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

adrian522 · 21-09-2019 3:36pm

It also counts against the Patriots cap whether they pay him or not. 4.5m in 2019 and 4.5m in 2020

Foxtrol · 21-09-2019 3:49pm

Christy42 wrote: »

Did he know about the allegation before it?

I mean presumably he knew of the incident but if is to be assumed innocent then how he could have known the allegation was coming?

Anyway it didn't affect his ability to play. He was left off the exemption list and played with that cloud over him. But he still played and I see no reason he would not have been available if the Pats had not cut him.

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. The Patriots still played him after hearing about the sexual assault claim, so it weakens their argument of him not informing them about that allegation being the cause of his release. The new one hasn't yet impacted his ability to play and may never, as some here pointing that Hill got away with his situation.

Best case for them is that someone picks him up, as the talk prior to the Patriots signing was that AB would go after the Raiders with a grievance and he probably now has a much stronger case against the Patriots.

Adamcp898 · 21-09-2019 4:00pm

He wasn’t prevented from playing by the league so I’m not sure how that can be used as an argument for not paying/taking the cap hit.

Looks like they just came to the realisation that keeping him around, even for a short time until a decision on whether he could play or not and possibly save them money, would do more damage to their reputation than it was worth and it was better to cut him loose.

jack presley · 22-09-2019 2:47pm

AB not going out without a parting shot

https://twitter.com/AB84/status/1175764859176312838

eagle eye · 22-09-2019 2:58pm

Christy42 wrote: »

Did he know about the allegation before it?

I mean presumably he knew of the incident but if is to be assumed innocent then how he could have known the allegation was coming?

Anyway it didn't affect his ability to play. He was left off the exemption list and played with that cloud over him. But he still played and I see no reason he would not have been available if the Pats had not cut him.

He was well aware of the allegations and his legal team has been in settlement talks for months. He didn't reveal this to the Patriots, or the league as far as I'm aware.

eagle eye · 22-09-2019 3:00pm

jack presley wrote: »

AB not going out without a parting shot

https://twitter.com/AB84/status/1175764859176312838

He really is off his rocker comparing Kraft being in a dodgy massage parlor with the accusations against him. Using the racist card makes it worse.

I'm not sure if he is just a stupid man or if he really is suffering from some mental illness.

jack presley · 22-09-2019 3:01pm

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm not sure if he is just a stupid man or if he really is suffering from some mental illness.

Probably a bit of both.

jack presley · 22-09-2019 3:11pm

He seems to be taking shots at a load of people on his Twitter - Kraft, Ben Rothelsiberger, Shannon Sharpe

Realt Dearg Sec · 22-09-2019 3:15pm

It's everyone's fault except Antonio's.

Itssoeasy · 22-09-2019 3:50pm

eagle eye wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

Did he know about the allegation before it?

I mean presumably he knew of the incident but if is to be assumed innocent then how he could have known the allegation was coming?

Anyway it didn't affect his ability to play. He was left off the exemption list and played with that cloud over him. But he still played and I see no reason he would not have been available if the Pats had not cut him.

He was well aware of the allegations and his legal team has been in settlement talks for months. He didn't reveal this to the Patriots, or the league as far as I'm aware.

Yeah it was because the settlement talks broke down that they came to light. And the patriots said they wouldn't have signed him if they'd known about the allegations. I mean those text messages where another level of stupid on his part. I mean he'd landed with the patriots, he'd have had a good chance of getting to a super bowl and all he had to do was keep the head down and tip away and just do what he's actually good at. But given what he's done this off season I'm not surprised he couldn't do what he needed to do.

Foxtrol · 22-09-2019 3:54pm

eagle eye wrote: »

He was well aware of the allegations and his legal team has been in settlement talks for months. He didn't reveal this to the Patriots, or the league as far as I'm aware.

A signing bonus is generally treated very differently than other guarantees, requiring a narrow scope of issues to void it whereas other clauses can be inserted to void other guaranteed money. This seems far from as cut and dry as you're making out.

