News on Tyreek???

[Handswarmer 645]

8 minutes ago, Adamixoye said:

You do literally keep bringing up the broken arm as though it's relevant.  Again, of all the confusing/contradictory/complex evidence, the broken arm is the one thing that seems be settled---it was an accident, it's irrelevant.  You can't just keep bringing it up under the guise of "the whole situation is ugly."

 

7 minutes ago, reesebobby said:

Stop being inflammatory with false accusations and I'll lay off.  He has been cleared of breaking the kids arm.  Repeatedly bringing it up is disingenuous at best and being a Ravens troll more likely. 

 

4 minutes ago, Adamixoye said:

The only thing that's relevant about the broken arm, barring new information, is what Crystal said in the audio.  It's hearsay when she says the kid said "daddy did it."  If the physical forensic evidence is consistent with an accident and that's the conclusion of the medical professionals and the police, then her saying that speaks to her being manipulative.

Again, I fully acknowledge that there are a LOT of ifs in what I just said.

Since it was determined that it was an accident, I have only mentioned it in the context of the whole situation because to the naked eye when combined with the threat, the method of discipline, the accusations outlined in the tape and the 2014 Plea Deal, it all stinks.

 

[reesebobby 5,664]

1 minute ago, Handswarmer said:

 

 

Since it was determined that it was an accident, I have only mentioned it in the context of the whole situation because to the naked eye when combined with the threat, the method of discipline, the accusations outlined in the tape and the 2014 Plea Deal, it all stinks.

 

Whatever. 

[Adamixoye 604]

Just now, Handswarmer said:

Since it was determined that it was an accident, I have only mentioned it in the context of the whole situation because to the naked eye when combined with the threat, the method of discipline, the accusations outlined in the tape and the 2014 Plea Deal, it all stinks.

But again, that's unfair.  You are mentioning something that "looks bad" even though it doesn't take much research to understand that it is irrelevant.  It's willful obtuseness at this point.

I understand there is the belief by some that the NFL will do something purely based on optics and won't consider the facts, but I actually don't believe that's the case.  Again, we've been told that Goodell is in for a fight if the suspension is overly aggressive or baseless.  I don't think he'll make a judgment based on, "well, this looks bad even though the truth is out there."

[SEMO 6,812]

https://arrowheadaddict.com/2019/07/10/full-tyreek-hill-audio-exposes-failures-kctv-5-angie-ricono/

[Handswarmer 645]

29 minutes ago, Adamixoye said:

But again, that's unfair.  You are mentioning something that "looks bad" even though it doesn't take much research to understand that it is irrelevant.  It's willful obtuseness at this point.

I understand there is the belief by some that the NFL will do something purely based on optics and won't consider the facts, but I actually don't believe that's the case.  Again, we've been told that Goodell is in for a fight if the suspension is overly aggressive or baseless.  I don't think he'll make a judgment based on, "well, this looks bad even though the truth is out there."

Look at Ezekial Elliot

[Handswarmer 645]

From the article-

What was in the audio KCTV-5 released in April, however, was this bit from Hill to Espinal:

“You ain’t riding for me in 2014, you damn sure ain’t riding for me now, bro.”

If you don’t remember this being a part of KCTV-5’s release, I don’t blame you. It faded into background noise the moment we all heard Hill say, “You need to be terrified of me too, b***h.”

As jarring and damning as that was, it was the comment about Espinal not “riding for” him that stuck with me as the most difficult to swallow. It’s easy enough to find multiple interpretations of Hill’s now most infamous “terrified of me” words. Some might say he spoke emotionally in the heat of an argument; others have hypothesized he was referring to his own ability to “expose” Espinal. I’m not particularly interested in parsing the comment myself, but it’s undeniable that you can if you want to.

But when Hill told Espinal she didn’t ride for him in 2014 and he had no reason to believe she would in 2019, what other interpretation could one logically come to based on the facts that were known at the time than that Hill was asking Espinal to lie for him? Until 610 AM’s release of the full audio, Hill has never publicly denied the 2014 crimes he pled guilty to. In fact, when he was drafted by the Chiefs. he acknowledged that fans had a right to be angry about his inclusion on the Chiefs’ roster.

Even Chiefs fans on social media most convinced of Hill’s innocence have felt the need to preface their defenses, “Okay, yeah, what he did in the past was horrible, but…”

So no one, or at least no one who would be taken seriously, was denying that Hill assaulted Espinal. It was universally accepted that this was something that happened. He pled guilty to it, served his sentence, and was given a second chance.

[Adamixoye 604]

1 minute ago, Handswarmer said:

Look at Ezekial Elliot

You're changing the topic / shifting the goalposts.  We're not talking about whether Goodell can suspend a player based on a standard lower than in a criminal court---we all know the answer to that.  There was still evidence in the Zeke case.

This situation is different because (a) to the best of our knowledge, he's been cleared of the arm breaking and (b) there is another suspect for the abuse.  No other DV/child abuse case that the NFL has suspended for had a second suspect in the way that Crystal is also suspect regarding the bruising and welts on the boy.

