Robert James

I misunderstood, thanks for pointing it out. I still think the generally-low graduation rates for college players support what Rosen said.

From the article: "Saban cited statistics of players who players who got their degrees before finishing their playing careers." Not terribly helpful for the vast majority of players who don't have a high-paying job and 5-6 months off every year after ending their college football careers without a degree. As for those who manage to play football and get a degree Saban seems to think that a small minority of players getting a degree before they leave college is good enough: From the article: "Again, Saban circled back to the graduation rates. It currently has 12 players who already earned undergraduate degrees."

Especially not at Kent State in the early 1970s.

I don't by the "backed in" narrative either. Let's say the Bengals/Ravens game went exactly as it did, but was played in week five. It would have had precisely the same effect on our getting into the playoffs, but many people would have believed our path to the playoffs was somehow more legitimate. When it comes down to the last teams vying for the final wildcard spot, the ultimate winner is always decided by numerous plays in numerous games throughout the year that they had no control over. The fact that one of those crucial plays takes place near the end of the last game of the season for one of the teams, certainly adds drama. But it doesn't make the team that gets in any more or less deserving, IMO.

The value of this year's 22nd pick would have been about 360, since the value of the next year's pick is generally valued at a round lower (pick 54). But we also got last year's 91st pick, valued at 136. So, the total would have been 680 + 360 + 136 = 1176. Perhaps a bit low, but in the realm of reason given the possibility the Chiefs season would go worse than it did. This year's rumored numbers look reasonable too. 2. 2600 (Value of Giant's number 2) We are rumored as offering: 12. 1200 22. 780 53. 370 65. 265 Total value for our rumored offer : 2615

I agree. I am a boomer who has taught and advised many millenials as a law school prof. and a practicing attorney. To me these broad characterizations of millenials are no different than the ageist characterizations of older people. Each group is a broad array of individuals -- if you're going to judge them, judge them as individuals.

I found it very helpful to be able to review posts addressing only this issue. Much more efficient than scrolling through the original thread, which was not terribly helpful on this point. I will be the first to admit that I don't understand the specific TBD policy on this.

I take it to mean they will be talking to the teams that hold the top five picks and exploring the possibility of making a deal with one of them. Could be anywhere from 1 to 5 depending on what teams are entertaining serious offers and what they are asking. Pick number 1 would be a top 5 pick, and they could get either of those QBs with it.

Given that McDermott coached him as DC for years in Carolina, and that Beane was at Carolina that whole time as well, I trust their ability to gauge his value to the Bills.

Perhaps if you're working at Hardees, in an ordinary at-will employment setting, but you can't seriously believe these multi-million-dollar-a -year players and their agents negotiated contracts giving their teams carte-blanche authority to direct their actions in this way. This is especially true given that, as you note, they are public figures, many of whom make a great deal of their income from endorsement deals. Significant portions of their livelihoods depend on their ability to manage their public images, and they don't simply sign that away and then dedicate themselves to saying "yes boss."

What you say may generally be true in most work situations. But if employees are required to stand at attention while the national flag is raised, the employer is essentially requiring them to make a political statement. I don't believe it's proper for employers to put their employees in that position. When placed in a situation which implies their support for the status quo in America, I think they act appropriately by simpy kneeling down to negate that implication. What if the Pegulas decide to have the players stand while the Nazi flag or an NRA banner is raised before public practices? Would the answer be, "you're at work, do what your boss tells you to do?"

They must have missed the fact that no one had more tackles than he did in 2017. In that sense he wasn't average.

Don't forget Canadian channels: Schnitzel House, Tiny Talent Time, etc.

I agree completely. The process was more like starting to rehab a neglected property and paying down debt. The playoffs was a house warming afterwards -- celebrating some significant success and a new direction, but knowing there is plenty more to do.

Tyrod. Bringing him in was one of the best things Rex did, and with the Schwartz defense, he would have ended the drought one or two years earlier. Not a franchise QB, but the best we had for many years.

With a VPN you can route your browser through a European proxy server and watch games live. You have to purchase GP while routed through the European server. I don't know whether this is technically in keeping with the GP Ts & Cs.

52 Yard pass Tytod to Sammy Watkins

This is an interesting and fairly-thorough article by Andrew Brandt of Peter King's MMQB on what to expect next in the deflategate litigation. He predicts a decision by the end of April based on the Second Circuit case load, and a ruling in favor of the NFL based on the Second Circuit argument. (But with the customary disclaimer that you can never tell how a panel will rule until the decision comes down). On the downside, he suggests the NFL might budge on the Brady punishment if it meant leaving in place a decision affirming its broad powers under the CBA. (The article was written shortly before Goodell's recent response to Kraft's request for reinstatement of the Patriots' draft picks). On the downside, he notes the whole thing could take another year or more if the losing side asks for rehearing in the Second Circuit and/or makes a petition for the Supreme Court to grant discretionary review. And, of course, Brady would certainly request a further suspension of his punishment if he appeals a loss in the Second Circuit. I agree with most of Brandt's conclusions, but I tend to think the NFL would hold tight on the Brady punishment after all the hits it has taken over the destruction of evidence following its videogate decision. http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/03/17/nfl-brady-deflategate-appeal-suspension-decision

It is true that the Second Circuit could vote to rehear the case en banc, but that wouldn't be an appeal. (An appeal cannot be taken from the Second Circuit to the Second Circuit). A petition for rehearing en banc is an internal process within the Second Circuit. And yes, you are correct, a petition for rehearing en banc is not allowed as of right. It is discretionary and can only be granted when the judges find that original panel decision either conflicts with existing precedent or raises a question of exceptional importance. From what I've read, it doesn't sound like the case raises issues that are likely to yield a panel decision satisfying either standard, but we'll just have to wait and see.

