mse326 Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, Ray Reed said: Right now the report is that it's an ankle from the last game of this year. That isn't a lack of any injury in his past. That is what the Ravens claim. But there is also a post showing the very last play of the season with Grant showing zero noticeable sign of injury and no reports of it happening during the game until now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Reed Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, jrry32 said: And that report is already being disputed. By anyone credible? Or just Redskin beat writers with blue check marks who say it didn't appear there was an injury? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wackywabbit Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, jrry32 said: The only disagreement should be whether or not Grant will succeed if he files a grievance. There is 100% an enforceable punishment that can be used against the Ravens. Article 43 of the NFL CBA explicitly provides for non-injury grievances. As I've already said, you can't file a grievance against a team you never had a formal agreement with. If you could be punished for shady non-formalized agreements, the Bears would owe us for lying to us about calling a trade in on draft day that caused us to miss a pick. But, nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Reed Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 3 minutes ago, mse326 said: That is what the Ravens claim. But there is also a post showing the very last play of the season with Grant showing zero noticeable sign of injury and no reports of it happening during the game until now. We will see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFlaccoSeagulls Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 4 minutes ago, jrry32 said: And why is that? Because his physical was related to an ankle injury... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 Just now, wackywabbit said: As I've already said, you can't file a grievance against a team you never had a formal agreement with. If you could be punished for shady non-formalized agreements, the Bears would owe us for lying to us about calling a trade in on draft day that caused us to miss a pick. But, nope. You've already said that, but you've offered no evidence that there was never a formal agreement. All of the real evidence indicates the opposite is true. You don't get a physical if there is no formal agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 Just now, Darth Pees said: Because his physical was related to an ankle injury... Yea, you need to read the CBA. There are two types of grievances: 1) non-injury grievances and 2) injury grievances. Injury grievances are when a player is released despite the fact that he still can't pass a physical. Non-injury grievances are everything else. This scenario would be a non-injury grievance because Grant would not be alleging that he's injured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Reed Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, jrry32 said: You've already said that, but you've offered no evidence that there was never a formal agreement. All of the real evidence indicates the opposite is true. You don't get a physical if there is no formal agreement. "Grant, 27, reached an agreement in principle Tuesday that included $14.5 million guaranteed, but he will now have to find a team that will pass him on his physical." From espn. Is an agreement in principle a formal agreement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wackywabbit Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 6 minutes ago, jrry32 said: You've already said that, but you've offered no evidence that there was never a formal agreement. All of the real evidence indicates the opposite is true. You don't get a physical if there is no formal agreement. "has not signed" Happy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broncofan Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 1 minute ago, jrry32 said: Yea, you need to read the CBA. There are two types of grievances: 1) non-injury grievances and 2) injury grievances. Injury grievances are when a player is released despite the fact that he still can't pass a physical. Non-injury grievances are everything else. This scenario would be a non-injury grievance because Grant would not be alleging that he's injured. I don't get the reason for a debate on the above. There's a CBA process, and if Grant doesn't get paid the same wherever he ends up, he has that option. He will have a very high burden to prove his case, but he has that option. He can also choose not to grieve the case. It's his call, after he signs with another team he can make that call. None of the above is disputable. The only debate is whether he can meet the burden, which from @mse326 pointed out, is going to have to meet a very high bar. Debating anything else is just trying to be nihilistic, and comes off as a homer no-way-my-team-could-ever-do-that take. Could they be clean? Doesn't seem likely, but sure. Could they have done exactly what ppl think? Sure. Could they still avoid punishment even if that's what they did, given the high burden? Absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 Just now, wackywabbit said: https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/974411664127905793 Happy? Yes, I am. But even that doesn't guarantee you anything. The NFL CBA has a good faith provision for contract negotiations. He can still file a grievance if that's his desire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Reed Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 1 minute ago, jrry32 said: Yes, I am. But even that doesn't guarantee you anything. The NFL CBA has a good faith provision for contract negotiations. He can still file a grievance if that's his desire. Move those goalposts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr LBC Posted March 16, 2018 Author Share Posted March 16, 2018 1 hour ago, chris00cm said: That pesky ankle. Just saying... he was "Full Practice" with that ankle the entire week leading up to that Week 17 game and wasn't even listed as questionable. He was targeted 5 times that game and was playing as late as 2:51 remaining in the 4th quarter - because he was Cousins' target on the INT that basically sealed the game for the Giants. Sorry, but this sounds like the Ravens organization is grasping at straws to justify getting cold feet because a better option came available and they can't afford both guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wackywabbit Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 1 minute ago, jrry32 said: Yes, I am. But even that doesn't guarantee you anything. The NFL CBA has a good faith provision for contract negotiations. He can still file a grievance if that's his desire. Do you have the text on this? It would definitely be more relevant to this situation than the grievance for being released talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFlaccoSeagulls Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 Just now, The LBC said: Just saying... he was "Full Practice" with that ankle the entire week leading up to that Week 17 game and wasn't even listed as questionable. He was targeted 5 times that game and was playing as late as 2:51 remaining in the 4th quarter - because he was Cousins' target on the INT that basically sealed the game for the Giants. Sorry, but this sounds like the Ravens organization is grasping at straws to justify getting cold feet because a better option came available and they can't afford both guys. Then I hope he files a grievance and proves that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.