Also, the Zeke case is irrelevant to why you keep bringing it up here.  You haven't always been talking about what Goodell might do.

[Handswarmer 645]

37 minutes ago, Adamixoye said:

But again, that's unfair.  You are mentioning something that "looks bad" even though it doesn't take much research to understand that it is irrelevant.  It's willful obtuseness at this point.

I understand there is the belief by some that the NFL will do something purely based on optics and won't consider the facts, but I actually don't believe that's the case.  Again, we've been told that Goodell is in for a fight if the suspension is overly aggressive or baseless.  I don't think he'll make a judgment based on, "well, this looks bad even though the truth is out there."

 

2 minutes ago, Adamixoye said:

You're changing the topic / shifting the goalposts.  We're not talking about whether Goodell can suspend a player based on a standard lower than in a criminal court---we all know the answer to that.  There was still evidence in the Zeke case. The NFL spent over a year investigating domestic violence allegations raised by Elliott’s former girlfriend in Columbus, Ohio. She filed police reports and went to the Columbus City Attorney’s office to pursue charges in July 2016. Elliott was never charged with a crime.

This situation is different because (a) to the best of our knowledge, he's been cleared of the arm breaking and (b) there is another suspect for the abuse.  No other DV/child abuse case that the NFL has suspended for had a second suspect in the way that Crystal is also suspect regarding the bruising and welts on the boy.

Also, the Zeke case is irrelevant to why you keep bringing it up here.  You haven't always been talking about what Goodell might do.

I referred back to your post with an example and you claim I am shifting the goal posts.

The NFL’s disciplinary process does not carry the same burden of proof as the legal system. The league’s investigation determined that Elliott was violent toward the woman on three separate occasions. -SB Nation

[Adamixoye 604]

11 minutes ago, Handswarmer said:

 

I referred back to your post with an example and you claim I am shifting the goal posts.

The NFL’s disciplinary process does not carry the same burden of proof as the legal system. The league’s investigation determined that Elliott was violent toward the woman on three separate occasions. -SB Nation

You've done a really good job of outlining why the cases aren't comparable and why your own point is wrong.  Zeke wasn't suspended for "bad optics," he was suspended because there was evidence there even though the courts did not pursue charges, which is a thing that happens all the time.  Again, that's apples and oranges to where Tyreek has been essentially cleared of the arm-breaking portion of this whole situation.

"The kid's broken arm is a bad look" isn't at all the same as what happened with Zeke.  Now, if the NFL investigates and uncovers some new evidence, or there is evidence regarding the other allegations of abuse (the bruises and welts, not the broken arm) then that would be a different discussion.

So again, final time...citing the broken arm, unless new evidence or new reports come to light, is irrelevant.  There is not precedent for suspending him on the basis of something that people agree is an accident.  The Zeke situation was not merely "bad optics," so it's not a precedent.

[Handswarmer 645]

2 minutes ago, Adamixoye said:

You've done a really good job of outlining why the cases aren't comparable and why your own point is wrong.  Zeke wasn't suspended for "bad optics," he was suspended because there was evidence there even though the courts did not pursue charges, which is a thing that happens all the time.  Again, that's apples and oranges to where Tyreek has been essentially cleared of the arm-breaking portion of this whole situation.

"The kid's broken arm is a bad look" isn't at all the same as what happened with Zeke.  Now, if the NFL investigates and uncovers some new evidence, or there is evidence regarding the other allegations of abuse (the bruises and welts, not the broken arm) then that would be a different discussion.

So again, final time...citing the broken arm, unless new evidence or new reports come to light, is irrelevant.  There is not precedent for suspending him on the basis of something that people agree is an accident.  The Zeke situation was not merely "bad optics," so it's not a precedent.

YOU keep citing the broken arm.

I mention it in the totality of the ENTIRE situation, as do others (not necessarily here)

I know the cases aren't comparable- I am merely pointing out the punishment handed down by the NFL -

The bad optics includes Elliot, Ray Rice, Jimmy Smith, Greg Hardy, etc- so yes, I should have mentioned them all instead of one. My apologies to you, good Doctor

[Adamixoye 604]

6 minutes ago, Handswarmer said:

YOU keep citing the broken arm.

LOL, this whole conversation started because you brought up the broken arm again just on the last page:  

Then reesebobby made a joke when you didn't mention it yet again in your very next post.  But sure, you're not shifting the goalposts.

I think I'm done here.

[reesebobby 5,664]

5 minutes ago, Adamixoye said:

LOL, this whole conversation started because you brought up the broken arm again just on the last page:  

Then reesebobby made a joke when you didn't mention it yet again in your very next post.  But sure, you're not shifting the goalposts.

I think I'm done here.

I wasn't joking.  I really thought he forgot to mention the broken arm. 

[Biggjliv4 1,292]

Damn...there sure is a lot of panties in a bundle on this forum.  Only thing I know for sure is we don't really know what happened, we won't know what really happened, and we don't know what Goodell will do until we do. 

