greend Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 2 hours ago, Utebird said: Grow up??? This falls along the lines of " Boys will be boys" Dude is accused of 22 separate cases by 22 separate women of sexual assault That's more than needing to grow up. Did Vick just need to grow up??? How bout ray Lewis, just an accomplice to murder, just needs to grow up🤔 Rae Carruth was just immature. Vick was found guilty. Ray Lewis played football as far as I knew and was never punished Carruth went to jail as well if I remember right. 22 cases by 22 women all represented by the same lawyer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MillerTime Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 38 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said: Its truez!!! @downundermike signing a 2nd round pick and taking on $27M in cap space when you have $3M available is tomorrow's problem This is his trade suggestion. If we look at this as an unrealistic crazy trade that will never happen and discuss it then it actually works for the cap. We would clear 3 players who only have a year left here, we would have 10million in cap space, and our offense would be legit. But hell no to getting rid of all those draft picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mayanh8 Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 Even the morans understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliEagle Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 1 minute ago, Mike030270 said: So is he leaving too then? I do think the NFLPA is going to probably push back on this. It will be interesting to see a lot of drama now. The NFL should just bite the bullet and make it required. They can do it on the grounds of saying that 50+ players are going to be in direct physical contact, so we have to do it. There's going to be a lot of team turmoil now. Now players on the Vikings are going to resent ownership for letting the coach go. Their season might be over before it begins. I bet there is a lot of resentment in organizations now towards the NFL for the NFL putting this on teams instead of the NFL just creating a mandatory policy. The NFL doesn't want the lawsuits, but it apparently seems fine if the individual teams get sued. The NFL can say "hey, we didn't fire Rick Dennison...that was the Vikings' decision". But, clearly the Vikings were operating under the NFL's warnings about forfeiture. So, the Vikings, and soon to be other teams who will do the same thing, will be thrown under the bus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greend Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 1 hour ago, dawkdaballhawk said: On the flip side are 18 women whose statements were released by Hardin and who say they have massaged Watson a total of more than 130 times over the past five years. Collectively, they say Watson is incapable of coercing anyone into performing sex acts against their will. Watson "was always hospitable and communicated to make sure I always felt comfortable and safe," said one. "My experience was nothing like the plaintiffs are describing," said another. https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/31223804/examining-dual-narratives-deshaun-watson-massages They was ugly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greend Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 1 hour ago, Utebird said: Ted bundy's wife and all the women Ted didn't kill from his church said the same thing about Ted Bundy ...I went to church every week with Ted and he never once raised and killed me...- Carol😉 Just because Watson didn't assault every masseuse he ever had contact with isn't proof that he never did And nothing you have said makes him "guilty" either, n=but you sure seem to have made up your mind about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike030270 Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 1 minute ago, CaliEagle said: I do think the NFLPA is going to probably push back on this. It will be interesting to see a lot of drama now. The NFL should just bite the bullet and make it required. They can do it on the grounds of saying that 50+ players are going to be in direct physical contact, so we have to do it. There's going to be a lot of team turmoil now. Now players on the Vikings are going to resent ownership for letting the coach go. Their season might be over before it begins. I bet there is a lot of resentment in organizations now towards the NFL for the NFL putting this on teams instead of the NFL just creating a mandatory policy. The NFL doesn't want the lawsuits, but it apparently seems fine if the individual teams get sued. The NFL can say "hey, we didn't fire Rick Dennison...that was the Vikings' decision". But, clearly the Vikings were operating under the NFL's warnings about forfeiture. So, the Vikings, and soon to be other teams who will do the same thing, will be thrown under the bus. I don't think the 20% minority is going to get their wish. If it was closer to 50% or even less than that vaccinated then I think something could be done about the league forcing it I'm more curious about what this does to contracts if players don't get vaccinated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliEagle Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 Just now, Mike030270 said: I don't think the 20% minority is going to get their wish. If it was closer to 50% or even less than that vaccinated then I think something could be done about the league forcing it I'm more curious about what this does to contracts if players don't get vaccinated Also, can teams try to put it in contracts going forward? