hit big on their first 2 guys then took a flyer (on the best rated CB in the draft) and missed ... would the noise have been any less if they took him in the 2nd round ? ... btw, 2 other highly touted 2nd round guys were cut by teams yesterday ... shit happens and the draft involves its share of luck and good fortune... but if continuously blasting DG is your thing, so be it ... stupid is as stupid does.
ESPN's analytics chick, cited Baker as one of the best value picks (matching talent and production to team needs) in the first round and maybe the whole draft.
So the notion that Baker's work ethic issues were well known is BS.
But some folks knew...
Glad the Giants now have a coaching staff with lots of strong and close links to CFB. That may be a big factor in righting the ship, overall.
not a lot of choir boys on the other side of this whole thing. Best case is he is out for this season. Worst case (?) is he is gone and the Giants have another draft priority again (which they might have anyway).
The people that aren't fans of the GM are going to continue to blame him. Those that think he is pretty good (though not perfect), aren't. Not sure anyone's mind is going to be changed because it isn't really about this.
The prosecutors screwed this up from the beginning and this is their attempt to save face. This way they can blame the jury and don't have to stand up and say they were duped. None of this story made the slightest sense from the beginning. Still doesn't.
But you left one thing out. In all likelihood, Dunbar rolled on Baker, under pressure from the prosecutors, to get off Scott free.
In the hands of good attorneys, that's not exactly the greatest evidence or witness for the prosecution IMHO.
Not only Dunbar but the original accusers are highly questionable as well. But for me it’s the entire story that’s fishy. Makes little sense on a number of levels.
I’m not defending the guy if he actually did what he’s charged with but something doesn’t add up here ... and if it does, it makes the whole scenario all the more sad. Link - ( New Window )
He may be a professional football player, but he's an amateur criminal.
I'd be surprised if he didn't give the prosecutors all the evidence they needed with his tweets and loose lips. I'd also be surprised if he doesn't plead guilty to lesser charges.
If he were my teammate, I wouldn't keep my wallet in my locker and I'd want the Giants to install surveillance cameras.
The prosecution will have a hard time proving their case. You have witness part of a bribery scheme and supposed criminal history. Victims that have changed their story in sworn affadavits. Witnesses that haven't changed their story stating that baker didn't do what was alleged.
It is the burden of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that baker committed these crimes. The defense doesn't have to prove innocence, just reasonable doubt that the alleged crimes never took place.
I am not a lawyer, but even I can create reasonable doubt.
If baker didn't do it, then it is very unfortunate that he has to go through all of this.
Technically true, but depends on the jury. Get the wrong jury and Baker will have to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Technically true, but depends on the jury. Get the wrong jury and Baker will have to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
You only get the wrong jury if you already have the wrong lawyer. A good lawyer will make sure there are jurors who are sure to favor acquittal. A couple years ago I was under consideration as a juror on a gang-related murder trial and as liberal minded as I am, it was the defense attorney who de-selected me, not the prosecuting attorney. Maybe it was just the flirting that went on between me and the very attractive prosecutor when she was questioning me.
Example: Baker & Dunbar, both at game. Baker gets pissed starts robbing patrons - Dunbar says thing that may be supportive of Baker, but his actions fall short of the steps needed for the robbery.
not a Giant
God I miss Mark Collins and Perry Williams
Well, I'm not sure those two belong in the same sentence. Perry Williams was a high character guy with blazing speed and played a role on two Super Bowl champion teams, but they didn't call him "Toast" for nothing.
They didn’t call him “Toast” at all. That was Elvis Patterson.
So the notion that Baker's work ethic issues were well known is BS.
But some folks knew...
Glad the Giants now have a coaching staff with lots of strong and close links to CFB. That may be a big factor in righting the ship, overall.
The people that aren't fans of the GM are going to continue to blame him. Those that think he is pretty good (though not perfect), aren't. Not sure anyone's mind is going to be changed because it isn't really about this.
Quote:
The prosecutors screwed this up from the beginning and this is their attempt to save face. This way they can blame the jury and don't have to stand up and say they were duped. None of this story made the slightest sense from the beginning. Still doesn't.
But you left one thing out. In all likelihood, Dunbar rolled on Baker, under pressure from the prosecutors, to get off Scott free.
In the hands of good attorneys, that's not exactly the greatest evidence or witness for the prosecution IMHO.
Not only Dunbar but the original accusers are highly questionable as well. But for me it’s the entire story that’s fishy. Makes little sense on a number of levels.
Link - ( New Window )
I'd be surprised if he didn't give the prosecutors all the evidence they needed with his tweets and loose lips. I'd also be surprised if he doesn't plead guilty to lesser charges.
If he were my teammate, I wouldn't keep my wallet in my locker and I'd want the Giants to install surveillance cameras.
It is the burden of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that baker committed these crimes. The defense doesn't have to prove innocence, just reasonable doubt that the alleged crimes never took place.
I am not a lawyer, but even I can create reasonable doubt.
If baker didn't do it, then it is very unfortunate that he has to go through all of this.
Technically true, but depends on the jury. Get the wrong jury and Baker will have to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Technically true, but depends on the jury. Get the wrong jury and Baker will have to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Example: Baker & Dunbar, both at game. Baker gets pissed starts robbing patrons - Dunbar says thing that may be supportive of Baker, but his actions fall short of the steps needed for the robbery.
Agreed. He needs to pay for it.
Quote:
not a Giant
God I miss Mark Collins and Perry Williams
Well, I'm not sure those two belong in the same sentence. Perry Williams was a high character guy with blazing speed and played a role on two Super Bowl champion teams, but they didn't call him "Toast" for nothing.
They didn’t call him “Toast” at all. That was Elvis Patterson.