maddenboy

I think the fact that this is a New CBA changes the Big Ben angle Both sides have reason to argue that the old ways do not count. Including that both sides had the Big Ben situation in mind when they were negotiating the current provision, so the new provision is designed to avoid the Big Ben result. That this is an issue of first-impression without any precedent under this specific set of rules. ON Purpose. Because both sides agreed to dump the old system under which Big Ben got 6 games. Based on whatever motivations the sides had to negotiate and end up with this new system. Also, both sides want a global settlement, Watson much moreso, and Watson will want any settlement to include future complaints for this same type of behavior during the same time period. i think that, behind doors, the NFL will be justifying the arguments that it made in the Big Ben case, about conduct detrimental to the entire league. Both sides gambled when they decided to scrap the old rules , in favor of the new CBA. Basically, NFL says "yes, Watson's conduct was detrimental to the league, so that is why we get to punish him. But we agree that the amount of punishment under that old system is irrelevant. We think the punishment under this new system should be x,y.z."

if they do something like this, they should announce at the beginning that it will change every 5 years. or some such. to give incentive for 'real' fans to earn their way in. And to forestall the pitchforks when its time to remove somebody or a theme.

this must be the combination that owes you the most money.

PFT first, because i havent found better in 15 years second, because he seems to try to present at least 2 points of view, even if he is heavily slanted. Because i think he slants opinion but i dont think he slants the underlying facts. Or, at least, it takes me far less mental work than other sites, at defending myself against his manipulation. (put another way: if i come away from one of his posts with a new or changed opinion, then Florio wins. But if i come away thinking that i have new facts to crunch in my own mind, then I win). [that sounded Way preachy. apologies. too lazy to craft a better response. hope you get my meaning though)

I LOVE whack-a-mole

i might have missed this upthread, but what you are saying sounds like Watson is planning to sue the Texans. Otherwise, if i'm Watson, why would i admit anything like that? how on earth would that benefit me? and even if that was Watson's plan, he'd best wait until all of his own stuff is put to bed. Then go after the Texans for some sort of contributory liability to the plaintiffs (ie: i had to pay them X, your team is 1/3 at fault, so you owe me reimbursement of 1/3x that i had to pay them but was really Your fault), but not for directly having wronged Watson, himself. Or, maybe he would. This is going a bit far afield for this thread, based on the current state of facts/knowledge we (I?) actually have.

you'd research the standard of proof for "knew or should have known" under the relevant law. Then see if your facts qualify. And if not, determine whether you can obtain such facts (like how close or far you currently are, and how far you have to go, and if its doable). then, and concurrently, you'd already be researching any and all possible legal theories that might fit your facts or the facts you might be able to develop. Where "fact" is a loose term for "everybody agrees this is something a jury should decide whether this particular and important (relevant) thing is true or not, since the lawyers would never be able to agree." Remembering that the percentage of cases that actually makes it to trial, and then thru trial to a verdict, then thru appeals, is pretty small. And both sides know it. You are trying to make your 'valid' arguments as strong a lever as possible. Because the other side isnt stupid and the judge isnt stupid. A jury might be, and that is one of the levers a Plaintiff always has. Or a criminal defendant.

i think it depends on their assessment of whether the locker room would prefer Jacoby Brissett or Mayfield. there's probably a lot of players who genuinely would support whichever gives the best chance to win. Given those 2 choices. Players know the browns are not winning the superbowl. but lots probably have contract incentives. or wanna put out the best tape possible, so they can gtfo as fast as possible. Or be on a winning team so that being on a winner boosts that player's Brand that he's building. or whatever. Even defensive players know that their stats get better as the offense performs better. etc. etc. If its jacoby, it will probably be a valid read by the players that he really is better as a player for the team. because faced with a head (mayfield) vs heart (anybody but Mayfield), i think mayfield wins. in a close one.

this is even better. I forgot the other trade-value argument would come from an actual market for his services. Because then we wouldnt need to convince anybody of anything. Just play them off each other a bit, pull the trigger, and move on.

i actually think the seahawks makes too much sense to not happen. But i'm still stuck at "if the browns trade him at all." And for the record: i like baker mayfield and think he is underrated, but just a little bit. And i think Watson is overrated a bit, but i love his game and his ceiling as a player is high.

but my point is, if i'm onto something at all, is that they purchased an asset. Its like buying a ferrari for your 15 year old daughter. she cannot drive yet but when she is old enuf, even if she has another car, its still a Ferrari, barely scratched, and i can sell it. i might not get allllll my money back. but i can calculate the risks up front. then acquire an asset.

i think mayfield will be back. he might have no choice. Getting a full playing season during his prime, to audition for his next team, without having to agree to reduce any of it to facilite a trade, and knowing that he needs to put his best foot forward, and with several built-in excuses if he doesnt win the superbowl or otherwise doesnt set the world on fire. And knowing he will never agree to stay with the Browns no matter how hard they beg. And, if he does set the world on fire, everybody wins. Including the browns. (Honestly, i hope the Browns crash and burn. Just like i do for every other team that's not the Bills. I just sleep with one eye open, if you will. Just that it might be the wrong one sometimes)

i wasnt including him in the "smart" people. Although people usually agree that super rich people didnt get there by being stupid. Here, he probably learned that he should hire smart people, like those analytics people. And high-priced lawyers/negotiators i dont want to beat this to death. It just seemed to make sense if, and only if, we can begin at "the browns were either very stupid or very shrewd in what they did here." That's where i was comin from.

