opening day or not, that OL, even with 2 new starters, is still quite formidable, which means that any back or backs by committe that step(s) in are capable of putting up a buck twenty-five
is that he will be suspended four games, will appeal and the appeal won't be dealt with until AFTER the first game of the season so that he can play against the Giants, and then it will be reduced to a game or two. It would be a lot worse for Dallas to lose to the Giants than to Denver.
when they are at full strength. I don't want to hear any excuses. Moreover, why worry if they have Elliot or not. We smacked them down twice last year. They should be worried about our defense.
opening day or not, that OL, even with 2 new starters, is still quite formidable, which means that any back or backs by committe that step(s) in are capable of putting up a buck twenty-five
Meh, no one is as talented as Elliot on that roster, just not even close. Its a huge blow if true.
And I really don't care if Dallas fans use it as an excuse if we beat them - he played in both games last year and we beat them both times. I'll take a win against Dallas any way it comes. The whole "I'd rather beat them at full strength" thing never made sense to me.
opening day or not, that OL, even with 2 new starters, is still quite formidable, which means that any back or backs by committe that step(s) in are capable of putting up a buck twenty-five
Meh, no one is as talented as Elliot on that roster, just not even close. Its a huge blow if true.
Not saying or implying that. Just that it reasonable to expect who ever steps in, to perform well enough to help Dallas win..No Zeke hardly means a slam dunk or even close to it, imo
Sure, you want your team to beat another "at full strength." Â
But if it falls to you, how can you be at all disappointed that Elliott wouldn't play? One game could make all the difference if the division turns out to be competitive at the end.
No way that it's an automatic win with Elliott sitting, but if I have a choice? Oh hell yes, I'd rather have his backups in there instead of him. Theoretically puts more pressure on Prescott as well. Give me that scenario every time.
last year. I'd rather have him on the field and have the defense amped up to stop them. It's natural to let down a little when a key opponent is out...I don't want them to relax and get smacked when they least expect it.
last year. I'd rather have him on the field and have the defense amped up to stop them. It's natural to let down a little when a key opponent is out...I don't want them to relax and get smacked when they least expect it.
Opening game? lol And you're talking about a "letdown?" Oy.
opening day or not, that OL, even with 2 new starters, is still quite formidable, which means that any back or backs by committe that step(s) in are capable of putting up a buck twenty-five
Meh, no one is as talented as Elliot on that roster, just not even close. Its a huge blow if true.
Not saying or implying that. Just that it reasonable to expect who ever steps in, to perform well enough to help Dallas win..No Zeke hardly means a slam dunk or even close to it, imo
Too, many of us have seen an extraordinary amount of football that there are no givens. That oft times expectations get blown up..Now, if it was a best 2 out of 3, not having Zeke would probably be a crusher for Dallas..One game? Opening night? At home? A virtual crapshoot, imv
before the latest allegations, bur four games is better for
the punk! I won't shed a tear for another stupid football player, when it comes to this type of behavior!
but less good players makes winning harder. I'll take Dallas having 1 less very good player week 1. You don't get extra wins for beating teams at full strength. And if the Giants aren't gassed up to play Dallas week 1 then we have bigger problems...
I don't know the details of the original domestic violence report but we all saw him publicly expose a woman's breasts against her will. That alone should get him a game.
With all these suspensions, will Dallas even have 40+ bodies Â
Giants fan or not, the NFL is overstepping on this...
I'd like to know what the problem is here....seems like the NFL has been pretty hands off with Zeke so far, maybe more so than they have in other similar cases. You can argue that you disagree with the NFL, but they have the right to suspend players for these types of actions, and a recent history with little tolerance so it's not like he's being treated harsher than anyone else...
Despite the boys still having a great OL and likely will still have some rushing success without Zeke, this would be a huge hit against us in Game 1....we controlled Dak better than Zeke when we won last year, and they other backs are no where near his level...this doesn't guarantee anything, but it would definitely help to not face Zeke, let our D key on Dak & Dez (who we controlled well last year), and see what our O can do against their rebuilt secondary and whoever they can find to rush the passer...
was Roger's way of throwing JJ a bone. They agreed on the suspension a long time ago, but factoring in the appeal process, they will hand down the decision in such a way that Zeke actually serves his suspension starting with closer to say game 3-4. Looking at the boys schedule, they start with Giants, Denver, Arizona, LAR, Packers, Niners, Redskins.
I have this feeling he misses some combo of Rams, Packers, Niners, and maybe skins. That's the softest part of the schedule for them (in terms of strength of defense/opponent overall) and would mean he misses at most one divisional game.
RE: We beat them twice with Elliott in the line-up Â
last year. I'd rather have him on the field and have the defense amped up to stop them. It's natural to let down a little when a key opponent is out...I don't want them to relax and get smacked when they least expect it.
but less good players makes winning harder. I'll take Dallas having 1 less very good player week 1. You don't get extra wins for beating teams at full strength. And if the Giants aren't gassed up to play Dallas week 1 then we have bigger problems...
The guy's a sleeze. Missing 4 games, if that's the penalty, is too little, imo
is that he will be suspended four games, will appeal and the appeal won't be dealt with until AFTER the first game of the season so that he can play against the Giants, and then it will be reduced to a game or two. It would be a lot worse for Dallas to lose to the Giants than to Denver.
This is exactly what is happening... it's so obvious and it's ridiculous...
This is how I see it playing out
Within a week or so, it will be announced that he is suspended for 2 games...
A few days after, it will be announced that he has appealed the ruling...
Thursday afternoon or night, opening week, it will be leaked that the league doesn't anticipate completion of the appeal prior to week 1.... this will get drowned in the Thursday night football opening weekend excitement....
Wednesday or Thursday week 2 it will be announced that it has been reduced to 1 game and he will miss week 2
opening day or not, that OL, even with 2 new starters, is still quite formidable, which means that any back or backs by committe that step(s) in are capable of putting up a buck twenty-five
Given Zeke only put up 158 in 2 games at 3.6/carry (20 for 51 at 2.6/carry game 1) I don't care if he plays or doesn't.
opening day or not, that OL, even with 2 new starters, is still quite formidable, which means that any back or backs by committe that step(s) in are capable of putting up a buck twenty-five
Given Zeke only put up 158 in 2 games at 3.6/carry (20 for 51 at 2.6/carry game 1) I don't care if he plays or doesn't.
Nor do I and I won't lose any sleep should he play..I get nervous before any opening night game against a division opponent ON THE ROAD no less..
I even bothered to post my thoughts, because I fully expect should we lose, many comments along the line of, "We couldn't even beat Dallas without Zeke and some short-handedness, we're in trouble." As if beating Dallas in their house on opening night is a lock..
Nobody is saying that it will be a slam-dunk win Â
They want to beat Cowboys at full strength, this seems to be because Dallas fans will have a built-in excuse if they lose.
To this I say, none of that matters at all. It matters less than zero. Giants will have tough games this year. They will be tested. But if they benefit from Zeke not playing and win week 1, fan-freaking-tastic.
There are no trophies for losing with a good excuse. And trophies you win don't shine any less for beating a team missing some stars.
