Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
TheGongOfDoom

NFL Thread

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

I guess nfl Sunday ticket could go to directv and espn+. 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/03/19/future-of-sunday-ticket-not-yet-decided/

However the point still remains directv will no longer have a monopoly on the Sunday ticket service, which is huge.  No more need to retain directv solely because it's the only way to obtain Sunday ticket, which is the situation many fans like myself are in now

I've lucked out the past three years, after ten years as a tortured DirecTV subscriber, because I bought a townhouse.  They let you get the streaming version of Sunday Ticket in condos/etc., without a DirecTV subscription, because of landlords who won't let you put a dish on their roof.  And then my daughter was a college student, so we got it for $100 per season instead of $300.

Because, however, the smashing of great monopolies never, ever results in the cost savings that consumers expect (witness the breakup of Ma Bell, as well as the current prices for all these a la carte streaming services), one must necessarily anticipate that ESPN will charge both arms and legs in order to pay the NFL and make a fortune for Disney.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

43 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

I've lucked out the past three years, after ten years as a tortured DirecTV subscriber, because I bought a townhouse.  They let you get the streaming version of Sunday Ticket in condos/etc., without a DirecTV subscription, because of landlords who won't let you put a dish on their roof.  And then my daughter was a college student, so we got it for $100 per season instead of $300.

Because, however, the smashing of great monopolies never, ever results in the cost savings that consumers expect (witness the breakup of Ma Bell, as well as the current prices for all these a la carte streaming services), one must necessarily anticipate that ESPN will charge both arms and legs in order to pay the NFL and make a fortune for Disney.

I know for most it is but honestly I don't care about the cost.  

 

It's more being forced to buy a whole shitty service just to see out of market nfl games. Not just customer service but two major networks are cut off for me in December for several weeks over contract disputes with directv.  Of course they say it's the networks fault. 

 

And it's still not clear this will happen. I've read three different articles now with three different answers :. Its definitely staying for now with directv , it's defintely moving to espn+ and one said both will have it so who the hell knows. 

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

It's more being forced to buy a whole shitty service just to see out of market nfl games. Not just customer service but two major networks are cut off for me in December for several weeks over contract disputes with directv.  Of course they say it's the networks fault. 

Oh, I agree with you.  No way would I have kept DTV for ten years but for Sunday Ticket.  It was really fun the year I desperately needed weather information and they were having their spat with the Weather Channel.  Among other things.  I used to have so many issues requiring a call to customer service that they gave me a direct line to put into my phone.  I called them way more often than I called people I care about.

I really am almost at the point where I'll just skip Sunday Ticket and watch games on the Red Zone Channel, for as much as my attention span never stays with one game anyway.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

RedZone is separate from Sunday Ticket.   It's an offshoot of the NFL channel.   You ahve to have a pretty high sports tier to get it.   When I had a cable service just to get Redzone we had to have all these other channels we never watch.   Now we have Sling.  It's an additional cost but with Sling, it's STILL less than cable and it's easy to cancel or add in tiers.   When the season was over, I dropped Redzone.   I will add it back in when the season starts.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/20/2021 at 6:30 PM, DrSpaceman73 said:

Not just customer service but two major networks are cut off for me in December for several weeks over contract disputes with directv.  Of course they say it's the networks fault. 

I'm reading what industry analysts are saying about this new set of NFL deals and how it will impact the Pay TV bundle.  The first couple takes are that the NFL's announcement of this new deal officially marked the death of it. By essentially doubling the amount of money the whole lot of them are paying for NFL, they'll need to quickly increase the monthly fees they get per subscriber from cable and satellite bundles.

So figure that if you actually had all four major networks plus the CW and My9, DirecTV is collecting about $20 a month from you and sending it directly to those guys. Within three years, that's going to be AT LEAST $35. But wait, there's more! It would be $35 just to recapture the NFL and other cost increases. But by jacking up the rates while at the same time also letting customers view NFL games on their streaming services, they're actually help accelerate the number of people dropping the cable bundle (aka cutting the cord.)  So in order to both recoup the NFL cost AND recoup the lost revenue from cord cutters, they'll probably need to go from $20 to >$40, which in turn further accelerates cord cutting.

Heh.  It's going to be ugly.  Hopefully everybody lives close enough to a city where they can hook up a nice digital antenna that will pick up CBS/NBC/Fox.

On 3/19/2021 at 12:38 AM, Bastet said:

And, whichever network was airing the Thursday games, you could also see them on NFL Network (which is where I watched).  Now they'll only be streaming, not also shown on NFLN?

That is correct. If your home team is playing, those games will be broadcast on one of the local TV networks. Otherwise, the games will be however Amazon decides to distribute them.

