Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ShadyBillsFan

Source: Seahawks DT Reed suspended 6 games. Vikings cornerback Holton Hill received a four-game suspension

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/27239255/seahawks-dt-reed-suspended-6-games

 

Source: Seahawks DT Reed suspended 6 games

 

Seattle Seahawks defensive tackle Jarran Reed will be suspended for the first six games of the 2019 season for a violation of the NFL's personal conduct policy, a league source confirmed to ESPN.

The violation stems from an 2017 domestic violence case in which Reed was accused of assault, according to NFL Network, which first reported the news of Reed's suspension. Reed was not charged or arrested. However, the NFL's personal conduct policy allows the league to punish players regardless of legal outcomes.

 

Reed's absence will be a major blow to a defensive line that will already be without its top pass-rusher, Frank Clark, who was traded to Kansas City. Reed is coming off a career-best 10.5 sacks and 50 tackles in 2018. Reed's 10.5 sacks were tied for the fourth most by a defensive tackle last season.

 

Edited by ShadyBillsFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Hill gets nothing?

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Doc said:

And Hill gets nothing?

amazing isn't it? 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

amazing isn't it? 

It makes sense. DTs don't being in the views.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I’m defending this guy at all, but it seems to me the NFL ought to be releasing detailed reports of these investigations that lead to suspensions or not cause it definitely looks from this end like there’s some hinky standards in place.

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

Not that I’m defending this guy at all, but it seems to me the NFL ought to be releasing detailed reports of these investigations that lead to suspensions or not cause it definitely looks from this end like there’s some hinky standards in place.

 

From here it looks like there's no standard in place.  Like Goodall rolls a set of D&D die or something

  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

From here it looks like there's no standard in place.  Like Goodall rolls a set of D&D die or something

 

Yeah, not a good look for an industry where appearance is a huge deal. I get private investigations and private conclusions, but when you hand down the suspension, why not make it clear why uncharged guy #1 gets slapped, while uncharged guy #2 gets nada. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

Yeah, not a good look for an industry where appearance is a huge deal. I get private investigations and private conclusions, but when you hand down the suspension, why not make it clear why uncharged guy #1 gets slapped, while uncharged guy #2 gets nada. 

they did.  They said there was insufficient evidence that uncharged guy #2 did it.  Unless you're privy to all the information that the league was, you have no basis for suggesting that there is a double standard.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is bizarre.  all is says is "an incident in 2017?"  And all the scrutiny on Hill and then nothing.  This comes out of nowhere.   Perhaps just more ESPN coverage of Hill b/c everyone knows who he is despite Reed being a great player, but the NFL needs to control the messaging better.  

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/27239255/seahawks-dt-reed-suspended-6-games

 

Source: Seahawks DT Reed suspended 6 games

 

Seattle Seahawks defensive tackle Jarran Reed will be suspended for the first six games of the 2019 season for a violation of the NFL's personal conduct policy, a league source confirmed to ESPN.

The violation stems from an 2017 domestic violence case in which Reed was accused of assault, according to NFL Network, which first reported the news of Reed's suspension. Reed was not charged or arrested. However, the NFL's personal conduct policy allows the league to punish players regardless of legal outcomes.

 

Reed's absence will be a major blow to a defensive line that will already be without its top pass-rusher, Frank Clark, who was traded to Kansas City. Reed is coming off a career-best 10.5 sacks and 50 tackles in 2018. Reed's 10.5 sacks were tied for the fourth most by a defensive tackle last season.

 

Big loss for the Seahawks.  When I was watching Frank Clark's highlights, I kept noticing Reed destroying the other teams' offensive lines and terrorizing QBs.  He's an absolute beast.

  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mannc said:

they did.  They said there was insufficient evidence that uncharged guy #2 did it.  Unless you're privy to all the information that the league was, you have no basis for suggesting that there is a double standard.

 

@_@; he said they should explain it so that it doesn't seem to be random..so your post doesn't make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, mannc said:

they did.  They said there was insufficient evidence that uncharged guy #2 did it.  Unless you're privy to all the information that the league was, you have no basis for suggesting that there is a double standard.

 

 

 

Thats exactly what I’m saying... I’m not privy to what they had in this case versus that case so I don’t know if there is a double standard and you don’t know that there isn’t. Right now we only have the word of the league that they are administering justice fairly and balanced and that honestly isnt a super soothing assurance, thus, it’s not a good look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, APoxOnYou said:

It makes sense. DTs don't being in the views.


EXACTLY.

 

Can't have the golden boy missing his favorite target.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whatdrought said:

 

Thats exactly what I’m saying... I’m not privy to what they had in this case versus that case so I don’t know if there is a double standard and you don’t know that there isn’t. Right now we only have the word of the league that they are administering justice fairly and balanced and that honestly isnt a super soothing assurance, thus, it’s not a good look.

