The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread V3

eagle eye

Thing is this is just an accusation at this stage. It's not like the Watson thing where there's multiple accusers.

If he's not charged with anything then it's unfair to castigate him.

We don't know anything about this only that a civil suit has been brought.

In the wake of the Watson situation it'd be no surprise for somebody to bring a fake lawsuit against an NFL player in the hope of getting a nice settlement.

I'm not saying that this didn't happen to be clear, I'm just thinking about it from both sides.

If it did happen then I hope this guy faces criminal charges and gets jailed for a long time.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119525106#Comment_119525106

Well investigators had the victim call him. During the call he suggested she get checked for an std and very quickly changed to denying remembering the night at all when he realised he might be recorded.

So unless the media is making that bit up he did have sex with a minor, otherwise why advice for the STD check. Remember this happened in California so age of consent is 18.

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119526132#Comment_119526132

Was the call recorded?

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119526862#Comment_119526862

They were recorded. I am unsure as to who has listened to the calls to report on them outside of the relevant detectives, which is why I do have the last qualifier in case the media may be running too far with too little. However if true the phone calls alone should sink him even if he doesn't see the full rape charges.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119524950#Comment_119524950

I don't think it'll get over-looked by the majority. It's very different to the Ray Lewis case in how people view it, despite a murder charge being obviously more serious. Firstly, and most importantly, I'm guessing it was widely seen as a one-off street-fight incident where drink/drugs played a significant role. There was very little chance of Lewis ever repeating said behaviour. Watson on the other hand has been accused by 22 women (so far) of sexual assault, none of which I'm aware happened 'in the heat of the moment'. He has been described as a serial predator and I'm no expert, but I wouldn't be confident that he won't reoffend. Especially considering the lack of consequences. Secondly, the charges were dismissed against Lewis - rightly or wrongly. The fact that nothing happened to Watson criminally has been completely overshadowed by the sheer volume of complaints, the numerous civil cases and the length by which the whole ordeal has gone on. Thirdly, and perhaps only a side point, his behaviour throughout has been despicable. He hasn't endeared himself to many the past few months. And finally, the money he'll be making despite everything. It's mind-boggling that someone who's been accused by 22 women of sexual assault can sign the largest contract in NFL history, and will have had essentially 2 seasons on the side-lines to boot.

And just so my post doesn't get misconstrued, I am absolutely not defending Ray Lewis. I'm just making the point that the Watson ordeal is much less palatable. I don't see him ever getting the same reception as Lewis would in B'more.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119526132#Comment_119526132

His lawyer/agent is making it even worse by claiming this as some sort of cash grab. The incident and her initial complaint was before there was any hype behind him and even then the idea of some sort of scheme to target a punter at a low profile school is ridiculous.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119530046#Comment_119530046

True. Plus this was always going to get him cut anyway so his career earnings are 200k and are not going above 200k anytime soon given he has been cut.

In terms of a cash grab it isn't exactly setting her up for life.

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119532108#Comment_119532108

What's your take on the Bills doing an investigation and being satisfied enough to keep him and cut their other punter up until it all blew up in the media?

What's really sad about things like this is that there's no privacy. Something like this should never be reported in the media. Firstly the alleged victim is entitled to full privacy and secondly the accused person should never be named until he's found guilty or loses a civil case. If he's found not to have done anything wrong it doesn't matter now because his name is tarnished forever.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119536493#Comment_119536493

This seems to have come from the victim to the media. I am not sure how you ban someone from publicizing details of attacks they suffered if they so wish. I guess if she is lying he can sue for defamation. Generally it is a he said/she said for both sides of this and so neither side would ever get justice however he can counter the claim that he admitted to sex with a minor since they should be able to get access to the phone calls or show that the recordings do not exist. Similarly it seems she mentioned the assault to friends pretty quickly and they took her to hospital. The details of the assault were quite graphic so there is no way the hospital couldn't confirm if an attack took place or not. So if he wants to clear his name the evidence should be there.

I feel like the Bills didn't do an investigation and just decided it wouldn't blow up in the media. Certainly the attorney for the accused is claiming that they were never contacted which seems similar to how the Browns conducted their investigation. I feel like the Bills FO didn't have an issue with the possibility of having a rapist on their team and so didn't care to do an investigation. They just cared about the backlash. I also feel like if he was a higher round draft pick he would have gotten a longer leash like Watson.