They want to beat Cowboys at full strength, this seems to be because Dallas fans will have a built-in excuse if they lose.
To this I say, none of that matters at all. It matters less than zero. Giants will have tough games this year. They will be tested. But if they benefit from Zeke not playing and win week 1, fan-freaking-tastic.
There are no trophies for losing with a good excuse. And trophies you win don't shine any less for beating a team missing some stars.
I think part of it is that and the other part is that we are confident we can beat them with Zeke so wby not have him miss a game against a lesser opponent to have them accumulate more losses.
Quote:
Giants fan or not, the NFL is overstepping on this...
Overstepping ... how?
With regards to the DV case..
Not even going to mention that the case is dismissed..
The allegation is BS.. The "victim" is lying.. Not just me saying this. It's in court documents that she told her GF to tell the investigators that Zeke pushed her out of a moving car and hit her, etc.. Something to that effect..
4 games suspension. I'll take it the cheap way only because its Dallas Â
But has he been proven guilty of anything? And if not aren't you innocent until proven guilty? It seems a little unfair to Zeke, not that I care so much, he is a Cowboy but I have to say iI would be pissed if Eli got suspended for the memorabilia thing without any proof of guilt.
They want to beat Cowboys at full strength, this seems to be because Dallas fans will have a built-in excuse if they lose.
To this I say, none of that matters at all. It matters less than zero. Giants will have tough games this year. They will be tested. But if they benefit from Zeke not playing and win week 1, fan-freaking-tastic.
There are no trophies for losing with a good excuse. And trophies you win don't shine any less for beating a team missing some stars.
I think part of it is that and the other part is that we are confident we can beat them with Zeke so wby not have him miss a game against a lesser opponent to have them accumulate more losses.
There's no guarantee we beat the Cowboys, with or without Zeke. Sure, we can beat them with him. But it is without dispute that if Zeke is not playing that our chances against them are significantly improved. I'm not scared of the Cowboys, but I respect them as an opponent.
So what I'm saying is that our wins means more than their losses. Beat them, and it's the double whammy, we get a win, they get a loss. We have a tough schedule, I'd prefer that we are helped by the loss of Zeke as opposed to other teams. I'm a Giants fan more than I am a Cowboys hater.
doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. Ray Rice was never found guilty of anything in a court of law. I am pretty sure the charges were dismissed. Does that mean his wife wasn't knocked out?
4 games suspension. I'll take it the cheap way only because its Dallas
est1986 : 12:59 pm : link : reply
But has he been proven guilty of anything? And if not aren't you innocent until proven guilty? It seems a little unfair to Zeke, not that I care so much, he is a Cowboy but I have to say iI would be pissed if Eli got suspended for the memorabilia thing without any proof of guilt.
Josh Brown wasn't proven guilty, but more than enough people not only wanted him run out of town, but insinuated that Mara and McAdoo were scumbags for having him around as long as they did.
RE: Some of the comments in the article are great Â
But has he been proven guilty of anything? And if not aren't you innocent until proven guilty? It seems a little unfair to Zeke, not that I care so much, he is a Cowboy but I have to say iI would be pissed if Eli got suspended for the memorabilia thing without any proof of guilt.
Looks like Carter is saying he's been told that it's due to Elliot destroying evidence ala Brady
Quote:
Now, it seems like someone at 345 Park Avenue has leaked to Cris Carter of FS1 the notion that Cowboys running back Ezekiel Elliott is about to be suspended, with some eye-opening details.
Via Ryan Glasspiegel of TheBigLead.com, Carter said on FS1’s Undisputed that “in the next 48 hours I would be shocked if Zeke was not suspended.” Carter added that, “based on the information that’s going to come out, it’s going to be fairly easy to determine that something happened to this woman in her four days of being with Zeke.” (The specific allegation is that Elliott committed five acts of domestic violence in a six-day window.)
Carter described the situation as a case of “assault or domestic violence,” and Carter hinted that “when the information comes out there’s going to be some similarities” to Tom Brady’s suspension, including “information that he had been advised possibly to give up, that was destroyed.”
Carter ultimately suggested that Elliott’s banishment will be in the range of Brady’s four-game suspension. If this happens, it will contradict multiple proclamations from Cowboys owner Jerry Jones regarding the absence of any evidence of domestic violence.
I'd rather see the Giants beat the Cowboys with Elliott playing Â
Giants fan or not, the NFL is overstepping on this...
I'd like to know what the problem is here....seems like the NFL has been pretty hands off with Zeke so far, maybe more so than they have in other similar cases. You can argue that you disagree with the NFL, but they have the right to suspend players for these types of actions, and a recent history with little tolerance so it's not like he's being treated harsher than anyone else...
Fair point Cenotaph.. The league can do whatever they want. No argument there.
I guess my problem has to do with the last part of your statement.. Punishing someone or over-punishing, based on a lack of action on prior cases is BS.. Judge this and any case on it's own merit..
But having said that.. The accuser is lying about being abused.. That has to mean something.. In what world is it OK to punish someone based on an accusation.. Even if you are ok with that, how is it ok to punish when the accusation is KNOWN to be BS??
RE: I think the suspension was delayed so it didn't Â
last year. I'd rather have him on the field and have the defense amped up to stop them. It's natural to let down a little when a key opponent is out...I don't want them to relax and get smacked when they least expect it.
Opening game? lol And you're talking about a "letdown?" Oy.
Try reading within the context of the statement: I wrote that "it's natural to let down a little when a key opponent is out"
The context of which is: when you have a player for whom you need to gameplan and otherwise add more focus, and that player is not on the field, it is natural for the players who usually face that player to let down a bit because the requisite focus, gameplan and attention is seemingly not as urgent with a "back-up player".
I don't believe te team will let down, but let's say the back up RB is juiced up for this opportunity behind their OL and decides to ball out...it's natural that the defense may not be expecting such a performance.
doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. Ray Rice was never found guilty of anything in a court of law. I am pretty sure the charges were dismissed. Does that mean his wife wasn't knocked out?
True... But then again there was Video... Do you know why he wasn't prosecuted?
RE: RE: Just because someone hasn't been prosecuted Â
doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. Ray Rice was never found guilty of anything in a court of law. I am pretty sure the charges were dismissed. Does that mean his wife wasn't knocked out?
True... But then again there was Video... Do you know why he wasn't prosecuted?
It was Janae's fault, not Ray's. I thought that's why she apologized on TV.
I'll Bet That Regardless Due To No Suspension Or An Appeal Â
That alone should have warranted serious punishment by the league. He's not a victim of circumstance like Gareon Conley was leading into the draft. He's done enough stupid things that there well may be fire behind the DV smoke.
And I really don't care if Dallas fans use it as an excuse if we beat them - he played in both games last year and we beat them both times. I'll take a win against Dallas any way it comes. The whole "I'd rather beat them at full strength" thing never made sense to me.
