maddenboy

best if its just as he is coming out of his break.

perhaps they set it up to be quite trade-able. I expect there is no "no trade" clause I suspect Seattle's rebuild will include coach and front office, too. I know the Allens say they wont sell until at least 2024 or something, but the team wont be as attractive with an 80 year old head coach.

"One of our defensive players has a lower body. That's all we have at this time"

I expect that the primary reason for the NFLPA to pursue a likely losing case in Federal court is to simultaneously file for an injunction to allow Watson to play during the pendency of the appeal. The argument would be that if punishment is ultimately meted out, he will still be able to serve it later. He is young and has a couple hundred million reasons to serve it. Later. But as a young athlete who has already missed so much time, and who has not re-offended, he should be allowed to play Now.

this is sad. just when i started to respect the Cardinals a bit. So basically they just removed the only barrier to his bazillions in guarantees. And all he had to do was cry about it. Which is one of the things they didnt like about giving him that money anyway. Stupid. Didnt they have a plan for after it leaked? I now wish the Cardinals were in our division.

This doesnt even need a caption or subtitles Same with Jim Mora in his Colts sweater

i wanna say Christian Wade. He doesnt look American for some reason. Is he still alive?

serious or not, This is why I pay full freight for The Athletic. It is great value. especially if you care about sports around the world. And especially if you hate things like an ESPN paywall and want to encourage the future of sports coverage. Hell, I steal enuf things off the internet that, for balance or karma or whatever, I should be willing to financially support things that are worth it. In Economics 101 they would say I am casting my dollar-votes (wait. Did i actually say "steal?" I'm sure i musta meant some other pleasant euphemism. )

Agree with each of these. I actually came in here to Boldly predict James Cook as AFC ROY. But yours is Bolder. OP predicted Kaiir Elam for interceptions. But I think that would require Tre White to play most of the season, meaning teams throw to Elam's side. And/or, because of our hella improved pass rush, Elam with his atheticism catches a lot of Kyler Murray-esque no-look passes. Totally agree that Baker will ball tf out. That boy got game. I like the thinking that Oliver benefits most from having Von Miller

for the amount they were willing to pay you, your emails were auto-forwarded to @HOUSE

sorry. I meant to stash a holding punter in case Punt God doesnt improve as a holder. I think McB will be looking for improvement and commitment to the craft of holding. I dont think they drafted him to be a clean crisp holder on day one, or else hit the unemployment line.

I think the better question is whether our current punter could be stashed on the practice squad. In case Punt God does not continue to improve during the season. Because obviously Punt God is making the final 53 or else be traded.

how could it not be Curtis Martin at running back? His 'rating' is official.

once upon a time, this was a thread about Rosters. And nobody has mentioned Cleveland.

"one of one" would make a good offseason thread topic. guys who are so unique that opponents dont even bother to have somebody on scout team try to replicate the player in practice. For reasons other than pure speed.

presumably, each of the plaintiffs has had her deposition taken by now. the NFL should have had access to those. And in an arbitration, with relaxed rules of evidence, both sides should have been able to submit relevant testimony. And since Watson's lawyers also have the depo transcripts, which they would have used in Watson's defense if necessary, there wouldnt have been much need for the plaintiffs to testify lastly, if i'm the plaintiffs' lawyer, no way in hell would i let them testify at an NFL disciplinary hearing if i could prevent it. Again, they havent been vigorously cross-examined yet and i would not want to allow any potential damage to my lawsuit, such as inconsistencies. In other words, Buzbee gains nothing from having his clients testify, but could lose a lot.