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119536708#Comment_119536708

I can't believe they didn't do a thorough investigation. This team has built a great profile since McDermott came in, you don't give that up by ignoring something as serious as this.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119536986#Comment_119536986

And yet they have decided to throw it away. Plus they didn't even get to keep the player for all this bad press. Moreover I can't think of an FO in the league that I would bet on doing a serious investigation. Anyone with an ounce of sense had to have known this was going to go public given all the Watson press and they didn't have any response ready except to release him. They obviously didn't learn enough to be confident they could back him if this went public which should have been the final question of any investigation.

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119537153#Comment_119537153

Let's say the cops told you that there'll be no criminal case. Let's say you were told there's nothing that can be proven here because the alleged victim had imbibed alcohol and drugs.

How would you proceed if that was the outcome of your investigation?

From reading the stuff that's been released from the alleged victim there are time gaps in her memory which suggests she was drunk, drugged or both.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119537335#Comment_119537335

She says she was drunk, that is part of her claim that he was taking advantage of a drunk girl as part of this and plied her with more alcohol. Again just asking the cops does nothing, I would be trying to get access to the tapes (with the victim's permission) or at least get the police to verify the existence of those tapes. Also whether she took alcohol or not is irrelevant to whether anything can be proven. At the end of the day even if she was sober it is still their word against hers which I suspect the actual reason there will be no rape conviction unless one of the 3 confesses.

However if I got nothing either way I would go with what I would do if the information went public. If you are going to cut someone because stuff like this went public you may as well cut them now. Even from what is in the team's best interests point of view as it will get out and then you have hurt your team's image for no benefit whatsoever. In fact it hurt them as they may have wanted to keep Haack.

F all will be proven about Watson either. There is a reason he is not in prison. I believe he did it, and should get banned but he will never see the inside of a jail cell and any cases on those grounds went no where. What you have said is exactly what the Browns would have heard about Watson (well the reason for no conviction would not be alcohol) but the actual reason for no conviction would be the same.

Christy42

In other news Jimmy G takes a paycut to stay in SF instead of being cut. Handy for SF as they now have the best back up for the league essentially on a rookie wage, his salary seems to be intentionally lower than Lance's to send the message that Lance is the starter and they don't risk Jimmy G going to Seattle and actually giving them a QB.

Realt Dearg Sec

What does Jimmy g get out of this deal exactly? Why is he doing it?

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119538032#Comment_119538032

There's a huge difference between Watson's situation and this one. There's multiple accusers of Watson.

As I said his life is ruined now whether he did anything or not.

adrian522

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119543704#Comment_119543704

He gets to hit free agency next year and retains the power to choose who he could be traded to through a no trade clause. He also gets $7m which would be more than he could realistically command if he had just been released this week as most teams have already paid their starting QB.

eagle eye

He'd have gotten more from Seattle, he's much better than what they've got.

Seattle have $12 million in cap space and cutting one of Lock and Smith would give them close to 1 million more so I'd guess he'd have gotten 10 million from them to go along with whatever he'd have got when cut.

At 7 million he is still earning more than Lance as far as I'm aware.

My guess is he stayed because he doesn't rate Lance and he thinks he'll get the starting gig back.

If that happens he'll earn a lot more when he leaves.

Shedite27

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119543704#Comment_119543704

Not sure there was anywhere for him to start this year, so this gets him a decent backup job while he waits for Free Agency next year. He'll be in the Trubisky/Mariota spot next year to choose his own team.

Also he might get his job back if Lance is a bust.

Fr Tod Umptious

Irish born James McCourt (K) makes the Jags 53 man roster.

Will compete for the number 1 kicking job with Jake Verity.

adrian522

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119546794#Comment_119546794

I think the only scenario he starts this year would be due to injury. I also agree he wasn't getting any more money from any team at this stage of the off season. A trade is still a live probability this season and with the reduced salary that would be more palatable for a lot of teams.

Guffy

He also inserted a no trade/no tag clause which will give him a say on where he would be traded.