It makes sense in this way. Dwelling on whether Elliot will play or not comes across to a certain degree as weak and kind of elementary school. Why obsess over whether he plays or not? (that is not directed at you or anyone specific) We beat em twice last year. They should be more worried about solving our defense. Fuck Dallas!
for the whole jumping in the kettle thing any other player did that they would have been flagged/fined and possibly more people overlook the fact that deflategate was more about brady not co-operating and destroying evidence than the actual deflating if he isnt co-operating with the investigation and hiding or destroying evidence then the precedence was already set for 4 games ala brady
who is talking himself into more trouble with the whole none of your business attitude to his concussions i would say that proves he did and that the patriots covered it up i dont buy the whole playing for another 4 years crap either that comment by his wife was her calling time and the fact the patriots turned down a ton of high picks for garropollo also speaks to the patriots thinking he is maybe on his last year also
there's a pattern that goes back to college and seems compulsive. The man's out of control and can be compared to Johnie Football.
there's an alleged cover up of a bar room fight last year. A bar room fight with another cover-up just a few weeks ago. Theres the appearance in the pot shop. There's even a 100 mph speeding incident in Dallas itself.
Consider: The man's under investigation for abusing a woman and he pulls another woman's blouse down and against her will exposes her breasts.
That's bad from every viewpooint, but given the background and the admonitions to keep himself clean, it's more than just revealing. With millions on the line, with a superbowl perhaps within reach, his compulsion was so strong that he couldn't stop destructive patterns. And like Manzel it seems evident that there's a substance abuse problem.
His father moved to Ohio to protect him through college.
I think mandatory counseling and a rigid set of standards offered in severe reprimand might help him, but that's what he needs, help.
Ha. I thought this was common knowledge. Check this site out:
DeadSpin
Lying about one alleged incident doesn't mean there is nothing to the report. Did you read through the 70+ pages of materials there and conclude it was all a hoax? Or did you read one reporter's take on one document in the set?
RE: RE: RE: We beat them twice with Elliott in the line-up Â
last year. I'd rather have him on the field and have the defense amped up to stop them. It's natural to let down a little when a key opponent is out...I don't want them to relax and get smacked when they least expect it.
Opening game? lol And you're talking about a "letdown?" Oy.
Try reading within the context of the statement: I wrote that "it's natural to let down a little when a key opponent is out"
The context of which is: when you have a player for whom you need to gameplan and otherwise add more focus, and that player is not on the field, it is natural for the players who usually face that player to let down a bit because the requisite focus, gameplan and attention is seemingly not as urgent with a "back-up player".
I don't believe te team will let down, but let's say the back up RB is juiced up for this opportunity behind their OL and decides to ball out...it's natural that the defense may not be expecting such a performance.
pretty sure the Giants will be juiced to play their first game against a div rival who always seems to get the press and the headlines. let down a little ? not gonna happen dude
4 games? He will miss the rest of the pre-season! Â
Seriously, I have said several times that the CB will appeal and the appeal will not be decided until after week 1. To me the most significant element is that this is strike one. Further problems could lead to significant issues for the CB.
And I really don't care if Dallas fans use it as an excuse if we beat them - he played in both games last year and we beat them both times. I'll take a win against Dallas any way it comes. The whole "I'd rather beat them at full strength" thing never made sense to me.
It makes sense in this way. Dwelling on whether Elliot will play or not comes across to a certain degree as weak and kind of elementary school. Why obsess over whether he plays or not? (that is not directed at you or anyone specific) We beat em twice last year. They should be more worried about solving our defense. Fuck Dallas!
I just think it means we are competing for the most amount of wins possible by the end of the regular season, so any development that enhances our chances of getting a win I'm in favor of. Nobody will care come playoff time if Zeke played in week 1 or not. And yes, they should be more worried about solving our defense, but that doesn't mean taking away their best player doesn't help us.
But, it is kind of ridiculous to obsess over it...either way, none of have any control over what happens so anytime anyone anywhere obsesses over something they have no control over it's a waste of energy.
Quote:
Giants fan or not, the NFL is overstepping on this...
Overstepping ... how?
With regards to the DV case..
Not even going to mention that the case is dismissed..
The allegation is BS.. The "victim" is lying.. Not just me saying this. It's in court documents that she told her GF to tell the investigators that Zeke pushed her out of a moving car and hit her, etc.. Something to that effect..
Oh.
Well, since you have this all locked down, Elliott shouldn't be concerned.
Ha. I thought this was common knowledge. Check this site out:
DeadSpin
Lying about one alleged incident doesn't mean there is nothing to the report. Did you read through the 70+ pages of materials there and conclude it was all a hoax? Or did you read one reporter's take on one document in the set?
No.. I read the part about telling her GF she lied and the part about the DA dropping the case.. I'm sure they read the 70+ pages..
No.. I read the part about telling her GF she lied and the part about the DA dropping the case.. I'm sure they read the 70+ pages..
Exactly. You read one article and deemed the entire case null and void. You shouldn't be preaching to anyone about this case, considering you know about as much as anyone with a passing knowledge of it.
The "I want us beat them at full strength" crowd Â
No.. I read the part about telling her GF she lied and the part about the DA dropping the case.. I'm sure they read the 70+ pages..
Exactly. You read one article and deemed the entire case null and void. You shouldn't be preaching to anyone about this case, considering you know about as much as anyone with a passing knowledge of it.
Yes and the like you said, I know about as much as anyone.. Funny I didn't see anybody else mentioning that article pointing out, what you deemed, a "minor little detail".. I'll also in add in the fact the the DA threw out the case..
You can only choose one side here.. Zeke or the accuser..
Just so I understand this.. You're telling me that even after confirmation that she made up a story about getting dragged out of a car and involving her GF in that lie and the DA dropping the case because of "inconsistent information across ALL incidents", you're still siding with the accuser??
Remarkable..
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: This is BULLSHIT!!!! Â
Exactly. You read one article and deemed the entire case null and void. You shouldn't be preaching to anyone about this case, considering you know about as much as anyone with a passing knowledge of it.
... and you mentioned preaching.. I don't know ya'll from a hole in the wall plus I'm not in the business of trying to convince NOBODY. I'm just pointing out that "minor" detail..
We're not talking about falsifying your job application. We're talking about an accusation that could put you in JAIL.. Forget football suspension.. Prison..
I'm sorry, I can't dismiss that as a "minor" incident, brushing it aside as a mistake and continue to move in the direction that he actually did something..
It's funny to me, there's 2 (maybe 3) sides to every story, but it seems that we never seem to believe that its even remotely possible that the accuser is the one that is lying..
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: This is BULLSHIT!!!! Â
No.. I read the part about telling her GF she lied and the part about the DA dropping the case.. I'm sure they read the 70+ pages..
Exactly. You read one article and deemed the entire case null and void. You shouldn't be preaching to anyone about this case, considering you know about as much as anyone with a passing knowledge of it.
Yes and the like you said, I know about as much as anyone.. Funny I didn't see anybody else mentioning that article pointing out, what you deemed, a "minor little detail".. I'll also in add in the fact the the DA threw out the case..
You can only choose one side here.. Zeke or the accuser..
Just so I understand this.. You're telling me that even after confirmation that she made up a story about getting dragged out of a car and involving her GF in that lie and the DA dropping the case because of "inconsistent information across ALL incidents", you're still siding with the accuser??