Every day, district attorneys charge certain suspects with crimes and decide not to charge others, for reasons that are not fully disclosed.  Is that a bad look, too?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, mannc said:

Every day, district attorneys charge certain suspects with crimes and decide not to charge others, for reasons that are not fully disclosed.  Is that a bad look, too?  

 

Two things: 

 

1-- It aint a great look. 2 dudes due the same crime, they should face the same punishment. 

 

2-- An employer docking pay and detrimentally harming the career of a professional is 100% different than duly elected/sworn officials upholding the laws of the land. This isn't a criminal system, it's a business system. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As noted by others, how in the actual :censored: does Jarran Reed get 6 games and Tyreke Hill gets jack :censored: squat? NFL discipline credibility, 0. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, H2o said:

As noted by others, how in the actual :censored: does Jarran Reed get 6 games and Tyreke Hill gets jack :censored: squat? NFL discipline credibility, 0. 

The linked article says almost nothing about the evidence against Reed.  The NFL found that there was insufficient evidence for the league to take action against Hill.  What reason do you have to believe that the evidence against Hill was comparable to the evidence against Reed?  Why would the league treat Reed more harshly than Hill for similar offenses?  Both are stars, although I'll admit that Hill is a bigger one than Reed.   

Edited by mannc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Doc said:

And Hill gets nothing?

exactly.

 hard to follow isn't it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 3rdand12 said:

exactly.

 hard to follow isn't it ?

What's hard to follow?  The league found sufficient evidence that Reed did it and insufficient evidence that Hill did it.  Seems very easy to follow...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mannc said:

Every day, district attorneys charge certain suspects with crimes and decide not to charge others, for reasons that are not fully disclosed.  Is that a bad look, too?  

Yes it is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, mannc said:

The linked article says almost nothing about the evidence against Reed.  The NFL found that there was insufficient evidence for the league to take action against Hill.  What reason do you have to believe that the evidence against Hill was comparable to the evidence against Reed?  Why would the league treat Reed more harshly than Hill for similar offenses?  Both are stars, although I'll admit that Hill is a bigger one than Reed.   

 

I don't think anyone is arguing for or against this guys suspension, but the fact of the matter is that the Hill situation does not look good for the NFL. They suspended Jimmy Smith for four games for threatening behavior (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000950015/article/ravens-cb-jimmy-smith-suspended-for-four-games) while they took a no-punishment stance with Hill who is on tape saying "you should be afraid of me B word" to a woman he has been convicted of assaulting. Now we have this guy getting suspended for four games for a non-descript  domestic issue. 

 

It's not crazy to imagine that the NFL plays a double standards game with their big stars (*cough* Big Ben *cough*)- the problem is that without more information, this situation smells funny. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

I don't think anyone is arguing for or against this guys suspension, but the fact of the matter is that the Hill situation does not look good for the NFL. They suspended Jimmy Smith for four games for threatening behavior (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000950015/article/ravens-cb-jimmy-smith-suspended-for-four-games) while they took a no-punishment stance with Hill who is on tape saying "you should be afraid of me B word" to a woman he has been convicted of assaulting. Now we have this guy getting suspended for four games for a non-descript  domestic issue. 

 

It's not crazy to imagine that the NFL plays a double standards game with their big stars (*cough* Big Ben *cough*)- the problem is that without more information, this situation smells funny. 

The linked article says very little about what Smith actually did, but it appears to have been a pattern of threatening and abusive behavior over a long period of time--quite different from the evidence against Hill, which seems to have consisted of one fairly vague statement that he apparently did not act upon.  I think the league should be commended for drawing distinctions between different situations and not just slapping a four-game suspension on every player who's accused of something, just to satisfy the virtue-signalling public.  Doling out the same punishment to everyone might look fair on the surface, but it's really not. 

 

Hill has a history of being a bad actor, and I'm sure the league wanted to send a message by side-lining him for some period of time regardless of his star status, but the evidence apparently wasn't there.  I don't agree that that makes the league look bad.  

Edited by mannc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, mannc said:

The linked article says very little about what Smith actually did, but it appears to have been a pattern of threatening and abusive behavior over a long period of time--quite different from the evidence against Hill, which seems to have consisted of one fairly vague statement that he apparently did not act upon.  I think the league should be commended for drawing distinctions between different situations and not just slapping a four-game suspension on every player who's accused of something, just to satisfy the virtue-signalling public.  Doling out the same punishment to everyone might look fair on the surface, but it's really not. 

 

Hill has a history of being a bad actor, and I'm sure the league wanted to send a message by side-lining him for some period of time regardless of his star status, but the evidence apparently wasn't there.  I don't agree that that makes the league look bad.  

 

I can agree with you on that- my main point, which you disagree with, is that it’s bad for the “shield” that there’s no reasoning given for high profile decisions like this. But we can disagree with that and I see your point as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...