Over the cap wrote a piece about it.

https://twitter.com/Jason_OTC/status/1175390255081558017

Foxtrol · 22-09-2019 3:59pm

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Yeah it was because the settlement talks broke down that they came to light. And the patriots said they wouldn't have signed him if they'd known about the allegations. I mean those text messages where another level of stupid on his part. I mean he'd landed with the patriots, he'd have had a good chance of getting to a super bowl and all he had to do was keep the head down and tip away and just do what he's actually good at. But given what he's done this off season I'm not surprised he couldn't do what he needed to do.

Hard to get on their moral high horse or use that argument legally that they wouldn't have signed him if they knew when they neither cut him when the allegations came out nor even made him inactive while they 'investigated', they pushed ahead and played him in a game that was obviously going to be a blowout.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero · 22-09-2019 4:08pm

Foxtrol wrote: »

Hard to get on their moral high horse or use that argument legally that they wouldn't have signed him if they knew when they neither cut him when the allegations came out nor even made him inactive while they 'investigated', they pushed ahead and played him in a game that was obviously going to be a blowout.

Who exactly is getting on their moral high horse? He was cut because of the text messages, not because of the lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed civilly, not criminally. To cut/suspend anyone for a civil case would set a dangerous precedent.

eagle eye · 22-09-2019 4:19pm

Big Pussy Bonpensiero wrote:

Who exactly is getting on their moral high horse? He was cut because of the text messages, not because of the lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed civilly, not criminally. To cut/suspend anyone for a civil case would set a dangerous precedent.

The key is he didn't tell them about the civil case. If he had done that then everything including the text messages would not matter. The fact he didn't tell them about it voids his contract as far as I'm aware.

Foxtrol · 22-09-2019 4:34pm

Big Pussy Bonpensiero wrote: »

Who exactly is getting on their moral high horse? He was cut because of the text messages, not because of the lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed civilly, not criminally. To cut/suspend anyone for a civil case would set a dangerous precedent.

I quoted a poster that claimed the Patriots are now saying that they wouldn't have signed him if they'd known about the civil case, which I hadn't heard and if true stinks of trying to reclaim moral high ground, which goes completely against their actions of playing him last week after the facts of the lawsuit emerged.

I agree with you that he was cut because of the text messages and the fact that he was going to be a continued distraction, neither of which are valid to try to hold a player's signing bonus.

eagle eye wrote: »

The key is he didn't tell them about the civil case. If he had done that then everything including the text messages would not matter. The fact he didn't tell them about it voids his contract as far as I'm aware.

Again, they played him last week which weakens their hand of trying to point to the civil case being the issue. It also is much more difficult to void a signing bonus, he signed and played for the team and didn't breach the normal points that would lead to signing bonus becoming void.

Foxtrol · 22-09-2019 4:46pm

Looks like there are no team willing to pay the price to trade for Ramsey so he'll be staying with the Jags for a while.

Reported price is 2 firsts, would anyone want their team to pay that for him? 49ers still have too many holes and no 2nd round pick for 2020 so I don't think I'd be in on it. Would think a contender like the Eagles that has depth in a lot of positions or a team with extra 1st pick like the Raiders should be willing to pay that price.

eagle eye · 22-09-2019 4:55pm

Foxtrol wrote:

Again, they played him last week which weakens their hand of trying to point to the civil case being the issue. It also is much more difficult to void a signing bonus, he signed and played for the team and didn't breach the normal points that would lead to signing bonus becoming void.

I'd imagine they are covered by giving themselves time to investigate. They could have suspended him with pay but I've never come across that happening.

Foxtrol · 22-09-2019 5:08pm

eagle eye wrote: »

I'd imagine they are covered by giving themselves time to investigate. They could have suspended him with pay but I've never come across that happening.

They could have just made him inactive for the game and give no reason. Players are inactive every week, you don't have to suspend them with pay.

It looks like they were planning on plowing through the public/media noise until the texts came out this week and they realised AB was going to continue to act like an idiot and be a distraction. Even if there is a clause in the contract, they've made it tougher on themselves to say 'the civil suit was the cause' when there is no sign of that being an issue until this week.

Itssoeasy · 22-09-2019 5:30pm

I saw on the fox NFL pre game show that the NFL is investigating text messages sent to the mother of the first accuser of Antionio brown. They don't say if it's from him but why would they be investigating some randommer sending text message to someone's mother ?

j8wk2feszrnpao · 22-09-2019 10:01pm

Big Pussy Bonpensiero wrote: »

Who exactly is getting on their moral high horse?