Remarkable..
Don't misattribute shit to me please. Don't lie about what I said. Re-read my posts before responding with this shit post.
No.. I read the part about telling her GF she lied and the part about the DA dropping the case.. I'm sure they read the 70+ pages..
Exactly. You read one article and deemed the entire case null and void. You shouldn't be preaching to anyone about this case, considering you know about as much as anyone with a passing knowledge of it.
Yes and the like you said, I know about as much as anyone.. Funny I didn't see anybody else mentioning that article pointing out, what you deemed, a "minor little detail".. I'll also in add in the fact the the DA threw out the case..
You can only choose one side here.. Zeke or the accuser..
Just so I understand this.. You're telling me that even after confirmation that she made up a story about getting dragged out of a car and involving her GF in that lie and the DA dropping the case because of "inconsistent information across ALL incidents", you're still siding with the accuser??
Remarkable..
You obiously didnt read thw ehole thing. Regarding the text messages:
"Included in the documents released by the prosecutor’s office are images of text messages. It’s hard to tell exactly who is communicating with whom based on the images, "
The prosecutor dropped the charges because the case would have been impossible to prove and it probably wasnt worth the time.
Also, calling that article an example of "common knowledge" is just inaccurate.
Not saying he did beat her up or didnt, but you make it sound like he was cleared of any wrong doing. He wasnt. Prosecutor just didnt have a case.
Also, the league sees a trend in behavior and acts accordingly. They are not bound by the same statute of limitations as the courts just as any other employer isnt. You would run the risk of losing your job if wind of these three incodents that you may or may not have been involved with got back to your boss.
about Zeke possibly being suspended. Someone said NFL is overstepping their boundaries? NFL is a 9+ billion dollar a year industry and they also happen to have a problem (not just an image problem) with their employees engaging in domestic violence. They need to do whatever they want to stem this problem. It's in the bargaining agreement. Some states are Right to Work states. They can fire an employee without any cause. Roger Goodell has the power to possibly suspend Zeke, and he wouldnt do that if there was not some pretty hard evidence that it happened. He had the right to throw the book at Sean Payton, Gregg Williams and the Saints players for having locker room bounties for knocking players out, had the right to insist that it was not OK for even the biggest star in the game, Tom Brady, to violate what many thought was an insignificant rule. The guy has the power, and I have no problem with that. Has he fucked up along the way? Sure. But I dont mind the top guy in the league handling situations as they present themselves. He would have benefitted from some more sage advice at times, but it is what it is, and thats the way it's going to be for the foreseeable future.
RE: RE: RE: RE: We beat them twice with Elliott in the line-up Â
last year. I'd rather have him on the field and have the defense amped up to stop them. It's natural to let down a little when a key opponent is out...I don't want them to relax and get smacked when they least expect it.
Opening game? lol And you're talking about a "letdown?" Oy.
Try reading within the context of the statement: I wrote that "it's natural to let down a little when a key opponent is out"
The context of which is: when you have a player for whom you need to gameplan and otherwise add more focus, and that player is not on the field, it is natural for the players who usually face that player to let down a bit because the requisite focus, gameplan and attention is seemingly not as urgent with a "back-up player".
I don't believe te team will let down, but let's say the back up RB is juiced up for this opportunity behind their OL and decides to ball out...it's natural that the defense may not be expecting such a performance.
pretty sure the Giants will be juiced to play their first game against a div rival who always seems to get the press and the headlines. let down a little ? not gonna happen dude
I'm glad you're so certain that they'll be equally fired up to stop a back-up running back as they would be Elliott (who BTW is pretty much the center of all the press and headlines these days).
All the same, I'd rather they played against him and won.
Quote:
You obiously didnt read thw ehole thing. Regarding the text messages:
"Included in the documents released by the prosecutor’s office are images of text messages. It’s hard to tell exactly who is communicating with whom based on the images, "
Actually, I did read the whole thing but everything else you said was fair.
What can make me say that is you said "Not saying he did beat her up or didnt".. You at least gave him that benefit of the doubt..
Also, I really thought it this info was common knowledge.. Reading some of the responses here, convinces me that I couldn't have been more wrong.. Definite mistake on my part.
One more thing and I'm done, maybe, with this.. Women beaters DISGUST me. Let me just get that out the way before people think I'm defending a known worm. This is from a father of 2 beautiful young women BUT, I'm also a father of a wonderful young man AND in my early 20's, I was accused of serious incident.
I can tell you from first hand experience that there is NOTHING WORSE in life than having been accused of something that ONLY you and God KNOW is a lie.. I learned at a young age that they females lie too and have no problems shedding tears at the snap of a finger..
opening day or not, that OL, even with 2 new starters, is still quite formidable.
What makes you say that? An OL is only as strong as its weakest link. Cooper at the top of the OLG depth chart is not something he earned, but something he was handed. And he flopped with three other teams, so no reason as yet to believe he isn't a liability. And Collins is still very much unproven. He was well thought of coming out of college, but has proven nothing in his first two years in the league. It's not as if he was getting rave reviews before being lost for the season to injury last year. He was still very much a work-in-progress.
are absolutely meaningless as it pertains to this year. In fact, we EASILY could have lost both, so this, "we beat them twice last year with Zeke, so we could/should do it again with him playing this year," is silly, imo
opening day or not, that OL, even with 2 new starters, is still quite formidable, which means that any back or backs by committe that step(s) in are capable of putting up a buck twenty-five
4 games suspension. I'll take it the cheap way only because its Dallas
est1986 : 12:59 pm : link : reply
But has he been proven guilty of anything? And if not aren't you innocent until proven guilty? It seems a little unfair to Zeke, not that I care so much, he is a Cowboy but I have to say iI would be pissed if Eli got suspended for the memorabilia thing without any proof of guilt.
Josh Brown wasn't proven guilty, but more than enough people not only wanted him run out of town, but insinuated that Mara and McAdoo were scumbags for having him around as long as they did.
Innocent until proved guilty doesn't apply. The NFL isn't a courtroom and he appears to have violated a contract point. Appearance alone is all the NFL needs to lay the wood.
Elliot playing with a suspension and the distraction Â
are absolutely meaningless as it pertains to this year. In fact, we EASILY could have lost both, so this, "we beat them twice last year with Zeke, so we could/should do it again with him playing this year," is silly, imo
^
Exactly BB56. Some people just never learn.
And, the D having a let down because Zeke isn't playing - LOL! People actually believe this shit? It's the fucking Cowboys on opening day.
Exactly. You read one article and deemed the entire case null and void. You shouldn't be preaching to anyone about this case, considering you know about as much as anyone with a passing knowledge of it.
... and you mentioned preaching.. I don't know ya'll from a hole in the wall plus I'm not in the business of trying to convince NOBODY. I'm just pointing out that "minor" detail..
We're not talking about falsifying your job application. We're talking about an accusation that could put you in JAIL.. Forget football suspension.. Prison..
I'm sorry, I can't dismiss that as a "minor" incident, brushing it aside as a mistake and continue to move in the direction that he actually did something..