None of us has any skin in this game and what any of us think is irrelevant because nobody that matters gives a shit. Therefore grab a beer and then another.  

[FANATIC 852]

Hey Mods. This thread should be retitled , My PHD is bigger than yours or Keep Your Hands off My PHD and moved.  🙄

Lets get a real Hill Update Thread Going. 

[Mloe68 1,521]

4 hours ago, Handswarmer said:

Look at Ezekial Elliot

Elliott had an actual accuser who filed three different complaints against him. They were able to interview her and get her side of the story which led to the suspension. We know Goodell deals in generalities. What probably happened is good enough. The issue here is we have no idea what probably happened. And I think that will be reflected in his decision. Again I think the NFLPA is begging for him to hand out suspensions without evidence to back it up so that they can pull this power from him in the new CBA. He knows that. 

[Adamixoye 604]

23 minutes ago, FANATIC said:

Hey Mods. This thread should be retitled , My PHD is bigger than yours or Keep Your Hands off My PHD and moved.  🙄

Lets get a real Hill Update Thread Going. 

Oh please...I mentioned it once as a matter of pointing out my perspective on the importance of how we view evidence, and a second time as a self-effacing joke.  The first and I believe only other time that I ever mentioned it on this board was recently when specifically asked about my job in the context of one of my posts.

I was on the Scout boards for a decade and I don't think I ever brought it up there, I could be wrong.

You seem to be hung up on the fact that I think there are objectively correct and incorrect ideas to be held, rather than just looking at the internet and this message board as a wild wild west of baseless opinions.

[FANATIC 852]

4 minutes ago, Adamixoye said:

Oh please...I mentioned it once as a matter of pointing out my perspective on the importance of how we view evidence, and a second time as a self-effacing joke.  The first and I believe only other time that I ever mentioned it on this board was recently when specifically asked about my job in the context of one of my posts.

I was on the Scout boards for a decade and I don't think I ever brought it up there, I could be wrong.

You seem to be hung up on the fact that I think there are objectively correct and incorrect ideas to be held, rather than just looking at the internet and this message board as a wild wild west of baseless opinions.

[Adamixoye 604]

9 minutes ago, Mloe68 said:

Elliott had an actual accuser who filed three different complaints against him. They were able to interview her and get her side of the story which led to the suspension. We know Goodell deals in generalities. What probably happened is good enough. The issue here is we have no idea what probably happened. And I think that will be reflected in his decision. Again I think the NFLPA is begging for him to hand out suspensions without evidence to back it up so that they can pull this power from him in the new CBA. He knows that. 

Agree totally.  Like I've been saying, Goodell *might* do anything, but the particulars of this case are truly without precedent.  You can't compare it to the Zeke case (or any or similar case) because there was evidence against Zeke, just not enough to prosecute; it was far more than just "bad optics for the league."  That same level of evidence, as far as we know, simply does not exist in this case.

[Adamixoye 604]

1 minute ago, FANATIC said:

That is most definitely your avatar.

[reesebobby 5,664]

If Hardman works out and Watkins stays healthy, this is a ridiculous receiving corps. 

[jetlord 10,210]

2 hours ago, reesebobby said:

If Hardman works out and Watkins stays healthy, this is a ridiculous receiving corps. 

Hill, Watkins, Hardman.  Could be one of the fastest receiving corps in the NFL.  Just need an arm that can get the ball out to them.  Oh....never mind. 

[FANATIC 852]

24 minutes ago, jetlord said:

Hill, Watkins, Hardman.  Could be one of the fastest receiving corps in the NFL.  Just need an arm that can get the ball out to them.  Oh....never mind. 

Yes. Why not just have Mahomes take the snap at punter depth? The play? Everyone go deep!

[Handswarmer 645]

16 hours ago, Mloe68 said:

Elliott had an actual accuser who filed three different complaints against him. They were able to interview her and get her side of the story which led to the suspension. We know Goodell deals in generalities. What probably happened is good enough. The issue here is we have no idea what probably happened. And I think that will be reflected in his decision. Again I think the NFLPA is begging for him to hand out suspensions without evidence to back it up so that they can pull this power from him in the new CBA. He knows that. 

Yes, but no charges were brought. I agree that with this case, no one besides Hill and Espinal know what really happened- even if they can remember clearly.

[Handswarmer 645]

16 hours ago, reesebobby said:

If Hardman works out and Watkins stays healthy, this is a ridiculous receiving corps. 

Throw in Kelce and it is definitely explosive.

[Mloe68 1,521]

3 hours ago, Handswarmer said:

Yes, but no charges were brought. I agree that with this case, no one besides Hill and Espinal know what really happened- even if they can remember clearly.

We can both definitely agree that actual criminal charges are not the smoking gun Goodell needs to divvy out long suspensions.  Heck look at Kareem Hunt. 

But if Goodell hands out a long suspension for bad optics without almost any factual backup of wrongdoing or even testimony from anyone that establishes as much, it’s a CBA powderkeg for the NFLPA.  

Mob mentality for issuing little or none is also a different type of powderkeg. 

Hes in a brutal spot created by his own past decisions.