Don’t bother. Really, don’t bother.

Loughc · 22-09-2019 10:37pm

thomond2006 wrote: »

Next stop XFL?

He hate me 2.

TRS30 · 24-09-2019 2:16pm

What the best/cheapest sites to buy proper (not Chinese knock offs/poor quality) hoodies, hats etc (not necessarily shirts) for delivery to Ireland?

jack presley · 24-09-2019 2:52pm

TRS30 wrote: »

What the best/cheapest sites to buy proper (not Chinese knock offs/poor quality) hoodies, hats etc (not necessarily shirts) for delivery to Ireland?

Fanatics is a good site. There is a much better range on their US site but you’ll get charged 23% duty as well as postage. They have an international site that you won’t get stung with duty but the range isn’t as good. But check that out first as they might have what you’re looking for.

TRS30 · 24-09-2019 2:58pm

jack presley wrote: »

Fanatics is a good site. There is a much better range on their US site but you’ll get charged 23% duty as well as postage. They have an international site that you won’t get stung with duty but the range isn’t as good. But check that out first as they might have what you’re looking for.

Thanks. do you find this cheaper then the NFL Europe site?

jack presley · 24-09-2019 3:11pm

TRS30 wrote: »

Thanks. do you find this cheaper then the NFL Europe site?

Never bought from the NFL site so can’t say.

TRS30 · 24-09-2019 3:17pm

jack presley wrote: »

Fanatics is a good site. There is a much better range on their US site but you’ll get charged 23% duty as well as postage. They have an international site that you won’t get stung with duty but the range isn’t as good. But check that out first as they might have what you’re looking for.

Yea not a great range of Eagles stuff however picked up a Phillies t-shirt for €12 so happy days. Thanks.

Adamcp898 · 25-09-2019 1:41pm

On that subject, does anybody know which of the "alternative" suppliers currently offer the best quality NFL gear? Used to know a couple but it's been a few years since I used them and they could be terrible now

Ivefoundgod · 25-09-2019 1:58pm

Adamcp898 wrote: »

On that subject, does anybody know which of the "alternative" suppliers currently offer the best quality NFL gear? Used to know a couple but it's been a few years since I used them and they could be terrible now

I bought a Ravens jersey off DHGate. Based on reddit it seems the general consensus is to pick a seller with lots of orders and a high rating. You can usually find images in the reviews from other buyers if you want to check the quality.

My jersey is pretty good, I have an official reebok jersey which seems higher quality materials used and NFL logo looks a little off from some angles but you'd be hard pressed to notice it. Given the price difference its a no brainer to me. I can dig out the seller I used if you like but I know it took some digging to find a guy who had Ravens gear. Loads of sellers of the popular teams.

TRS30 · 25-09-2019 3:05pm

Ivefoundgod wrote: »

I bought a Ravens jersey off DHGate. Based on reddit it seems the general consensus is to pick a seller with lots of orders and a high rating. You can usually find images in the reviews from other buyers if you want to check the quality.

My jersey is pretty good, I have an official reebok jersey which seems higher quality materials used and NFL logo looks a little off from some angles but you'd be hard pressed to notice it. Given the price difference its a no brainer to me. I can dig out the seller I used if you like but I know it took some digging to find a guy who had Ravens gear. Loads of sellers of the popular teams.

Just ordered a hoodie off them. Was very cheap $30 so no big loss even if quality is crap!

27-09-2019 9:58am

Looks like they're gonna party like it's 1999 at the Super Bowl...

http://www.msn.com/en-ie/entertainment/music/jennifer-lopez-shakira-will-be-the-2020-super-bowl-halftime-performers/ar-AAHUMVp?ocid=ientp

jack presley · 27-09-2019 10:28am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Looks like they're gonna party like it's 1999 at the Super Bowl...

http://www.msn.com/en-ie/entertainment/music/jennifer-lopez-shakira-will-be-the-2020-super-bowl-halftime-performers/ar-AAHUMVp?ocid=ientp

Jay-Z not doing much to enhance his reputation there.

