NoSaint

I haven’t watched much - is part of it just that you care less?

it’s actually at the local high school in week 3 to reduce costs

I think language on the field would largely be a defined penalty in the CBA. Surely plenty of insults are hurled any given Sunday which I imagine would cut the league at the knees if they try to impose an indefinite suspension. Then go wouldn’t have unlimited leeway to do what they choose with Rudolph if he said it, to my understanding.

I feel like you just agreed with me but in what seems like a confrontational way.

Rudolph would still be protected by the CBA - so his banishment would be more kaepernick than league sanctioned

I suspect he will spend more than many think but less than he could. And he could spend it all without cap hell.

I hope I’m clear in wanting to spend every penny and then a few on top. Just think we could terribly overspend on a comparable DT and still come out cheaper and able to add more elsewhere. Tagging Phillips wouldn’t terribly upset me but I think we could do better

I mean, I think he’s just saying get a $5m guy and a $10m pass catcher or even a $5m guy, a $5m back, and a $5m upgrade elsewhere

I have wondered the same a bit Best I have come up with is that no matter what this is going to be a media issue at some point and if he does a formal interview and completes it in February it’s less distracting than questions throughout camp/season and allows him the “I already addressed this” for later.

more likely than not (standard for civil cases) that Garrett intentionally made it up out of thin air... which means a simple explanation of “rewatch the tape. I sacked him and basically ended the game but acted like a crazed idiot because I heard him say it” could be enough even if it’s 100% verifiable that Rudolph did not say it. simple misunderstanding or confusion can be a 100% acceptable defense to this lawsuit as malicious intent is key to the allegation that garret is making it up. Rudolph’s team doesn’t have to prove whether or not he said it, though that helps if he didn’t say it.

frankly if going the legal route Garrett has the advantage of needing only to argue that he thought he heard it, not prove that he said it Also- major aside but fascinating is the tomlin speaking to browns players twist. Can you imagine this being Jerry Hughes and Tom Brady and all of a sudden we get stories of BB speaking to our team and them siding with his version of events?

what age did you start playing high level organized football?

to sue someone for defamation you have to prove that what they said was knowingly said as an intentional untruth that caused harm. so Rudolph would need to produce something like a text between Garrett and someone regarding lying about it for instance.

im assuming said case he hypothesized about regarding the slur was referring to defamation, as I agree you can’t just assault the guy regardless of whether he said it

no, Rudolph would need to prove that Garrett knowingly did this to harm him. That Garrett could simply argue he must’ve misheard makes this a silly uphill climb to pursue short of someone coming forward with info that Garrett made it up. as the plaintiff the burden is on Rudolph in this hypothetical case.

that’s a bold prediction

it means that Garrett won’t have to prove it and that realistically any legal action isn’t likely to go anywhere at all.

suuuuuuure....

The flip side. He says it right after they hit the ground in a loud stadium. How many people would hear it? theres essentially no way to document or prove or... you just let the incident go at that point. Anyone going super hard in the paint either direction is speaking more about Their own views than this incident. I get having some opinions about what’s most likely but not getting worked up

to be fair, IF, he was called that he didn’t do anything to make a racial issue, really.

I mean, 12 picks later and not like at pick 32 guys suddenly get drastically worse. Late first to high second often the difference is as much need as anything, as you are getting out of rare talents and into bigger pools of comparable guys. ultimately, i think you nailed why the browns might consider a move. Old regime, maybe bad habits, or another connection to what was wrong and some rumors he’s not one of bakers guys in this thread. If they can get a pick and then take a guy for a fresh start that might appeal to them just like it seems to appeal to you. not stumping for Buffalo to be the team, just pointing out Cleveland could potentially answer phone calls at a lower than expected price point

Reggie Ragland wasn’t picked all that much later I agree it’s unlikely for a 6 but not crazy to see discussion about this

Or coaches want to clear out those guys to build their own roster. You paint with a pretty broad brush saying they keep projects for ego. Just as quickly they dump guys for ego.

I don’t like him but his praises are sung by many as a vet mentor

they still have Lee Smith in the room too. it would surprise me if they cut smith and Kroft unless they are targeting a true game changer. and I’ve complained about smith for like a decade it seems