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119547003#Comment_119547003

Are you saying that if Lance is crap he plays the whole season?

Lance didn't look good last year. If you are looking at preseason and thinking that has any bearing on real games I'd suggest you don't get your hopes up. Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees and Peyton Manning never looked good in preseason.

In recent enough times Jamarcus Russell, Brandon Weekend, Teddy Bridgewater and EJ Manuel all looked good in preseason and the 49ers guy with the glove whose name escapes me.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119547109#Comment_119547109

Lance looked fine last season and thus year he will ha e starter reps in practice. Plus Lance has a long leash. Lynch and Shanahan have tied themselves to Lance with 3 first round picks.

People are aware that there will be some growing pains with someone that inexperienced and they seem to have kept a good team around Lance.

adrian522

I didn't say anything about preseason or about last season. I said Garoppolo won't be starting for SF this season unless there is an injury to the starter.

Thought Lance looked decent enough against Houston last year in week 17 and showed good improvement over the earlier games he played.

I think listening to the coaching staff and the players it is obvious who the starter is and even in the case where he has a rough game or a rough couple of games they will stick with him at least through the season, let him make his mistakes and learn from them.

I don't see the coaches benching him during the season to be honest and I think Garoppolo understands this too.

The fact that Garoppolo has not been involved in any meetings or up until very recently did not even have a copy of the playbook speaks to where their thinking is.

eagle eye

Houston were one of the worst teams in the league last season. Sam Darnold and Carson Wentz looked like world beaters against them.

The reason Jimmy wasn't involved is because he wanted out of there so you don't give him any information.

You obviously don't realise what the NFL is like or more like you are trying to ignore it. If Lance throws 5 TDs and 10 picks and has less than 1000 yards passing in his first five games and you lose three or four of those games he's going to get benched. If he starts like that and they don't bench him they are bigger fools.

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119547430#Comment_119547430

He had a 57% completion rate, of QB's that started games only Zack Wilson, Mike Glennon and Cam Newton were worse.

If you call that satisfactory you are fooling nobody but yourself.

adrian522

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119547560#Comment_119547560

I guess you are right, I must not know anything about the NFL, same as everyone else who disagrees with you.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119547611#Comment_119547611

He also had a 5 TD to 2 int which is a fine ratio. He was a raw player with 1 year of college experience and not getting the starter reps. 57% is fine against expectations. He was drafted on pure talent and that needs to be developed, there may well be teething issues along the way but they gotta stick with the good and the bad.

Plus Lynch and Shanahan may as well pack their bags if they bench him. They put the house on that pick. He will get at least Josh Allen's window to improve even if he is bad. Jimmy G is only still there because they couldn't actively get rid of him.

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119547799#Comment_119547799

How many qb's do you know with a completion percentage under 60 that have kept their jobs for a season?

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119547935#Comment_119547935

It was very foolish putting the house on the third QB off the board. If you were getting Lawrence it was a good move but doing that for anybody else was insane.

There were rumours of disagreement between Shanahan and Lynch. Apparently Lynch preferred Jones but Shanahan has the say on draft picks and he wanted Lance after his dad went and watched him at his pro day.

Of course they made out after the draft that they were on the same page all along.

Like if the Jets took Lance at 2 what were they going to do? They'd have taken Wilson or Fields at 3 and told you the exact same story.

I don't care what anybody thinks, I watched Lance last year and I wasn't impressed by anything except his ability to run. I don't think he reads the field quick enough and looks too long at his primary receiver. Keep an eye on that over the first few games this year.

As far as Jimmy G is concerned, I think he gets a raw deal given his record there but I don't think he's that good based on his time in San Fran. Maybe he'd be better in a pass first offense but I'm not sure about that. I'm not an apologist for him at all. I thought he was the heir to Brady's throne when he started the first two games for the Patriots in 2016 but he never looked like that since going to the 49ers.

I certainly wouldn't be excited to see him start for my team.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119549053#Comment_119549053

I mean I agree they would have picked someone else I can't remember at what point it became obvious the Jets were picking Wilson vs the trade for picks. Lawrence was always happening at 1.