It's funny to me, there's 2 (maybe 3) sides to every story, but it seems that we never seem to believe that its even remotely possible that the accuser is the one that is lying..
I have a big problem with you putting quotes around things I never said. You should apologize for misattributing statements to me. I never said anything was "minor". Search this whole fucking dialogue and you're the only one saying that. Really... gfy.
[quote)I can tell you from first hand experience that there is NOTHING WORSE in life than having been accused of something that ONLY you and God KNOW is a lie.. I learned at a young age that they females lie too and have no problems shedding tears at the snap of a finger..
It's sickening feeling watching that play out..[/quote]
Yes, but being victimized by some rich kid whose money and Dad (JJ) buy him out is pretty traumatic too.
But it's not the original charge, but rather an accumulation of incidents and cover-up's that are threatening the spoled and indulged child.
A poster says he'd rather beat them at full strength and has to endure being mocked and having his statement distorted.
He never said he played for the NY Giant. He said that as a fan he'd rather beat them at full strength. It seems to me to be reasonable and a personal preference.
Even if someone disagrees, Why does it provoke an attack and misrepresentation? Attacks like this are always on the attacker and reveal someone living a sad life trying to feel better about himself.
that we can beat every team at full strength. If you guarantee the win than I'm all for it. But the notion that you'd rather go into a game as a fan knowing that you have the option to not have your team face the opponent with their best player, but somehow not want that advantage is mind boggling.
I asked it earlier and got no response, if we play the Pats in the SB, would you rather Gronk play or sit? What about Brady?
that we can beat every team at full strength. If you guarantee the win than I'm all for it. But the notion that you'd rather go into a game as a fan knowing that you have the option to not have your team face the opponent with their best player, but somehow not want that advantage is mind boggling.
I asked it earlier and got no response, if we play the Pats in the SB, would you rather Gronk play or sit? What about Brady?
I had no problem with Gronk being seriously 'impaired' in XLVI
that we can beat every team at full strength. If you guarantee the win than I'm all for it. But the notion that you'd rather go into a game as a fan knowing that you have the option to not have your team face the opponent with their best player, but somehow not want that advantage is mind boggling.
I asked it earlier and got no response, if we play the Pats in the SB, would you rather Gronk play or sit? What about Brady?
I'd be fine with either of them sitting out the game. Both would be even better.
I asked it earlier and got no response, if we play the Pats in the SB, would you rather Gronk play or sit? What about Brady?
This one is an exception, I think. I don't care about Gronk playing, let him sit and weaken the Patriots. Play them in a Super Bowl without Brady? Despite history, Eli/Giants only beat the Patriots (for a third time) because Brady wasn't playing. No thanks.
idiot I just stumbled over first take talking about him
when Skip Bayless is bashing the golden boy there's some
deep problems .
Cowboys run game will function fine without him but I am
glad if they suspend him for the opener .
Team captain!!
1. police report from ex
2. sexually assaulted female friend at Mardi gras
3. bar fight
He has never helped himself over the past few months.
That's my concern. I can live with 1, as long as it's Game 1. I don't want an appeal that delays it 'till midseason.
Meh, no one is as talented as Elliot on that roster, just not even close. Its a huge blow if true.
It's a big deal if he's out week 1.
Team captain!!
The Lord didnt rest until day 7, but Zeke got it all done in a work week.
Quote:
opening day or not, that OL, even with 2 new starters, is still quite formidable, which means that any back or backs by committe that step(s) in are capable of putting up a buck twenty-five
Meh, no one is as talented as Elliot on that roster, just not even close. Its a huge blow if true.
Not saying or implying that. Just that it reasonable to expect who ever steps in, to perform well enough to help Dallas win..No Zeke hardly means a slam dunk or even close to it, imo
No way that it's an automatic win with Elliott sitting, but if I have a choice? Oh hell yes, I'd rather have his backups in there instead of him. Theoretically puts more pressure on Prescott as well. Give me that scenario every time.
Overstepping ... how?
Opening game? lol And you're talking about a "letdown?" Oy.
Quote:
In comment 13551634 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
opening day or not, that OL, even with 2 new starters, is still quite formidable, which means that any back or backs by committe that step(s) in are capable of putting up a buck twenty-five
Meh, no one is as talented as Elliot on that roster, just not even close. Its a huge blow if true.
Not saying or implying that. Just that it reasonable to expect who ever steps in, to perform well enough to help Dallas win..No Zeke hardly means a slam dunk or even close to it, imo
Too, many of us have seen an extraordinary amount of football that there are no givens. That oft times expectations get blown up..Now, if it was a best 2 out of 3, not having Zeke would probably be a crusher for Dallas..One game? Opening night? At home? A virtual crapshoot, imv
the punk! I won't shed a tear for another stupid football player, when it comes to this type of behavior!
I'd like to know what the problem is here....seems like the NFL has been pretty hands off with Zeke so far, maybe more so than they have in other similar cases. You can argue that you disagree with the NFL, but they have the right to suspend players for these types of actions, and a recent history with little tolerance so it's not like he's being treated harsher than anyone else...
Despite the boys still having a great OL and likely will still have some rushing success without Zeke, this would be a huge hit against us in Game 1....we controlled Dak better than Zeke when we won last year, and they other backs are no where near his level...this doesn't guarantee anything, but it would definitely help to not face Zeke, let our D key on Dak & Dez (who we controlled well last year), and see what our O can do against their rebuilt secondary and whoever they can find to rush the passer...
I have this feeling he misses some combo of Rams, Packers, Niners, and maybe skins. That's the softest part of the schedule for them (in terms of strength of defense/opponent overall) and would mean he misses at most one divisional game.
Really?
The guy's a sleeze. Missing 4 games, if that's the penalty, is too little, imo
This is exactly what is happening... it's so obvious and it's ridiculous...
This is how I see it playing out
Within a week or so, it will be announced that he is suspended for 2 games...
A few days after, it will be announced that he has appealed the ruling...
Thursday afternoon or night, opening week, it will be leaked that the league doesn't anticipate completion of the appeal prior to week 1.... this will get drowned in the Thursday night football opening weekend excitement....
Wednesday or Thursday week 2 it will be announced that it has been reduced to 1 game and he will miss week 2
Given Zeke only put up 158 in 2 games at 3.6/carry (20 for 51 at 2.6/carry game 1) I don't care if he plays or doesn't.
Quote:
opening day or not, that OL, even with 2 new starters, is still quite formidable, which means that any back or backs by committe that step(s) in are capable of putting up a buck twenty-five
Given Zeke only put up 158 in 2 games at 3.6/carry (20 for 51 at 2.6/carry game 1) I don't care if he plays or doesn't.
Nor do I and I won't lose any sleep should he play..I get nervous before any opening night game against a division opponent ON THE ROAD no less..
I even bothered to post my thoughts, because I fully expect should we lose, many comments along the line of, "We couldn't even beat Dallas without Zeke and some short-handedness, we're in trouble." As if beating Dallas in their house on opening night is a lock..
That's a good thing, isn't it?
To this I say, none of that matters at all. It matters less than zero. Giants will have tough games this year. They will be tested. But if they benefit from Zeke not playing and win week 1, fan-freaking-tastic.