Itssoeasy · 30-09-2019 5:06pm

Vontaze burfict has been suspended for the rest of the 2019 season. Good.

phatkev · 30-09-2019 5:16pm

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Vontaze burfict has been suspended for the rest of the 2019 season. Good.

Delighted for him

jack presley · 30-09-2019 5:41pm

From ESPN, "The 29-year-old Burfict received 13 suspensions and fines in seven seasons with the Cincinnati Bengals". I wonder how much he's paid in fines over his career?

I presume he'll appeal and try and get it reduced?

eagle eye · 30-09-2019 6:00pm

I never thought I'd say this but I kinda feel sorry for Burflict. It's clear he was trying hard to change his ways. He was the guy who stopped Brown from hitting Mayock by all accounts. I seen him during the Raiders first game I think it was pulling players out of a fight instead of getting involved himself. It's just in him and he hasn't got full control of it yet, hopefully the suspension time helps him to deal with his issues and come back in a better place.

davetherave · 30-09-2019 6:15pm

jack presley wrote: »

From ESPN, "The 29-year-old Burfict received 13 suspensions and fines in seven seasons with the Cincinnati Bengals". I wonder how much he's paid in fines over his career?

I presume he'll appeal and try and get it reduced?

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/oakland-raiders/vontaze-burfict-10100/fines/
Supposedly 5.3 million between fines and forfeited pay

thomond2006 · 30-09-2019 6:50pm

Banned just before he maims a Chicago Bear. Whew.

I imagine he's played his last down in the NFL.

Tell me how · 01-10-2019 8:04pm

I was in Gillette Stadium in Foxboro at an event recently. When walking the concourse between the 2 sides of the stadium, you can can see on to the practice pitches. The squad were training and running offense drills. There were 5 security guards on the concourse preventing people stopping and watching or from taking any sort of camera or video footage.
Thought it was particularly interesting given Belichik history.

Tell me how · 01-10-2019 8:10pm

Maybe not a conversation for this thread but the recent news that the governor of California has signed a bill permitting college athletes to receive endorsement deals has the potential to really rock college sports including NFL.

The NCAA are against the bill and it remains to be seen how it will play out but it has the potential to make highschool/college football even more of a dog eat dog world in an effort to capture the best players and deals. (I'm not saying that the shouldn't be paid given the money they generate and how they are spat out if unsuccessful but it will be very interesting to see it play out.

Realt Dearg Sec · 01-10-2019 8:20pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Maybe not a conversation for this thread but the recent news that the governor of California has signed a bill permitting college athletes to receive endorsement deals has the potential to really rock college sports including NFL.

The NCAA are against the bill and it remains to be seen how it will play out but it has the potential to make highschool/college football even more of a dog eat dog world in an effort to capture the best players and deals. (I'm not saying that the shouldn't be paid given the money they generate and how they are spat out if unsuccessful but it will be very interesting to see it play out.

I never understood how they couldn't have the right to make their own endorsement deals. It's crazy. I mean, nobody wants to hear from Realt Dearg Sec on the benefits of Gatorade, but if they did I would be perfectly free to do a deal with them to sell their delicious, thirst-quenching, energy replenishing drink. It's a contract between me and them. It's like the NCAA own the players themselves or something, if they can claim any kind of right to prevent the player from doing work (an ad or whatever) in exchange for pay.

That's before you get into the very obvious fact that the NCAA and the universities are rinsing these players dry for as much money as they can get, often making vast amounts of money from the image rights of players who are entitled to nothing on that front. I get the argument for not directly paying players to play, it has its own logic, but preventing them endorsing products? There's no real justification for that, it seems to be none of their business.But it definitely serves the NCAA very nicely, of course.

Tell me how · 01-10-2019 8:25pm

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

I never understood how they couldn't have the right to make their own endorsement deals. It's crazy. I mean, nobody wants to hear from Realt Dearg Sec on the benefits of Gatorade, but if they did I would be perfectly free to do a deal with them to sell their delicious, thirst-quenching, energy replenishing drink. It's a contract between me and them. It's like the NCAA own the players themselves or something, if they can claim any kind of right to prevent the player from doing work (an ad or whatever) in exchange for pay.