I also would not have traded the house for that pick but they have done it and whether the rumours of a divide are true or not they will both get the credit/blame for it. The window of the stellar team they have built will run out at some stage and they both agree Jimmy is definitely not the guy so Lance is their only hope this superbowl window.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119543950#Comment_119543950

The no trade and no tag clause are great for Jimmy. If a team he wants to go to comes calling for him and he performs well there then they don't have the option to tag him and he gets to hit the open market.

For Jimmy's long term future staying with the 49ers as a back up is a far better move than the other options out there. Worst case for Jimmy, he doesn't see the field and is seen as the perfect bridge QB for the rest of his career, showing last year that he can take the pressure and work well with a young QB behind him and then the year after being a good back-up. Best case for Jimmy, he sees the field and is in the best situation to succeed and put himself in the shop window - one of the stacked rosters in the NFL, coach who has shown he can get the best out of him, and already knowing the system. Far better position than being a starter joining a poor team just before the season starts - where most QBs would struggle to succeed.

Overall it is a very rare NFL mature decision by all parties involved - one where everyone wins. Would have been easy for Jimmy to demand a release or for the 49ers to just cut him for 'optics' but Jimmy is in the best of a bad situation and the 49ers have the best backup QB in the league for cheap. If pressure impacts Lance and he cant handle it then he was never going to succeed anyway.

Only real downside is the media making a huge meal of it and the continuation of dumb conspiracy theories - it is like last year all over again, except for the camera panning to Jimmy on the bench instead of Lance.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119547799#Comment_119547799

Don't feel too bad, we've all been there.

Interesting that the Texans are such easy competition when Lance arguably performed the best performance against them among the rookie QBs they faced, despite Lance being by far the least experienced.

Lance - 249 yards & 31 rushing, 2 TD, 1 INT

Wilson - 145 yards & 3 rushing (1TD), 0 TD, 1 INT

Jones - 231 yards & 1 rushing, 1 TD, 1 INT

Admittedly, Jones did have a completion rate of 76% vs Lance's 70% but that can be easily explained by Lance trying to push the ball down the field a lot more aggressively - average air yards of 10.6 vs 6.9.

adrian522

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119548973#Comment_119548973

What QB is this and should he have been benched during year one, or year two?

Year one:

Comp 52.8% 10 TD 12 INT

Year 2:

Comp 58.8 % 20 TD 9 INT

Year 3:

Comp 69.2% 37 TD 10 INT

Year 4:

Comp 63.3% 36 TD 15 INT

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119553432#Comment_119553432

I don't know who that was but what sort of offensive line did he have, what were the receivers like?

Did he have players like Deebo and George Kittle, a left tackle with multiple probowls like Trent Williams?

How far are you going back? Is this from before the league became a pass happy league where there wasn't much protection for the QB, like roughing the passer, where the completion percentage was much lower?

adrian522

The QB is Josh Allen and the point is that Buffalo stuck with him through some tough outings and are now reaping the benefits. I don't see any scenario where SF are cutting bait on Lance without giving him at least one full season as starter. The running game and the defense will mean that he doesn't need to be brilliant, just needs to be good enough.

I'm of the opinion they should have switched to him during last season to accelerate his development. Now it will likely be later on in the year before he is fully up to speed. I'd expect to see significant improvement over the course of the season.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119553797#Comment_119553797

Can't remember his full team but that was the team Tyrod Taylor brought to the play offs so it couldn't be that terrible. Though they did try and sit Allen his first year it was just hard to justify starting Nathan Peterman for that many games (having tried to replace Taylor with Peterman the year before).

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119553797#Comment_119553797

Well you are just as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. As I said above he is slow to check down which isn't a good thing. Defenses will see this and double cover his first option to give them enough time to get to him. I'm not sure how accurate he is either. We'll see as the season goes on.

If he takes too long to get rid of the ball he might be out injured or lose his spot.

Btw, with Allen they had nobody behind him. In his first season he was on a crap team and was competing with Nate Peterman, the guy who had a 0.0 QB rating in one game and started the season as no.1 ahead of him. In his second season he had Matt Barkley as his backup. Hardly stellar competition.

