K Gun Special

Detroit took Suh last year, who is a beast, and the run game did not improve. Its going to take more than a bunch of rookies to fix the D.

Here is a list of QBs who went to the super bowl in last 10 years Brady -4 warner -2 Ben - 3 brees- 1 Rodgers - 1 Grossman - 1 e. manning - 1 p. manning -2 delhomme- 1 mcnabb -1 I read that list and think you do need a franchise QB. Funny how NFL Gm continue to say that too.

well since theres a large sentiment of FItz boosters on here saying he will get better with another year on his belt maybe our 28th ranked O can keep our terrible D off the field more. thats part of the problem too.

not a bad pick with a 30 yr old starter

they took him with their 6th pick. He is a meth head and unless he stops it will ruin his body. I told you everyone would stay away from him because of that. The team that took a flyer on him used their 6th pick of the draft. Hardly an endorsement. The pats have taken flyers on QBs like him for years. It's so far from a given that mallett pans out. I dont see how you can have a reasonable fear of a guy that teams absolutely desperate said no way to this guy.

youre just upset mallett wasnt taken top 10 like you had been saying for months.

dareus was suspended for taking improper benefits........

his dealer?

you shold be worried about his behavior. Everyone else is.

channeling inner whitner. Mcgee is old.

Well 4 months ago the 8th circuit held re preliminary injunction not permanent " “We review the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, giving deference to the discretion of the district court.” Vonage Holdings Corp. v. Neb. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 564 F.3d 900, 904 (8th Cir.2009). “An abuse of discretion occurs if the district court rests its conclusion on clearly erroneous factual findings or if its decision relies on erroneous legal conclusions."" Rogers, 629 f3d784 Based on Rogers it doesnt matter if there was an evidentiary determination or not. Its whether her conclusions of law or fact were clearly erroneous. Abuse of discretion.

The D does need to be fixed. But people are being a little shortsigted here. The offense was not good. They had trouble staying on the field meaning our weak D was getting pounded. We gave up a ton of yards in the second half of games for this very reason. If they think theres a QB who can be better than Fitz, thats their pick no bones about it. Otherwise it will be reinforcement for the D.

You make it sound like he played 1 year of football. In JuCo he was 204/336 = 61% for 2800 yards and 500 rushing. Threw for 22 TDs and only 5 INTs. Yea its JuCo but lets not pretend it didnt happen or that Nix and other GMs dont have that film. A little common sense goes a long way.

Peter, did you see where i cited the 8th circuit reviewing a preliminary injunction issue?? Thats controlling, not the case law you cited dealing with non preliminary injunction issues. The article written by a sports lawyer says the same thing. Please dont cite and bold cases dealing with other issues..... welfare benefits??? a review of a preliminary injunction as shown by the 8th circuit last month says Abuse of Discretion.

Its a relatively new area of the law. The Eight Circuit is generally friendly to businesses but they must still abide by their own precedents. As stated in my previous post, it is a high burden to have a PI overturned. The lack of testimony is not a big factor. Its really about the irreparable harm issue. Did the players show the harm would be so? She clearly thought so and the 8th would have to hold that was an abuse of discretion. I think its unlikely the 8th overturns bc 1) the law and (2) it forces the sides to negotiate. No side really wants the wild west (yes the players have made this argument somewhat, but they have to) so they will be forced to create a new CBA. I know some of you are very pro owners or pro PA but you need to view this situation from the lens of the Court. The quicker the Court can put the ball back into the parties' hands the better for them.

No its not. I just showed you a lawyers in the know take on it. From another legal source : """One hurdle for the owners is that preliminary injunctions are reviewed very deferentially. Just a few months ago, the Eighth Circuit wrote, “We review the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, giving deference to the discretion of the district court.” . . . "An abuse of discretion occurs if the district court rests its conclusion on clearly erroneous factual findings or if its decision relies on erroneous legal conclusions.” Rogers Group, Inc. v. City of Fayetteville, 629 F.3d 784, 787 (8th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). What does this mean as a practical matter? "Abuse of discretion" is a very hard standard to meet. To be reversed, Judge Nelson's decision would have to be so obviously wrong ("clearly erroneous") that it is implausible. Generally, appeals courts do not like to tell district courts that they have blatantly screwed up. This makes the climb that much steeper for the owners."""" SO yea the Eight Circuit is going to give a lot of weight to Nelson's ruling. Its not simply whether or not she made factual determinations.

Won a championship at Blinn. Won the SEC championship, the BCS championship #2 rated passer in NCAA. Won the Heisman btw the article you cited is written by a math teacher and part time blogger. Nice. You can argue about red flags and his attributes. I dont see how anyone can not see why Newton is getting hyped.

Read the article on SI.com written by the lawyer specializing in sports related law. http://m.si.com/news/wr/wr/detail/3662306/2;jsessionid=8898BD9ABB166E61BEAEE9E49C69AA36.cnnsi1 ""the Eight Circuit will review Judge Nelson's order under the deferential "abuse of discretion" standard.""" The review standard is abuse of discretion not de novo. Rule 65 doesnt require the judge to make a separate written ruling on the facts nor does it require witness testimony. Even if what you say is true, and there was a requirement for testimony, the appeals court would remand the case for testimony and Nelson would likely rule the same anyway.

I am not questioning NGU at all, but can someone give a rundown of the other scoops that have been provided?

THe NFL has been losing in Federal court for years. They got spanked by the Sup Ct dominated by pro business conservatives. Sometimes a ruling is really on the law. Have you seen any legal scholars blasting Nelson's ruling?

The Colts have had success by drafting the BPA by and large. They do not draft for need.

The new GM in Carolina and John Elway in Denver, who are also rumored to be high on Newton, must be as dumb as Nix then? Im not looking for a choir boy, i want a winner. IF they choose him its because he's a winner AND he has the other tools they are looking for. I would tend to agree to NGU assertion that their board looks like Newton Dareus then the field with miller and green in there. Im not terribly impressed with Miller but Green is a stud. The WR position is full but isnt stacked with talent. Evans looks less like a #1 every year.

Thats your definition. The case clearly has merit, and enough merit to warrant an injunction. This places very far away from the legal definition of the word frivolous. The NFL has lost a number of cases in the Federal system, see American Needle, and they will likely lose this one too. The court would certainly prefer them to work it out, which they will.

Its the Court's way of forcing them back to the table. The owner's dont have a strong case in court and have treble damages awaiting. The players need paychecks. There is incentive to get a deal done so there is a 2011 season.