There are no trophies for losing with a good excuse. And trophies you win don't shine any less for beating a team missing some stars.
To this I say, none of that matters at all. It matters less than zero. Giants will have tough games this year. They will be tested. But if they benefit from Zeke not playing and win week 1, fan-freaking-tastic.
There are no trophies for losing with a good excuse. And trophies you win don't shine any less for beating a team missing some stars.
I think part of it is that and the other part is that we are confident we can beat them with Zeke so wby not have him miss a game against a lesser opponent to have them accumulate more losses.
Quote:
Giants fan or not, the NFL is overstepping on this...
Overstepping ... how?
With regards to the DV case..
Not even going to mention that the case is dismissed..
The allegation is BS.. The "victim" is lying.. Not just me saying this. It's in court documents that she told her GF to tell the investigators that Zeke pushed her out of a moving car and hit her, etc.. Something to that effect..
Hope he enjoys his vacation on Endor
Quote:
They want to beat Cowboys at full strength, this seems to be because Dallas fans will have a built-in excuse if they lose.
To this I say, none of that matters at all. It matters less than zero. Giants will have tough games this year. They will be tested. But if they benefit from Zeke not playing and win week 1, fan-freaking-tastic.
There are no trophies for losing with a good excuse. And trophies you win don't shine any less for beating a team missing some stars.
I think part of it is that and the other part is that we are confident we can beat them with Zeke so wby not have him miss a game against a lesser opponent to have them accumulate more losses.
There's no guarantee we beat the Cowboys, with or without Zeke. Sure, we can beat them with him. But it is without dispute that if Zeke is not playing that our chances against them are significantly improved. I'm not scared of the Cowboys, but I respect them as an opponent.
So what I'm saying is that our wins means more than their losses. Beat them, and it's the double whammy, we get a win, they get a loss. We have a tough schedule, I'd prefer that we are helped by the loss of Zeke as opposed to other teams. I'm a Giants fan more than I am a Cowboys hater.
est1986 : 12:59 pm : link : reply
But has he been proven guilty of anything? And if not aren't you innocent until proven guilty? It seems a little unfair to Zeke, not that I care so much, he is a Cowboy but I have to say iI would be pissed if Eli got suspended for the memorabilia thing without any proof of guilt.
Josh Brown wasn't proven guilty, but more than enough people not only wanted him run out of town, but insinuated that Mara and McAdoo were scumbags for having him around as long as they did.
Quote:
August 7, 2017 at 12:28 pm
Hope he enjoys his vacation on Endor
Looks like Carter is saying he's been told that it's due to Elliot destroying evidence ala Brady
Via Ryan Glasspiegel of TheBigLead.com, Carter said on FS1’s Undisputed that “in the next 48 hours I would be shocked if Zeke was not suspended.” Carter added that, “based on the information that’s going to come out, it’s going to be fairly easy to determine that something happened to this woman in her four days of being with Zeke.” (The specific allegation is that Elliott committed five acts of domestic violence in a six-day window.)
Carter described the situation as a case of “assault or domestic violence,” and Carter hinted that “when the information comes out there’s going to be some similarities” to Tom Brady’s suspension, including “information that he had been advised possibly to give up, that was destroyed.”
Carter ultimately suggested that Elliott’s banishment will be in the range of Brady’s four-game suspension. If this happens, it will contradict multiple proclamations from Cowboys owner Jerry Jones regarding the absence of any evidence of domestic violence.
Quote:
Giants fan or not, the NFL is overstepping on this...
I'd like to know what the problem is here....seems like the NFL has been pretty hands off with Zeke so far, maybe more so than they have in other similar cases. You can argue that you disagree with the NFL, but they have the right to suspend players for these types of actions, and a recent history with little tolerance so it's not like he's being treated harsher than anyone else...
Fair point Cenotaph.. The league can do whatever they want. No argument there.
I guess my problem has to do with the last part of your statement.. Punishing someone or over-punishing, based on a lack of action on prior cases is BS.. Judge this and any case on it's own merit..
But having said that.. The accuser is lying about being abused.. That has to mean something.. In what world is it OK to punish someone based on an accusation.. Even if you are ok with that, how is it ok to punish when the accusation is KNOWN to be BS??
Perhaps. But I think jpennyva may be on target that the delay serves to allow the appeal process to be ongoing as of Week 1.
We'll see.
Where did this come from?
Quote:
last year. I'd rather have him on the field and have the defense amped up to stop them. It's natural to let down a little when a key opponent is out...I don't want them to relax and get smacked when they least expect it.
Opening game? lol And you're talking about a "letdown?" Oy.
Try reading within the context of the statement: I wrote that "it's natural to let down a little when a key opponent is out"
The context of which is: when you have a player for whom you need to gameplan and otherwise add more focus, and that player is not on the field, it is natural for the players who usually face that player to let down a bit because the requisite focus, gameplan and attention is seemingly not as urgent with a "back-up player".
I don't believe te team will let down, but let's say the back up RB is juiced up for this opportunity behind their OL and decides to ball out...it's natural that the defense may not be expecting such a performance.
True... But then again there was Video... Do you know why he wasn't prosecuted?
Quote:
doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. Ray Rice was never found guilty of anything in a court of law. I am pretty sure the charges were dismissed. Does that mean his wife wasn't knocked out?
True... But then again there was Video... Do you know why he wasn't prosecuted?
It was Janae's fault, not Ray's. I thought that's why she apologized on TV.
If he is in fact suspended 4 games, he'd have to appeal and see if it can't get reduced to 3 or less.
robbieballs2003 : 12:48 pm : link
overshadow the HoF inductions.
+1
Why does everyone say this? Dallas players have been suspended left and right lately.
Quote:
... The accuser is lying about being abused...
Where did this come from?
Ha. I thought this was common knowledge. Check this site out:
DeadSpin
It makes sense in this way. Dwelling on whether Elliot will play or not comes across to a certain degree as weak and kind of elementary school. Why obsess over whether he plays or not? (that is not directed at you or anyone specific) We beat em twice last year. They should be more worried about solving our defense. Fuck Dallas!
who is talking himself into more trouble with the whole none of your business attitude to his concussions i would say that proves he did and that the patriots covered it up i dont buy the whole playing for another 4 years crap either that comment by his wife was her calling time and the fact the patriots turned down a ton of high picks for garropollo also speaks to the patriots thinking he is maybe on his last year also
there's an alleged cover up of a bar room fight last year. A bar room fight with another cover-up just a few weeks ago. Theres the appearance in the pot shop. There's even a 100 mph speeding incident in Dallas itself.
Consider: The man's under investigation for abusing a woman and he pulls another woman's blouse down and against her will exposes her breasts.
That's bad from every viewpooint, but given the background and the admonitions to keep himself clean, it's more than just revealing. With millions on the line, with a superbowl perhaps within reach, his compulsion was so strong that he couldn't stop destructive patterns. And like Manzel it seems evident that there's a substance abuse problem.
His father moved to Ohio to protect him through college.
I think mandatory counseling and a rigid set of standards offered in severe reprimand might help him, but that's what he needs, help.
