spoon. Back then, we still had Robinson, and we thought maybe Dontae wouldn't be as terrible as he has been, and we had signed Williams to play in the slot. I don't think Brock was necessarily a lock to make the team. The DV incident, so why bother? We're not talking about the same talent level as Foster, and not talking about the same public commitment. One remained from the previous regime, the other was handpicked by the new. Very different situations.

Nah, just sounds like a bunch of hogwash to me. When Lynch took responsibility as GM, he took responsibility for every player getting in trouble. Brock would have probably made the roster. He wasn't coming off a terrible season, and who would have taken his starting spot outright? He just wasn't a superstar. The 49ers needed just bodies back then the roster was so bare. Still is actually. Lynch got rid of him in like a day despite that. There was no potential second chance. Foster is maybe getting his third. The charges against Brock were eventually dismissed down the road anyway. 

Let's just call a spade a spade. Foster is a big investment for the 49ers, and showed the potential to be a dynamite player. He's going to get a longer leash. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@John232 there is no doubt that aldons transgressions are being placed at fosters feet. There are obviously some parallels so I don't think it's completely unwarranted but the circumstances do have differences. 

Obviously'domestic violence' is a hot button issue these days, and we live in a society where people just read the headlines and don't bother with the details. I honestly don't have a problem with someone forcefully removing an unwanted visitor from their home, regardless if they are male/female/whatever, as long as they don't cross the line. How far did he go to get her out of his house? 

Does anyone think Ruben is a bad guy? I think the consensus was he has an infectious personality and a big appetite for life. The guy was always smiling, always having fun. He has a big personality. Lynch said that his character is what drew the niners to him, and I still think they love that side of him, so I think ultimately he's going to remain on this team. 

When he is suspended (not if, but when) he will not take up a roster spot, if I am not mistaken. This will also let him get fully healthy and give our team a much needed shot in the arm around week 7. I look at it as it's less chance for him to get injured and more likely he's available come playoff time lol 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading more about the gun he had, seems less and less likely that it is a legal firearm in California. Seems like the standard edition isnt legal here. I doubt he was smart enough to buy the California version. 

 

I am not condoning his actions by any means. I don't like that he is mixed up in this nonsense.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, PapaShogun said:

Nah, just sounds like a bunch of hogwash to me. When Lynch took responsibility as GM, he took responsibility for every player getting in trouble. Brock would have probably made the roster. He wasn't coming off a terrible season, and who would have taken his starting spot outright? He just wasn't a superstar. The 49ers needed just bodies back then the roster was so bare. Still is actually. Lynch got rid of him in like a day despite that. There was no potential second chance. Foster is maybe getting his third. The charges against Brock were eventually dismissed down the road anyway. 

Let's just call a spade a spade. Foster is a big investment for the 49ers, and showed the potential to be a dynamite player. He's going to get a longer leash. 

Took responsibility, maybe, but it wasn't the same connection. He was already there, he wasn't specifically chosen by Lynch. It's much easier to cut someone chosen by your predecessor than admitting you were wrong with one of your own choices. It looks like Lynch was wrong with Foster so far, but he admitted it was a risk and he'd have to work harder with him. If you publicly state you're going to do something, then you don't do it, it's your credibility that's on the line. In Brock's case, he never made such commitment. 

And if Brock was such a lock to make our team, then I don't know why he didn't make the Seahawks and only played sparingly with the Vikes. Bad players sometimes get some production on terrible teams (which we have been), but they're not necessarily what you want to build on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, rudyZ said:

Took responsibility, maybe, but it wasn't the same connection. He was already there, he wasn't specifically chosen by Lynch. It's much easier to cut someone chosen by your predecessor than admitting you were wrong with one of your own choices. It looks like Lynch was wrong with Foster so far, but he admitted it was a risk and he'd have to work harder with him. If you publicly state you're going to do something, then you don't do it, it's your credibility that's on the line. In Brock's case, he never made such commitment. 

And if Brock was such a lock to make our team, then I don't know why he didn't make the Seahawks and only played sparingly with the Vikes. Bad players sometimes get some production on terrible teams (which we have been), but they're not necessarily what you want to build on. 

So if this happened to Brock Coyle after Lynch signed him he'd be on his third chance? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, PapaShogun said:

So if this happened to Brock Coyle after Lynch signed him he'd be on his third chance? 

It would be far more likely than Tramaine Brock, for sure. Lynch had no personal commitment to Brock, that's all I'm saying. And he also hasn't made any public statement regarding the support of Brock Coyle, so again, there's no real personal commitment to help a low-level free agent. My entire point is: if you say you're going to help a young but troubled player, and 10 months later, you dump him, what's your word worth? Back in the day, we at least tried to help Aldon. We supported him publicly when he went to rehab and returned. But at some point, when he became a repeat and repeat offender, you just put the trash in the trash can. But 10 months into a player's career, after you publicly said you were aware of the background and would help the kid, it's too early for the trash can. Maybe you could have done even more to help him. You have to evaluate your methods and resources first, and only then can you conclude that trash is trash. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rudyZ said:

It would be far more likely than Tramaine Brock, for sure. Lynch had no personal commitment to Brock, that's all I'm saying. And he also hasn't made any public statement regarding the support of Brock Coyle, so again, there's no real personal commitment to help a low-level free agent. My entire point is: if you say you're going to help a young but troubled player, and 10 months later, you dump him, what's your word worth? Back in the day, we at least tried to help Aldon. We supported him publicly when he went to rehab and returned. But at some point, when he became a repeat and repeat offender, you just put the trash in the trash can. But 10 months into a player's career, after you publicly said you were aware of the background and would help the kid, it's too early for the trash can. Maybe you could have done even more to help him. You have to evaluate your methods and resources first, and only then can you conclude that trash is trash. 

What was the exact statement Lynch made regarding the support of Foster? Because he also said the 49ers weren't concerned about his character, and that the 49ers were exhaustive in getting to know him. That was after the draft. Then a month ago after his arrest Lynch said that Foster knows he has to keep his nose clean. Didn't do it. So where do draw the line? Two arrests? Four arrests? The expectation should be for players to act like mature professionals, or the team will find someone who will. And why does Foster get a longer leash anyway? Because he came to the organization with red flags? That doesn't make sense. If anything he should get a shorter leash. Like I said, let's call a spade a spade. He's a first round pick, and a player that has superstar potential. That's why he hasn't been kicked out the door. Coyle would have either been gone, or not drafted in the first place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...