The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread V3

Innish_Rebel

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119431868#Comment_119431868

No problem & yes I agree - "totally exonerated" my h*le...

Guffy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119429348#Comment_119429348

If it goes to court then the NFL may have to hand over information on owners in disclosure to the NFLPA, including anything that hadn't been released on Snyder for example. That would be a headache imo. A court could grant a stay which would mean that Watson could play week 1.. any further delay could technically lead too Watson playing the full season which would be a horrible look.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119444609#Comment_119444609

Why would they ask or be allowed to get info on owners?

Guffy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119445151#Comment_119445151

"Under the law of the United States, civil discovery is wide-ranging and may seek disclosure of information that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."

Why would the NFLPA not want access to information about the owners and how the NFL have not punished their owners but have punished the players?

Best case scenario is a negotiated sanction between the two. 10/12 games + money.

I think if the NFL push ahead with this it will get messy, but I haven't a clue what I'm talking about tbf. It's just how i see it going if the NFLPA back Watson, which imo they will, if only to get the propriety information on the owners.

I'm not saying the NFL is right or wrong to appeal the decision, however fcuked the situation of that is, I just think it will be a long drawn out messy situation considering there has been no criminal charge, civil trial and a jointly appointed, independent body has already adjudicate on it, with a 6 game suspension, citing the NFL's own precedent as a reason that a longer suspension wasn't applied.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119445494#Comment_119445494

NFLPA has never appealed a decision to US courts based on the length of the suspension as I don't believe the courts can take it on. For Brady, Zeke, and Peterson it was always related to the process of the NFL having the Commissioner as the deciding person on it. Each time the courts have found against the NFLPA because they signed the agreement that gives the Commissioner that power. In the latest agreement that the NFLPA just signed they once again gave the NFL that power once they appeal after the initial process that originally gave the 6 game suspension. Owners details have absolutely nothing to do with these appeals on process so it isnt in play here as a 'headache' related to discovery, unlike say the Flores, Gruden, or Kaep lawsuits.

The independent individual might have felt bound by precedent in her judgement - it really is the only reading of it that makes logical sense - but nowhere in the NFLPA agreement does it say that the NFL is bound by it. Just because the NFL went light on these type of incidents in the past it doesnt mean they have to do so in the future.

Even getting a stay by Watson will likely be difficult given how many times courts have found against players on the process and the potential PR damage to the NFL if he is allowed to play. Watson getting a stay means he risks losing many multiples of the cash he would by taking a longer ban this season. Only way around that would be for the Browns to again restructure his contract to save him money but the PR disaster from that might be even too much for them to take on.

Guffy

I think the issue arises from an indefinite ban, when there has been no admission of wrongdoing.

I do take your points though, and agree that if it is just a longer ban within the season, I don't see much fallout coming from it.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119444609#Comment_119444609

Its not "going to court" though. This remains an appeal within the framework of the agreed procedure.

Also the owners behaviour is not governed by any CBA so will have zero relevance to any case. Disclosure may be wide-ranging, but it needs to have some kind of relevance.

Guffy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119446226#Comment_119446226

I never said it was.

It has the potential to depending on the outcome of an appeal.

eagle eye

I don't think the NFLPA want anything to do with this. They'll give token support to Watson but they wouldn't like to have much publicity surrounding it.

Loughc

https://www.nfl.com/news/itv-and-nfl-announce-three-year-partnership?fbclid=IwAR22SPKuu9prczIKtqZvLMiQe7Z1PRyBS4W91ZVNfc9Zh2M8K05UbN0Mh-I&fs=e&s=cl

NFL has a new home ITV in U.K. and Virgin media for us here instead of BBC. I enjoyed the BBC coverage even it if was too condensed. Glad that OSI and Jason bell making the move too they got great chemistry and knowledge of the game.

al87987

I thought Mark Chapman was very good as presenter, he was much missed when he left.

It's good news but Friday night at 11:30 seems an odd choice of time.

Blut2

I missed Mark too, he was a good host. Good to see the two lads move over, they do a decent job but I'd agree with the odd timing for the show.

By Friday any highlights of games are almost a week old, I'd suspect most fans will have watched them online before then. The old Tuesday evening slot made far more sense.

Plus if I'm busy at a weekend and record this on a Friday I'm pretty unlikely to watch it come Sunday/Monday when its over a week behind. But if you record it on a Tuesday night you'd still have Wed/Thurs to watch it reasonably.

The_Honeybadger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119484877#Comment_119484877

I suppose with the Friday show they are trying to strike a balance between highlights of the previous weekend and a preview of upcoming games in one sitting.

The BBC format from a few years ago of a highlights show on Tuesday and then the Saturday night preview show was ideal but keeping two slots on any station is a big ask for what is still presumably still a small enough audience.

I’m glad this is going ahead but there will probably be weeks I’ll miss it and won’t be too bothered as I have Gamepass and I usually catch a lot of Redzone on Sunday evening

eagle eye

I see Watson is admitting everything now and saying he is so sorry. I'd imagine this is by agreement with the NFL. He spent a long time calling the accusers liars and it's hard to believe he suddenly found remorse at this stage.