Quote:
In comment 13551737 Gussi41 said:
Quote:
... The accuser is lying about being abused...
Where did this come from?
Ha. I thought this was common knowledge. Check this site out:
DeadSpin
Lying about one alleged incident doesn't mean there is nothing to the report. Did you read through the 70+ pages of materials there and conclude it was all a hoax? Or did you read one reporter's take on one document in the set?
Quote:
In comment 13551659 andrew_nyg said:
Quote:
last year. I'd rather have him on the field and have the defense amped up to stop them. It's natural to let down a little when a key opponent is out...I don't want them to relax and get smacked when they least expect it.
Opening game? lol And you're talking about a "letdown?" Oy.
Try reading within the context of the statement: I wrote that "it's natural to let down a little when a key opponent is out"
The context of which is: when you have a player for whom you need to gameplan and otherwise add more focus, and that player is not on the field, it is natural for the players who usually face that player to let down a bit because the requisite focus, gameplan and attention is seemingly not as urgent with a "back-up player".
I don't believe te team will let down, but let's say the back up RB is juiced up for this opportunity behind their OL and decides to ball out...it's natural that the defense may not be expecting such a performance.
pretty sure the Giants will be juiced to play their first game against a div rival who always seems to get the press and the headlines. let down a little ? not gonna happen dude
Quote:
And I really don't care if Dallas fans use it as an excuse if we beat them - he played in both games last year and we beat them both times. I'll take a win against Dallas any way it comes. The whole "I'd rather beat them at full strength" thing never made sense to me.
It makes sense in this way. Dwelling on whether Elliot will play or not comes across to a certain degree as weak and kind of elementary school. Why obsess over whether he plays or not? (that is not directed at you or anyone specific) We beat em twice last year. They should be more worried about solving our defense. Fuck Dallas!
I just think it means we are competing for the most amount of wins possible by the end of the regular season, so any development that enhances our chances of getting a win I'm in favor of. Nobody will care come playoff time if Zeke played in week 1 or not. And yes, they should be more worried about solving our defense, but that doesn't mean taking away their best player doesn't help us.
But, it is kind of ridiculous to obsess over it...either way, none of have any control over what happens so anytime anyone anywhere obsesses over something they have no control over it's a waste of energy.
Quote:
In comment 13551658 Gussi41 said:
Quote:
Giants fan or not, the NFL is overstepping on this...
Overstepping ... how?
With regards to the DV case..
Not even going to mention that the case is dismissed..
The allegation is BS.. The "victim" is lying.. Not just me saying this. It's in court documents that she told her GF to tell the investigators that Zeke pushed her out of a moving car and hit her, etc.. Something to that effect..
Oh.
Well, since you have this all locked down, Elliott shouldn't be concerned.
Quote:
In comment 13551744 Rocky369 said:
Quote:
In comment 13551737 Gussi41 said:
Quote:
... The accuser is lying about being abused...
Where did this come from?
Ha. I thought this was common knowledge. Check this site out:
DeadSpin
Lying about one alleged incident doesn't mean there is nothing to the report. Did you read through the 70+ pages of materials there and conclude it was all a hoax? Or did you read one reporter's take on one document in the set?
No.. I read the part about telling her GF she lied and the part about the DA dropping the case.. I'm sure they read the 70+ pages..
Quote:
In comment 13551737 Gussi41 said:
Quote:
... The accuser is lying about being abused...
Where did this come from?
Ha. I thought this was common knowledge. Check this site out:
DeadSpin
You do realize that a suspension - if it actually occurs - would be based more on just this incident, right?
No.. I read the part about telling her GF she lied and the part about the DA dropping the case.. I'm sure they read the 70+ pages..
Exactly. You read one article and deemed the entire case null and void. You shouldn't be preaching to anyone about this case, considering you know about as much as anyone with a passing knowledge of it.
1. You're not on the team
2. If you were on the team, you'd be happy as hell that one of their best players is out.
C. You're not on the team.
1. You're not on the team
2. If you were on the team, you'd be happy as hell that one of their best players is out.
C. You're not on the team.
New Math? 1, 2 and C? 😎
Quote:
In comment 13551852 adamg said:
No.. I read the part about telling her GF she lied and the part about the DA dropping the case.. I'm sure they read the 70+ pages..
Exactly. You read one article and deemed the entire case null and void. You shouldn't be preaching to anyone about this case, considering you know about as much as anyone with a passing knowledge of it.
Yes and the like you said, I know about as much as anyone.. Funny I didn't see anybody else mentioning that article pointing out, what you deemed, a "minor little detail".. I'll also in add in the fact the the DA threw out the case..
You can only choose one side here.. Zeke or the accuser..
Just so I understand this.. You're telling me that even after confirmation that she made up a story about getting dragged out of a car and involving her GF in that lie and the DA dropping the case because of "inconsistent information across ALL incidents", you're still siding with the accuser??
Remarkable..
Exactly. You read one article and deemed the entire case null and void. You shouldn't be preaching to anyone about this case, considering you know about as much as anyone with a passing knowledge of it.
... and you mentioned preaching.. I don't know ya'll from a hole in the wall plus I'm not in the business of trying to convince NOBODY. I'm just pointing out that "minor" detail..
We're not talking about falsifying your job application. We're talking about an accusation that could put you in JAIL.. Forget football suspension.. Prison..
I'm sorry, I can't dismiss that as a "minor" incident, brushing it aside as a mistake and continue to move in the direction that he actually did something..
It's funny to me, there's 2 (maybe 3) sides to every story, but it seems that we never seem to believe that its even remotely possible that the accuser is the one that is lying..
Quote:
In comment 13551872 Gussi41 said:
Quote:
In comment 13551852 adamg said:
No.. I read the part about telling her GF she lied and the part about the DA dropping the case.. I'm sure they read the 70+ pages..
Exactly. You read one article and deemed the entire case null and void. You shouldn't be preaching to anyone about this case, considering you know about as much as anyone with a passing knowledge of it.
Yes and the like you said, I know about as much as anyone.. Funny I didn't see anybody else mentioning that article pointing out, what you deemed, a "minor little detail".. I'll also in add in the fact the the DA threw out the case..
You can only choose one side here.. Zeke or the accuser..
Just so I understand this.. You're telling me that even after confirmation that she made up a story about getting dragged out of a car and involving her GF in that lie and the DA dropping the case because of "inconsistent information across ALL incidents", you're still siding with the accuser??
Remarkable..
Don't misattribute shit to me please. Don't lie about what I said. Re-read my posts before responding with this shit post.
RELAX. It's more fun beating Dallas at full strength.
Quote:
In comment 13551872 Gussi41 said:
Quote:
In comment 13551852 adamg said:
No.. I read the part about telling her GF she lied and the part about the DA dropping the case.. I'm sure they read the 70+ pages..
Exactly. You read one article and deemed the entire case null and void. You shouldn't be preaching to anyone about this case, considering you know about as much as anyone with a passing knowledge of it.
Yes and the like you said, I know about as much as anyone.. Funny I didn't see anybody else mentioning that article pointing out, what you deemed, a "minor little detail".. I'll also in add in the fact the the DA threw out the case..