Lance's backup is a guy with a 31-15 win loss record and a lifetime completion percentage of 67.7 through 47 starts.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119553797#Comment_119553797

Allen who is the player that Kyle said he hoped would come out in 2017 when they had the 2nd pick and who maps incredibly closely with Lance when it comes to background (small school, weak opposition) and traits (big, mobile, tough in the pocket, aggressive, cannon arm, initially not accurate).

Kyle doesn't want a player who is going to be quick to check down - anyone that watches the 49ers regularly could see him losing his mind on the sidelines when Jimmy would check it down and there was a more aggressive throw to be made, especially on 3rd down. Kyle wants to run the hell out of the opposition and then for his QB to be brave and make the aggressive downfield throws when they are there.

I was on the same page as you regarding switching to Lance during last season but can't complain about getting to the NFC Championship. Love Jimmy as a pro but anyone that points to the 49ers win rate and tying it to him is just saying they don't watch 49ers games. I can count on about one hand the amount of games that I could point to and say the team 'won because of Jimmy', most games it was 'won with Jimmy', and many were 'won in spite Jimmy'. Lance will have his ups and downs this season but the bar of QB play he has to meet for the same sort of results isn't that high.

Lance is younger than every QB except for one in the draft that just happened and is currently the age when some of his peers were only starting their first season with their college as QB1. 49ers know he is raw and everything points to them giving him time now to grow.

ArmaniJeanss

First two Sky games on Sunday week released (I know some of you game pass or stream so it doesn't really matter, but I tend to limit myself to the Sky games)

6pm its Patriots at Dolphins. Probably the best of an uninspiring early set of games.

9.25 its Packers at Vikings. Can't say I like this choice - only 4 games in this slot and both Chiefs at Cardinals & Raiders at Chargers look better picks.

New England Patriots @ Miami Dolphins: NFL Week One game picks live on Sky Sports | NFL News | Sky Sports

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119560331#Comment_119560331

Have to agree on that. I think Raiders at Chargers could be a great game. Chiefs at Cards is interesting too given both don't have their no.1 receiver from last season with Hill gone and Hopkins suspended for six games.

Blut2

I'd imagine its linked to the Packers playing in London in a few weeks. Not the worst idea ever to give the casual UK fans going to the game a chance to watch the team easily on TV beforehand.

Shedite27

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119560331#Comment_119560331

Late games for most of the season should be the AFC west.

BTW, do sky have any contractual obligations when it comes to showing teams, does every team have to be featured once or twice or anything?

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119560538#Comment_119560538

32 teams and only a 17 game season. I think it'd be very hard to get around to showing every team. Seems more like they pick teams in contention as the season goes on.

ArmaniJeanss

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119560538#Comment_119560538

As EE says Sky only have 36 games (18 weeks by 2 a week) where they get to choose so I doubt there's a min quota as it would be too difficult, and would probably be obvious (in much the same way it's an obvious q filler when Sky pick Brighton v Wolves)

I don't recall seeing Houston or Detroit for example in the 6 or 9 Sunday slot last year, but open to being wrong.

Every team gets shown naturally as part of TNF at least once anyway, and usually at least one more via SNF/MNF, Thanksgiving, London etc.

Shedite27

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119560740#Comment_119560740

Detroit are a Thanksgiving day game every year.

Yeah can't imagine there was much demand for a Houston game.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Afaik Sky choose what game they want to show on the Mon/Tue before each gameweek.

I'm basing this off whenever I used to look up the schedule last season to see what games would be geoblocked, I wasn't able to find out until about Mon/Tue. It used to say "Live NFL" or something along those lines until then. They generally always picked the games that likely would have the biggest TV audience (naturally enough).

I stand to be corrected on all that.

Itssoeasy

https://twitter.com/mortreport/status/1568914637483114496?s=21&t=sGTErqv93dO-EUqf5EL0dQ

https://twitter.com/mortreport/status/1568914638552682496?s=21&t=rGM4vhjFpFU6qASUHqt8CQ

So Lamar Jackson is not for moving on what is a big deal but not fully guaranteed which seems to be his main sticking point.

The_Honeybadger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119603122#Comment_119603122

Good on him. A lot of money to leave on the table and it must have been tempting to just sign it and move on but he knows that the price is only going to go up if he has a good season