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metal Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 One year deal for him with the Dolphins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 14 minutes ago, Mike030270 said: I don't think the 20% minority is going to get their wish. If it was closer to 50% or even less than that vaccinated then I think something could be done about the league forcing it I'm more curious about what this does to contracts if players don't get vaccinated it’s 20% minority with the rosters extended to 90 at the moment. I’m curious to see if that percentage elevates, stays the same or decreases when they go to 53 man rosters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawkdaballhawk Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 32 minutes ago, CaliEagle said: I wonder how many GMs are going to try to shop non-vaccinated players now and which teams would want to deal for them? Most teams wouldn't deal for them now, but there could be a few owners that are anti-vaxxers. So, it will be interesting to see what happens over the next month from this. They could start a whole new team. The un-vaxxed doofuses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawkdaballhawk Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 28 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said: Alternative headline "We're watching one reasonable player debate with a dumb ass that thinks dogs don't stretch over the vaccine decision in front of everyone" They are vaccinating dogs now? /s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawkdaballhawk Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 20 minutes ago, CaliEagle said: I do think the NFLPA is going to probably push back on this. It will be interesting to see a lot of drama now. The NFL should just bite the bullet and make it required. They can do it on the grounds of saying that 50+ players are going to be in direct physical contact, so we have to do it. There's going to be a lot of team turmoil now. Now players on the Vikings are going to resent ownership for letting the coach go. Their season might be over before it begins. I bet there is a lot of resentment in organizations now towards the NFL for the NFL putting this on teams instead of the NFL just creating a mandatory policy. The NFL doesn't want the lawsuits, but it apparently seems fine if the individual teams get sued. The NFL can say "hey, we didn't fire Rick Dennison...that was the Vikings' decision". But, clearly the Vikings were operating under the NFL's warnings about forfeiture. So, the Vikings, and soon to be other teams who will do the same thing, will be thrown under the bus. I'm not upset if it ruins the Vikings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCiggles Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 1 hour ago, CaliEagle said: I wouldn't be surprised if they were all consensual, but it shows extreme lack of judgment on Watson. That's my point. If Watson is going to be the face of your organization, he has to be a leader on and off the field. This situation calls it into question. I don't think it goes to his leadership as much as just his stability. It's just not emotionally stable behavior. So it raises the question about whether that issue will impact his ability to play either in terms of on or off the field behavior. I mean it's a lot like I would look at a player that has an injury history. It should impact his value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sack that QB Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 If people don't want Watson because they don't want to have to root for him, I get that, that's your prerogative. But trying to argue it's a bad move from a football perspective alone is utter insanity. Dude's a get out of jail free card for this franchise that has fallen drastically since the SB. It's crazy how many QBs the Eagles have had since McNabb. It doesn't feel that way for whatever reason, but the QB position has been such a damn mess since McNabb left. They just haven't been able to get it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawkdaballhawk Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 13 minutes ago, NCiggles said: I don't think it goes to his leadership as much as just his stability. It's just not emotionally stable behavior. So it raises the question about whether that issue will impact his ability to play either in terms of on or off the field behavior. I mean it's a lot like I would look at a player that has an injury history. It should impact his value. If that's true, I wonder if the Eagles could mandate sessions with a shrink? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeanMeanGM Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 18 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said: it’s 20% minority with the rosters extended to 90 at the moment. I’m curious to see if that percentage elevates, stays the same or decreases when they go to 53 man rosters I'd say elevates once they go to 53. Anyone in that danger zone of getting cut I'm going to assume got vaccinated and the ones that aren't know they are untouchable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphagrand Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 7 minutes ago, Sack that QB said: If people don't want Watson because they don't want to have to root for him, I get that, that's your prerogative. But trying to argue it's a bad move from a football perspective alone is utter insanity. Dude's a get out of jail free card for this franchise that has fallen drastically since the SB. It's crazy how many QBs the Eagles have had since McNabb. It doesn't feel that way for whatever reason, but the QB position has been such a damn mess since McNabb left. They just haven't been able to get it right. It's not a move you make from a football perspective alone, that's the problem. I think everyone can agree Watson is leaps and bounds better than what the Eagles currently have at QB, but in a hard-cap league any team is tying up significant portion of it to one player -- the franchise QB. If you want Watson how long do you want him on the team for? 10 years? That's more than a significant investment of resources for a player who has many red flags. Not red flag -- numerous red flags. He has legal issues, he has character issues, he signed his mega extension in bad faith, he's over-stepping his position as a player trying to exert influence on organizational decisions that no NFL player has, nor should have. Extreme risk in bringing Watson in, for many reasons beyond the football field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCiggles Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 24 minutes ago, CaliEagle said: I do think the NFLPA is going to probably push back on this. It will be interesting to see a