I don't think anyting is left in Texas to be brought before a grand jury at this stage, could be wrong about that' but there were cases in California and Georgia so you'd never know what could happen now. I'd love if the got charged with something, he deserves jail time for what he did imo.

Ohmeha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119484401#Comment_119484401

Like with many other sports the BBC were clearly becoming less interested in their NFL portfolio as every season passed but the BBC shows were an easy watch without any ads, can't see these shows or the live games being any improvement on ITV being disrupted by ad breaks in that almost graveyard timeslot. Also a shame no additional live games other than two London games and the super bowl which was the same with the BBC

Channel 5 still have Monday night football live this season which is the final year of that deal

ArmaniJeanss

I wonder will TV3/VM be able to come to an agreement with ITV as they have for horse-racing and the soaps.

A lot of the country (Virgin Media people) no longer have easy access to ITV, and the NFL might want to retain those 3 games being available to an Irish audience.

Ohmeha

I don't think NFL are bothered much regarding superbowl on Irish TV as they know majority of the population will have access to it via ITV or Sky Sports

Super bowl being FTA in UK is massively important to the NFL for audience reach it's basically a cheap deal for whichever UK channel wants it, BBC has always been NFL's preference really strange of the BBC letting yet another sport vanish. I'm sure Channel 4 must have been in the running for it and would do a superior job to ITV but ITV probably won out for a bigger audience

Loughc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119486354#Comment_119486354

On the press release they said the ITV NFL coverage will air on Virgin media in Ireland and STV in Scotland.

Guffy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119485853#Comment_119485853

He didn't admit anything. He apologised for the situation. Two very different things. Fwiw he still maintains innocence, mad that the NFL settled tbh.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119490785#Comment_119490785

If the NFL cared about anything but the optics they would pull the agreement now before it is signed after his latest comments.

The deal gets the NFL and other owners wanted - they look tougher on Watson by increasing the ban, they avoid the bad PR of this situation being on the news everyday as it dragged through the courts, and punishes the Browns owners for giving Watson the deal (probably the worst result for the organization aside from Watson being suspended indefinitely).

764dak

Brawl Ends Rams-Bengals Joint Practice Early

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/34459663/brawl-ends-los-angeles-rams-cincinnati-bengals-joint-practice-early?linkId=178732889

Christy42

Matt Araiza, nicknamed "punt god" during the draft accused of taking place in a gang rape. The accuser was 17 at the time with Matt in his final year of college.

At this point the NFL have cornered themselves and can't take much action given the lack of action against Watson. However I suspect he will just be dropped by the Bills and no one will pick him up. Saves the NFL's blushes of wanting to take more action against a punter while protecting the star QB.

This is something that will keep hitting the papers and more young women are a lot more comfortable coming out about these attacks than before so the NFL will need to set out proper punishments for these scumbags instead of trying to hide from it.

Shedite27

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119523368#Comment_119523368

Might be traded to the Browns after something like that

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119523824#Comment_119523824

😁😁😁😁

Love it!!!

eagle eye

I'm still wondering what's going to happen with Watson. He's certainly going to be booed on the road every game, likely for the rest of his career. I'm wondering what reception he'll get from the Dawg Pound? I can't imagine those guys will be happy about having a player like that playing for them.

Shedite27

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119524435#Comment_119524435

It'll be interesting to see alright. I'm fairly sure if he's successful for them it'll be overlooked by a lot of the fans. Ray Lewis pretty much murdered a guy and nobody mentioned it when he was winning MVP's.

I feel with the way the suspensions is structured, we'll ehar it non-stop from week 12-17, Browns will miss the playoffs and we'll all by talking about the playoff teams for a month, then by the time 2023 season rolls around it'll go quiet.

Foxtrol

Skeptical the Bills didnt know about this in advance, either that or someone on their scouting team should be fired.

There was general surprise that punters were picked before him (as much as you can be surprised about punters). Ravens only had one punter on their board which this now explains

eagle eye

Thing is this is just an accusation at this stage. It's not like the Watson thing where there's multiple accusers.

If he's not charged with anything then it's unfair to castigate him.

We don't know anything about this only that a civil suit has been brought.

In the wake of the Watson situation it'd be no surprise for somebody to bring a fake lawsuit against an NFL player in the hope of getting a nice settlement.

I'm not saying that this didn't happen to be clear, I'm just thinking about it from both sides.

If it did happen then I hope this guy faces criminal charges and gets jailed for a long time.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119525106#Comment_119525106

Well investigators had the victim call him. During the call he suggested she get checked for an std and very quickly changed to denying remembering the night at all when he realised he might be recorded.

So unless the media is making that bit up he did have sex with a minor, otherwise why advice for the STD check. Remember this happened in California so age of consent is 18.

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119526132#Comment_119526132

Was the call recorded?