That's before you get into the very obvious fact that the NCAA and the universities are rinsing these players dry for as much money as they can get, often making vast amounts of money from the image rights of players who are entitled to nothing on that front. I get the argument for not directly paying players to play, it has its own logic, but preventing them endorsing products? There's no real justification for that, it seems to be none of their business.But it definitely serves the NCAA very nicely, of course.

That's the crux of it.

If the NCAA proceed with their line of banning colleges who allow players to receive endorsements to be paid then it could lead to an exodus of players seeking the necessary shop window of real competition. If the NCAA allow it, it will either mean the Californian Colleges will become the preferred go to places for all players which will lead to similar laws coming in to other states to redress the balance.

I suspect the NCAA will try to implement a national policy which will appear to give players rights to earn endorsements but will still mean that the colleges and NCAA administer the payments or ultimately keep most of the money.

Going to be interesting though.

Foxtrol · 01-10-2019 8:43pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Maybe not a conversation for this thread but the recent news that the governor of California has signed a bill permitting college athletes to receive endorsement deals has the potential to really rock college sports including NFL.

The NCAA are against the bill and it remains to be seen how it will play out but it has the potential to make highschool/college football even more of a dog eat dog world in an effort to capture the best players and deals. (I'm not saying that the shouldn't be paid given the money they generate and how they are spat out if unsuccessful but it will be very interesting to see it play out.

NCAA and colleges going against this are some of the worst folk out there. Everyone gets fat from the trough aside from the players who are putting their bodies on the line. They can't justify pointing to the value of scholarships and then churn out kids that are pushed into joke classes and can't read.

Highschool football is generally pretty dirty as it is for paying player's families and as far as I know the bill is directed towards college athletes, which the NCAA covers.

Regarding the bold piece, if anything I would expect it to level the playing field somewhat and be good for the game. Players who might be just 'a guy' at Alabama could choose to go to another school and be a star and receive associated endorsements they would from their area.

Tell me how · 01-10-2019 8:51pm

Foxtrol wrote: »

NCAA and colleges going against this are some of the worst folk out there. Everyone gets fat from the trough aside from the players who are putting their bodies on the line. They can't justify pointing to the value of scholarships and then churn out kids that are pushed into joke classes and can't read.

Highschool football is generally pretty dirty as it is for paying player's families and as far as I know the bill is directed towards college athletes, which the NCAA covers.

Regarding the bold piece, if anything I would expect it to level the playing field somewhat and be good for the game. Players who might be just 'a guy' at Alabama could choose to go to another school and be a star and receive associated endorsements they would from their area.

Yeah, I can see the benefits in simple terms because obviously the students are the ones putting their bodies on the line but I am watching Last chance U Season 4 at the moment and have been shocked to the extent that kids are used and abused. Putting the carrot of payment while in college in front of them could lead to more pressure, more of a battle, more collateral damage and less concern for those who fall by the way side. And not just for football players either of course.

Foxtrol · 04-10-2019 3:52pm

Darnold being kept out again this weekend. Glad they're making that choice if there's any doubt, no need to risk death for a game your team is likely to lose either way.

phatkev · 04-10-2019 4:00pm

Foxtrol wrote: »

Darnold being kept out again this weekend. Glad they're making that choice if there's any doubt, no need to risk death for a game your team is likely to lose either way.

Absolutely, I'd rather him miss another game or two than get one hit and be out indefinitely

el Fenomeno · 07-10-2019 11:34am

Jay Gruden has been fired.

His post game yesterday sounded like he knew it was coming.

jack presley · 07-10-2019 12:20pm

el Fenomeno wrote: »

Jay Gruden has been fired.

His post game yesterday sounded like he knew it was coming.

He’s been a dead man walking since before the season. It was always playoffs or get sacked and playoffs were never going to happen.

Probably a decent coordinator but an awful head coach.

Masked Man · 07-10-2019 12:32pm

I think Gruden was asking to be fired more than expecting it!

Foxtrol · 07-10-2019 2:27pm

Masked Man wrote: »

I think Gruden was asking to be fired more than expecting it!

Not surprising. Everything about the team is toxic right now. Hard to see them turning anything around without an ownership change.

thomond2006 · 08-10-2019 12:18pm

Eifert apparently on the block with a Day 3 pick price.
Any contender should consider it. He's on no money for this year and the upside is Top 5 TE in the league.

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

Comments