lot of drama now. The NFL should just bite the bullet and make it required. They can do it on the grounds of saying that 50+ players are going to be in direct physical contact, so we have to do it. There's going to be a lot of team turmoil now. Now players on the Vikings are going to resent ownership for letting the coach go. Their season might be over before it begins. I bet there is a lot of resentment in organizations now towards the NFL for the NFL putting this on teams instead of the NFL just creating a mandatory policy. The NFL doesn't want the lawsuits, but it apparently seems fine if the individual teams get sued. The NFL can say "hey, we didn't fire Rick Dennison...that was the Vikings' decision". But, clearly the Vikings were operating under the NFL's warnings about forfeiture. So, the Vikings, and soon to be other teams who will do the same thing, will be thrown under the bus. So remember the NFL is a league of individually owned businesses. I do not believe the Commissioner necessarily has the authority to require teams to vaccinate. I mean if Jerry Jones or one other owner doesn't want to require his coaches and team to vaccinate that probably prevents the Commissioner from acting. It's not like an NFL policy would prevent a team from being sued for enforcing it. It's not a team won't have enough money to pay some sort of claim. I also do not believe teams would be that concerned about lawsuits. I just don't think there's any real grounds for the suit. The NFLPA probably has no real grounds to complain about a policy of forfeiting games unless it directly impacts compensation for players. I think individual players could file grievances about suspensions or some other team discipline but I really think other players are not going to want the NFLPA to support the grievance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCiggles Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 3 minutes ago, dawkdaballhawk said: If that's true, I wonder if the Eagles could mandate sessions with a shrink? I think they could put in all kinds of moral clauses in a contract but there's still an issue of the price to get him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utebird Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 37 minutes ago, greend said: And nothing you have said makes him "guilty" either, n=but you sure seem to have made up your mind about it And nothing you've said makes him not guilty but you sure seem to have made up your mind about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike030270 Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 25 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said: it’s 20% minority with the rosters extended to 90 at the moment. I’m curious to see if that percentage elevates, stays the same or decreases when they go to 53 man rosters 6 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said: I'd say elevates once they go to 53. Anyone in that danger zone of getting cut I'm going to assume got vaccinated and the ones that aren't know they are untouchable. Good point. Is Hopkins the only star player that's publicly been against it? Also bring up the contract point again. What happens if a star player with a mega deal wont get the vaccine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeanMeanGM Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 5 minutes ago, NCiggles said: So remember the NFL is a league of individually owned businesses. I do not believe the Commissioner necessarily has the authority to require teams to vaccinate. I mean if Jerry Jones or one other owner doesn't want to require his coaches and team to vaccinate that probably prevents the Commissioner from acting. It's not like an NFL policy would prevent a team from being sued for enforcing it. It's not a team won't have enough money to pay some sort of claim. I also do not believe teams would be that concerned about lawsuits. I just don't think there's any real grounds for the suit. The NFLPA probably has no real grounds to complain about a policy of forfeiting games unless it directly impacts compensation for players. I think individual players could file grievances about suspensions or some other team discipline but I really think other players are not going to want the NFLPA to support the grievance. The NFLPA isn't going to do anything, they are the ones that agreed to the rules Quote In an email to membership issued in response to Thursday’s memo from the NFL to all teams, the unions said, "We remind you that the same basic rules applied last year.” As noted by the NFLPA, if games were missed in 2020 because of a COVID outbreak, nobody would have gotten paid. "The only difference this year is the NFL’s decision to impose additional penalties on clubs which are responsible for the outbreak and the availability of proven vaccines,” the memo explains. "The protocols we jointly agreed to helped get us through a full season last year without missing game checks and are effective, when followed.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connecticut Eagle Posted July 23, 2021 Author Share Posted July 23, 2021 6 minutes ago, Alphagrand said: It's not a move you make from a football perspective alone, that's the problem. I think everyone can agree Watson is leaps and bounds better than what the Eagles currently have at QB, but in a hard-cap league any team is tying up significant portion of it to one player -- the franchise QB. If you want Watson how long do you want him on the team for? 10 years? That's more than a significant investment of resources for a player who has many red flags. Not red flag -- numerous red flags. He has legal issues, he has character issues, he signed his mega extension in bad faith, he's over-stepping his position as a player trying to exert influence on organizational decisions that no NFL player has, nor should have. Extreme risk in bringing Watson in, for many reasons beyond the football field. Vick had already been convicted, incarcerated, and reformed. He took responsibility for his actions, was remorseful, and was advocating against dog fighting. That all made his signing more tolerable. Watson is pretty far away from where Vick was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.