Make the Referee review the play only in normal speed, 3 times maximum. No back up. No slow-motion. No freeze-frame. Because these devices are used to make the correct call. Which is what fans want. But that's not the intent of the rule as written. If the referee cant see indisputable visual evidence that the call was wrong, with the benefit of multiple angles, then it should not be overturned. Or else, re-write the rule, if the actual intent is to make the correct call. As it is now, the rule is basically "did the official, who made the call in real time, eff up so obviously that we need to step in?"

it sounds more like Sammy is begging for another, nother, nother chance "Wait, I can change! I am still trying to learn. Even from young guys. I'm Coachable!!! Pleeeeeeeeeze gimme some more free money to run around and not get hurt much and not work super hard. I love the NFL"

he's been on injured reserve for about 3 years though

I disagree Mayfield needs to show up and play football, if they ask him, in order to collect his $18MM. Otherwise, "conduct detrimental" and such. Whoever thinks that if Watson is suspended, the Browns will just say "welp, we Did do Mayfield wrong, so lets just let him sit home and collect free money while we roll with Jacoby?" Not I. And Mayfield needs to play Well in order to cash in on his future prospects. He cant just show up and play like shtt, with the excuse that "wink-nudge, you all know the Real Me is a much better qb than this, but i'm sandbagging this season." Because yeah. No Baker, nobody 'knows' that your ***** play will be on purpose.

i dont know that we have ever seen either of them fight. If it were a fight, i'd put a buncha money on AP. Frank Gore, i'd mortgage something to cover that fight, and probably sell some plasma, too. Gore might actually kill either one of them. And funny, typing this, i just noticed what a great fighter's name he has.

maybe i articulated it wrong in my scneario it is a 2 year suspension. with all of it except the first 6 games becoming 'suspended' after the first six games of the 2 year suspsension have been served. my point was whether the judge could find a 'workaround' or loophole. You flatly stated there isnt one. It would be helpful if one of our brethrem who has read the relevant portions of the current CBA can add something here. Here, Goodell can say "eff it. its a 2 year suspension so my women customers are placated" and probably after some market research. So the NFL wont 'appeal.' And Watson can say "eff it. 6 games I can live with. Eff it. lets get on with it."

a thought occurs If she finds he violated the policy, does she have options besides suspension and/or a fine? She could find him "guilty" and impose the same "penalty" that Robert Kraft got. Or some other non-appealable "penalty." in other words: What other un-appealable penalties can she impose? I havent read the CBA and dont care to, but does she have a loophole out of this? Like the equivalent of a suspended sentence perhaps. "I sentence you to 2 years supension. But if, after 6 games of that suspension (with you not playing and not being paid) you have not re-offended (committed a new offense after today's date, and not counting past conduct), you will be automatically eligible to resume your career as normal. And if you ever re-offend, the remaining balance of my suspension becomes effective immediately" or similar.

"Indefininte Suspension" is a non-starter for Watson. It means "until all the cases are final. Just in case." And it is lazy by the NFL. Because Watson will ask "what would make it Definite?" Watson's problem is that as soon as its "Indefinite Suspension" then the remaining plaintiffs' leverage goes through the roof. And the NFL must know this. The arbiter (retired Federal Judge) knows this too, and how unfair that would be to Watson. The real question for me is: If any arbitration is appealed to Goodell, will he be able to change her decison to "Indefinite?" Because if so, then Goodell has leverage over watson. Goodell says "You had better make a deal with me for Any number, as long as its a finite number"

causation, maybe. If the 'fetish' thing is accurate, he could be said to just had more money to set himself up more times to get lucky. Or whatever anybody does behind closed doors. As long as not illegal. It doesnt look like he had criminal intent,(no indictment signals not enuf proof of intent) no matter where he falls on a fan's moral spectrum. If it had never gotten out as news, what would the detriment to the league be? not the conduct itself. So the point is "detrimental" which probably means 'make us less money' (no sarcasm. that is how the league's value is determined). So should he have known both that (1) it would get out, and also (2) that there would be detriment to the league? and if the answer is Yes to both (which must be true), then (3) he decided it was worth it to gamble. Now the league is mad that he gambled and lost, and he is saying "yeah, i thought my risk was that the league might suffer X amount of damage" and the NFL is saying "no, stupid. The risk was 5X. you owe us for the damage And you are going to suffer for underestimating"