You can only choose one side here.. Zeke or the accuser..
Just so I understand this.. You're telling me that even after confirmation that she made up a story about getting dragged out of a car and involving her GF in that lie and the DA dropping the case because of "inconsistent information across ALL incidents", you're still siding with the accuser??
Remarkable..
You obiously didnt read thw ehole thing. Regarding the text messages:
"Included in the documents released by the prosecutor’s office are images of text messages. It’s hard to tell exactly who is communicating with whom based on the images, "
The prosecutor dropped the charges because the case would have been impossible to prove and it probably wasnt worth the time.
Also, calling that article an example of "common knowledge" is just inaccurate.
Not saying he did beat her up or didnt, but you make it sound like he was cleared of any wrong doing. He wasnt. Prosecutor just didnt have a case.
Also, the league sees a trend in behavior and acts accordingly. They are not bound by the same statute of limitations as the courts just as any other employer isnt. You would run the risk of losing your job if wind of these three incodents that you may or may not have been involved with got back to your boss.
Quote:
In comment 13551663 Beezer said:
Quote:
In comment 13551659 andrew_nyg said:
Quote:
last year. I'd rather have him on the field and have the defense amped up to stop them. It's natural to let down a little when a key opponent is out...I don't want them to relax and get smacked when they least expect it.
Opening game? lol And you're talking about a "letdown?" Oy.
Try reading within the context of the statement: I wrote that "it's natural to let down a little when a key opponent is out"
The context of which is: when you have a player for whom you need to gameplan and otherwise add more focus, and that player is not on the field, it is natural for the players who usually face that player to let down a bit because the requisite focus, gameplan and attention is seemingly not as urgent with a "back-up player".
I don't believe te team will let down, but let's say the back up RB is juiced up for this opportunity behind their OL and decides to ball out...it's natural that the defense may not be expecting such a performance.
pretty sure the Giants will be juiced to play their first game against a div rival who always seems to get the press and the headlines. let down a little ? not gonna happen dude
I'm glad you're so certain that they'll be equally fired up to stop a back-up running back as they would be Elliott (who BTW is pretty much the center of all the press and headlines these days).
All the same, I'd rather they played against him and won.
Quote:
You obiously didnt read thw ehole thing. Regarding the text messages:
"Included in the documents released by the prosecutor’s office are images of text messages. It’s hard to tell exactly who is communicating with whom based on the images, "
Actually, I did read the whole thing but everything else you said was fair.
What can make me say that is you said "Not saying he did beat her up or didnt".. You at least gave him that benefit of the doubt..
Also, I really thought it this info was common knowledge.. Reading some of the responses here, convinces me that I couldn't have been more wrong.. Definite mistake on my part.
One more thing and I'm done, maybe, with this.. Women beaters DISGUST me. Let me just get that out the way before people think I'm defending a known worm. This is from a father of 2 beautiful young women BUT, I'm also a father of a wonderful young man AND in my early 20's, I was accused of serious incident.
I can tell you from first hand experience that there is NOTHING WORSE in life than having been accused of something that ONLY you and God KNOW is a lie.. I learned at a young age that they females lie too and have no problems shedding tears at the snap of a finger..
It's sickening feeling watching that play out..
1. You're not on the team
2. If you were on the team, you'd be happy as hell that one of their best players is out.
C. You're not on the team.
4. The Giants are usually not at full strength for most of these games, either. So why insist that the opponent be?
True, but our DL ain't chopped liver.
1. You're not on the team
2. If you were on the team, you'd be happy as hell that one of their best players is out.
C. You're not on the team.
The 'I want them @ full strength' line never ceases to make me laugh.
Quote:
4 games suspension. I'll take it the cheap way only because its Dallas
est1986 : 12:59 pm : link : reply
But has he been proven guilty of anything? And if not aren't you innocent until proven guilty? It seems a little unfair to Zeke, not that I care so much, he is a Cowboy but I have to say iI would be pissed if Eli got suspended for the memorabilia thing without any proof of guilt.
Josh Brown wasn't proven guilty, but more than enough people not only wanted him run out of town, but insinuated that Mara and McAdoo were scumbags for having him around as long as they did.
Innocent until proved guilty doesn't apply. The NFL isn't a courtroom and he appears to have violated a contract point. Appearance alone is all the NFL needs to lay the wood.
Teams have used the loss of key personal before to come together and play better.
^
Exactly BB56. Some people just never learn.
And, the D having a let down because Zeke isn't playing - LOL! People actually believe this shit? It's the fucking Cowboys on opening day.
Quote:
In comment 13551872 Gussi41 said:
Exactly. You read one article and deemed the entire case null and void. You shouldn't be preaching to anyone about this case, considering you know about as much as anyone with a passing knowledge of it.
... and you mentioned preaching.. I don't know ya'll from a hole in the wall plus I'm not in the business of trying to convince NOBODY. I'm just pointing out that "minor" detail..
We're not talking about falsifying your job application. We're talking about an accusation that could put you in JAIL.. Forget football suspension.. Prison..
I'm sorry, I can't dismiss that as a "minor" incident, brushing it aside as a mistake and continue to move in the direction that he actually did something..
It's funny to me, there's 2 (maybe 3) sides to every story, but it seems that we never seem to believe that its even remotely possible that the accuser is the one that is lying..
I have a big problem with you putting quotes around things I never said. You should apologize for misattributing statements to me. I never said anything was "minor". Search this whole fucking dialogue and you're the only one saying that. Really... gfy.
It's sickening feeling watching that play out..[/quote]
Yes, but being victimized by some rich kid whose money and Dad (JJ) buy him out is pretty traumatic too.
But it's not the original charge, but rather an accumulation of incidents and cover-up's that are threatening the spoled and indulged child.
A poster says he'd rather beat them at full strength and has to endure being mocked and having his statement distorted.
He never said he played for the NY Giant. He said that as a fan he'd rather beat them at full strength. It seems to me to be reasonable and a personal preference.
Even if someone disagrees, Why does it provoke an attack and misrepresentation? Attacks like this are always on the attacker and reveal someone living a sad life trying to feel better about himself.
I asked it earlier and got no response, if we play the Pats in the SB, would you rather Gronk play or sit? What about Brady?
I asked it earlier and got no response, if we play the Pats in the SB, would you rather Gronk play or sit? What about Brady?
I had no problem with Gronk being seriously 'impaired' in XLVI
I asked it earlier and got no response, if we play the Pats in the SB, would you rather Gronk play or sit? What about Brady?
I'd be fine with either of them sitting out the game. Both would be even better.
This one is an exception, I think. I don't care about Gronk playing, let him sit and weaken the Patriots. Play them in a Super Bowl without Brady? Despite history, Eli/Giants only beat the Patriots (for a third time) because Brady wasn't playing. No thanks.
It is entertaining to see some of the idiots chime in.
when Skip Bayless is bashing the golden boy there's some
deep problems .
Cowboys run game will function fine without him but I am
glad if they suspend him for the opener .
Need to get Reggie Hammond back to prison.
.