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

Christy42

Dolphins lose a 1st round pick and a 3rd round pick due to asking Flores to tank. They decided that it was either not explicitly enough said or that Ross was "joking" on the 100k offer.

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119421780#Comment_119421780

I wasn't aware of that, thanks for letting me know.

So this is clearly a case where the NFL brought four cases and based on the reaction to the ban they'll then decide how to proceed and use the other sixty two for that.

Innish_Rebel

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119423997#Comment_119423997

I thought the punishment was for illegal contact with Tom Brady & Sean Payton while under contract with other teams.

Dolphins:

"The independent investigation cleared our organization on any issues related to tanking and all of Brian Flores other allegations,"

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

I may be stating the obvious here, but I can't help but feel that both the NFL and especially The Browns have made a colossal f up with Watson. Even with "only" 4 cases being adjudicated, the ban is pathetically lenient. The NFL already have an exceptionally poor reputation when it comes to dealing with disciplinary issues and this will only sour it even more.

If I was a Browns fan I'd have serious reservations about wishing Watson well in games and I'd imagine the fans will be very quick to turn on the franchise should he not play to the level he was at in 2019/20. It's funny in that if there was even 1 woman reporting something like this he would probably be looking at a lengthy ban anyway, but the fact there's 24 is mind-boggling. The man should never again be in any position where he is a role-model for anyone, let alone be an NFL quarterback.

Meanwhile, Calvin Ridley is suspended for at least this season for betting on games he wasn't involved in.

As a result, he also forfeits his base salary of about $11 million.

Batter your missus or sexually assault multiple women - "Put your feet up for a couple of weeks."

Have a flutter - "We'll see you for the 2023 season. Maybe."

Itssoeasy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119426182#Comment_119426182

The Calvin Ridley suspension was I felt harsh at the time but also given how much the NFL has embraced sport betting it’s even more stupid. And yeah it’s not like he was doing a Pete Rose on it.

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119426182#Comment_119426182

Yeah and no judge involved in that suspension.

Guffy

"Only" 4 cases being heard would be quite normal in this situation afaik. When there is a class action like this, it would be the normfor a selection of cases being put forward to be heard, when the people involved would generally be saying the same thing. One thing is for sure, the other 20 odd cases are outside the scope of the appeal and as i previously mentioned, the 4 put forward represent all of the allegations. So there would be no further action after the appeal unless it was something different. Unless of course Commish is able to put him on the excempt list.

I imagine the Ridley punishment was so harsh, precisely because the NFL are embracing sports betting.

I can't help but feel that the NFL are opening themselves up to a headache with the NFLPA on this one. The first real independently arbitrated case and they look to have it overturned massively. In saying that, is this one the NFLPA would want to go to war on only to save precedent?

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119426278#Comment_119426278

They cant really go to war though, as they just signed up to an agreement that is clear that Roger has the final decision.

Most they can do is to try to bring it to court and maybe get it put on hold while they go through the process (they mightnt even get that due to how watertight the language is). That would be a huge gamble for Watson though unless the suspension was indefinite, as if he is banned for saw a year now they could end up pushing it into next year and he'll lose a massive amount more money.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119426278#Comment_119426278

They are going through the agreed process to appeal the sentence. There is no "headache".

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119424652#Comment_119424652

Ah my mistake. Mixing up their current transgressions. Certainly I disagree with their statement that they were exonerated by the report.

Foxtrol

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

Yeah the exonerated piece is nonsense. The NFL internal investigation was never going to find the Dolphins guilty of the game fixing one as it would bring the whole league into question and even then they far from exonerated the Dolphins on it.

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.