shrewd? diabolical? soulless? i can agree to each of these. but i ususally presume that the things smart people do, musta been closer to feindish than stupid. (fully aware of the irony there)

i'm startin to think the Browns were genius in how they did this. (no sarcasm) As mentioned a couple weeks ago somewhere, and restated on PFT today, Watson's contract tolls during suspension, for a year. So his device to have his first year of actually playing be under a salary of only $1M was supposed to be to Watson's obvious benefit. But in tolling, the Browns get something too. They have Watson locked in to a 5 year contract. That might not start until his current top-of-market salary might only be middle-of-the-road. imo, THIS is why the Browns havent moved Mayfield. If Watson is suspended for a year or more, the brown lose nothing. Not even money, really. Because they can still Trade watson a couple years from now, if Mayfield balls out, or some other thing. The Browns purchased the rights to Watson. (instead of strictly just hiring him to be their qb). So the decided to lock him into a fixed contract. Solidifying the value of the asset.

fair. Except if i'm another team, I'd be comparing him to all of the similar players that got released at final cuts, before i even begin to value Ford. So i dont mean "what would he fetch if we found a partner" but rather "how could we have an argument that he has any worth in trade?" that would make a team not wanna gamble that he clears waivers or is otherwise obtainable after the Bills cut him.

I think Moss is most likely to be traded, than the others. Epenesa second Moss has a verfiable skill that is not potential. Pass blocking / blitz recognition and pickup. That is something that a team can use Now. Whether it is a need for a team would be the main factor, i think. Epenesa's value is that teams will conclude that the Bills made a mistake in his development but he's still young and still hungry. And obviously coachable if he agreed to entirely change his body at the urging of the Bills. Ford? what trade value could he possibly have at all? (and not picking on you personally. And not unaware of "cut/trade" and your intended meaning. But i think you should have ended at the word "cut." For either Moss or Eppy, the term "cut/trade" would be appropriate, i think)

This

the problem here is that your argument starts with the words ". . . since we are not getting rid of both of them, then . . ." I dont think this assumption is valid.

for some reason i could not move past the word clothesline . . . without needing to see some old grainy videos of people gettin clotheslined. Before i can finish your post. What a beautifully descriptive term, like so many we used to have. Good times. A lot of the videos are curated by the NFL to contain zero illegal tackles. But not this one. this one celebrates them. The narrator even said Night Train believed in tackling from the eyebrows, up.

It is called the "Nuisance Value" of a case. how much the defendant will pay to make this nuisance go away. Like it will cost $250k to win this 95% righteous defense. She is suing for $100k plaintiff lawyers know this. Defense lawyers know this. Courts know this. Legislative bodies know this. This helps judicial economy. Courts want to try cases with "genuine issues of material fact" to be decided by a jury.

Bruce is doing what has been talked about in barber shops for a long time. Probably since Curtis Martin. or Lynn Swann. But very very few HOF-ers have the standing to go public with it. It would take (1) a player of Bruce's unquestionable dominance in the league, and also (2) a player like Bruce who went head-to-head with the perceived slacker (HOF-worthiness wise) Who could say for curtis martin: i'm a first ballot HOF and played against him lots of time and he is only very good? Everybody. so, therefore, nobody really. A fellow rb cant complain about Martin. For a sketchy WR, for example, it would take somebody like Deion Sanders to be able to say "this has gone too far. I shut him down ridiculously easy but/for one game." The conversation needed to be had. I think this is the first time a lock first ballot HOF player had the opportunity to do this. with appropriate Standing. In fact, i wonder (tin foil) if there was a plan in place to support Bruce's standing ahead of time, just in case they actually let somebody perceived as borderline-at-best, by leaking and fanning the fact that Boselli's camp based its pitch on that one game, or whatever. (and earlier poster compared to what Reggie White would have done. Me? I think Reggie would have had an opinion on the HOF selection for years, woudl have been privy to all the whispered conversations just like Bruce and so many others in and out of football. Maybe Reggie would have said "okay, its my moment to take a stand, 'cause this shtt is ridiculous now.')

I mean, there's gotta be at LEAST five sex jokes in here somewhere, right?

A couple points i havent seen mentioned wrt the criminal defense attorneys: 1) Most of the rules that protect us have come from HARD fought cases. for example, Miranda rights, Warrantless searches, etc. Public defenders are often too busy to run some exotic motion that, though they have heard about it, just dont have time to even begin the research. Rich people with expensive attorneys do have an advantage, but its an advantage in maximum Fairness of the system. Their rising tide could be said to lift more boats 2) Ruggs probably had Insurance policies in excess of minimum state limits and most insurers deny coverage for DUI. So with zero insurance (unless he has life policies or some such), His family has millions at stake. No matter what happens in criminal court, the following monday morning the civil Wrongful Death suit will be filed. Civil plaintiffs always lets criminal go first, because of the higher standard of proof. It makes suing the defendant easier if he was already convicted beyond a reasonable doubt [i'm heavily simplifying here, but this is the gist] Enter the insurers or, more likely, the regular civil defense attorneys. The more success Ruggs has in crim court, the better their negotiating leverage in Civil. I'm sure this is a tiny factor but i hadnt seen it mentioned.

no order: Billy Bob Thornton in Slingblade Kevin Spacey in the Usual Suspects Joaquin Phoenix in the Joker (i actually felt that i left that theater changed in some small way) Peter Sellers in A Shot in the Dark (the 2nd Pink Panther movie) Ben Kingsley in Gandhi ----- ----------- Honorable mention: Jamie Foxx in Ray Dustin Hoffman in Rainman Denzel in Malcolm X (because its the only movie i've ever seen him in where i didnt feel like i was watching Denzel Washington) Marcel Marceau in Silent Movie (mentioned upthread and reminded me. Because miming looks soo hard, but not when done correctly) John Hurt in The Elephant Man. ---------- [mid-fifties male, born and raised in bailey/kensington in Buffalo, african american]