Actually, no. There is only one more possible appeal from the Second Circuit, and that is to the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's review is discretionary, not mandatory, and the odds of them taking it are very low. The court accepts about 1-2% of the cases parties bring to them, and then it is almost always to resolve an important issue of federal law. This very fact-specific case about NFL rules is not the kind of case they are likely to take.

This ESPN article does a good job of summarizing the Second Circuit arguments and the highly-skeptical responses Brady's attorney got on all the key issues. http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/14896976/if-judges-questions-indication-nfl-prevail-deflategate-appeal-tom-brady-suspension

My pleasure. It's fun to be able to weigh in on something I know more about than football. Trying here to answer both Mr. WEO and Hopeful. The other individual could bring his/her own suit. They also might be joined in the JPP suit because it sounds like a single act of publication causing harm to more than one person. I'm not sure JPP's seclusion would affect the legitimate public interest/concern issue. It certainly would be relevant to whether the facts disclosed were private. I could see a plaintiff's lawyer making an argument that graphic photos of an injury reveal something private, offensive and harmful beyond the mere reporting of the fact of the injury. There was a case in the state of Washington in the late 90's in which a family sued over the publication of a deceased child's autopsy photos. The fact of the death was certainly public, but the publication of the gruesome photos still caused emotional harm to the survivors. The cause of action there was infliction of emotional distress, which invasion of privacy plaintiff's often throw in to cover their bases. JPP might do that here as well. I think the impunity of the press angle could have a big effect on the how a judge/ jury would view the case. Judges are human, and if they feel a basic sense of injustice on one issue, it may lead them to give more leeway to the plaintiff on another. They, like you, might want the case to go to a jury. However, the outrageous nature of the act would certainly support the infliction of emotional distress theory, which requires the harmful conduct to be beyond what should be tolerated in a civilized society (that is actually very close to how the legal requirement is expressed). I think the subsequent publications could be argued as some sort of mitigation of damages -- the theory would be that the injury was inevitable. I would argue that the person who causes the first harm shouldn't get a pass because he inspired others to do the same. However, if JPP published the same gruesome photos, it might undercut the assertion that the act of publication was offensive and beyond the bounds of decency. Still, a third party doing it in the first instance, and the plaintiff doing it later --maybe to clarify the pubic record now that the cat is out of the bag -- are different things.

I practiced First Amendment law for about 20 years. I had a national practice and defended scores of suits for defamation and invasion of privacy against members of the press. The original poster's Google deductions were about right. First, invasion of privacy by publication of private facts is a civil cause of action under the common law and/or by statute in almost every state, as is intrusion on seclusion. Second, snooping or not, if Scheffter tweeted the private medical information, then he disseminated it widely enough to qualify as an act of publication. So there is certainly a colorable claim. Third, the question of whether this disclosure was highly offensive would almost certainly go to a jury, and revealing private medical information is usually found to be highly offensive. Fourth, your point about it not being private because people already knew about the injury may indeed be a complete defense, depending on exactly what Scheffter disclosed and what was already public. Fifth, Your point about the information being of legitimate public concern is certainly one that the defense lawyer would make. However, that would turn on the legal status of JPP as a public figure, and it is very possible an judge would find he is not one. Public figure status usually depends on whether the plaintiff had voluntarily entered into a public controversy by speaking out, and public controversies usually must concern a matter of genuine public importance, the outcome of which affects many people beyond those involved in the controversy. (Waldbaum) In JPP's favor, there is an old decision from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that found a member of the Philadelphia Eagles to be a public figure for First Amendment purposes. (Chuy) Aside: In the 90's I defended a Miami radio station in a suit by Dolphins linebacker and notorious Buffalo Bills hater Bryan Cox. Cox told a reporter for the station to "suck my d***" during a live interview following a loss. The following day, a shock jock for the station made a satirical, but very straight-faced report that Bryan Cox had bravely come out as gay. We won the defamation suit (it claimed being called gay was defamatory) without a determination on Cox's public figure status.) Sixth, yes juries are unpredictable, but they often love local sports heroes. I would be surprised if JPP didn't sue in NJ or NY. Sixth, plaintiffs in these types of cases usually claim, and if they win can recover, damages for emotional distress: the emotional harm of having aspects of their private life made public. Suffering horrific and disfiguring injuries would probably qualify. How strong that claim would be would again depend on the content and timing of the offending tweet compared to what other publicity the injury received.

Thanks for sharing the link, it will be interesting to see if the court of appeals in the Redskins case will take the same approach. I'm particularly interested to see where this ends up on the commercial speech issue, the government speech issue, and how they treat the fact that the law in question doesn't forbid Daniel Snyder's team from using the name, but only refuses to extend federal trademark protection to it.

BFS: battered fan syndrome. I have it too. I'll be back next year.