  • Like 1
  • Useful 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post

57 minutes ago, JTMacc99 said:

I'm reading what industry analysts are saying about this new set of NFL deals and how it will impact the Pay TV bundle.  The first couple takes are that the NFL's announcement of this new deal officially marked the death of it. By essentially doubling the amount of money the whole lot of them are paying for NFL, they'll need to quickly increase the monthly fees they get per subscriber from cable and satellite bundles.

So figure that if you actually had all four major networks plus the CW and My9, DirecTV is collecting about $20 a month from you and sending it directly to those guys. Within three years, that's going to be AT LEAST $35. But wait, there's more! It would be $35 just to recapture the NFL and other cost increases. But by jacking up the rates while at the same time also letting customers view NFL games on their streaming services, they're actually help accelerate the number of people dropping the cable bundle (aka cutting the cord.)  So in order to both recoup the NFL cost AND recoup the lost revenue from cord cutters, they'll probably need to go from $20 to >$40, which in turn further accelerates cord cutting.

Heh.  It's going to be ugly.  Hopefully everybody lives close enough to a city where they can hook up a nice digital antenna that will pick up CBS/NBC/Fox.

That is correct. If your home team is playing, those games will be broadcast on one of the local TV networks. Otherwise, the games will be however Amazon decides to distribute them.

While that's interesting I'm not really sure if you are staying this will be the death of Sunday ticket on cable/ satellite or the death of the service overall.  

 

I don't care if it stops being on satellite or cable fine by me. 

I can't see Sunday ticket or some form of it disappearing altogether though.  At worst the nfl just offers it online for a price and you pay the nfl directly rather than and cable, satellite or streaming service.  

Share this post


Link to post

The lawsuits are up to 14 involving 24 women -- including one claim in the last month.   At some point, the NFL needs to put him on the Commissioner's Exempt List (although Ezekial Elliott never was and he should have been, even though those claims turned out to be BS, but he was suspended anyway).   It's really hard to believe that 24 women were coached.

  • Surprise 3

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, merylinkid said:

The lawsuits are up to 14 involving 24 women -- including one claim in the last month.   At some point, the NFL needs to put him on the Commissioner's Exempt List (although Ezekial Elliott never was and he should have been, even though those claims turned out to be BS, but he was suspended anyway).   It's really hard to believe that 24 women were coached.

I always try to remain neutral until both sides of the story are presented, but this doesn't look good for Watson. I don't know if he's guilty or not, but the fact that he was using Instagram to find massage therapists is a little suspect. You'd think an athlete on his level would have a handful of trusted professionals he worked with regularly, not 24 random girls he saw once or twice. If DeShaun somehow manages to get out of this, he really needs to smarten up.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently Daniel Snyder bought out the minority owners so now owns Washington outright (according to what I understood from Highly Questionable yesterday).  He is also considering keeping the Washington Football Team name.

I have no issues with that name at all, but won’t any part of him consider switching it up to Washington Team Football?

  • Laugh 6

Share this post


Link to post

The 49ers have lost their DAMN MINDS.    They traded this year's #1, a 3rd round compensatory, and their #1 in in 2022 and 2023 to the Dolphins to move up to the third spot in the draft.   Whoever they are targeting better their franchise player for YEARS to come.   And they better be able to put a team around him without picks.    Because that is waaaaaaaay too much future to mortgage for one guy.

 

Update:   Aaaand the Dolphins instead of using the bounty of picks to improve the team have traded some of them to the Eagles to  back into the top ten at #6.   The Eagles drop to #12.   The difference is salary is HUGE from #6 to #12 but the drop off in quality of player is not.   

Edited by merylinkid
  • Surprise 1

Share this post


Link to post

2 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

The 49ers have lost their DAMN MINDS.    They traded this year's #1, a 3rd round compensatory, and their #1 in in 2022 and 2023 to the Dolphins to move up to the third spot in the draft.   Whoever they are targeting better their franchise player for YEARS to come.   And they better be able to put a team around him without picks.    Because that is waaaaaaaay too much future to mortgage for one guy.

That sounds very Bear-like aka Mitchell Trubisky.......it didn't work.

Share this post


Link to post

So here's the question:  what is the correlation between draft number versus actual professional performance?
That is...do all the top picks actually perform as a top player (barring injuries).  
This is a data-rich world, so there must be a statistical analysis somewhere.  
Opinions are wonderful, but I am looking for actual statistics. 🤪

Share this post


Link to post

By and large, 1st rounders taken as a whole will outperform 2nd rounders who will outperform 3rd rounders, etc. However busts abound, even among those who don't suffer injuries. 1st round tackle Isaiah Wilson destroyed his career in the space of one year, getting jettisoned by two teams now. But in aggregate, the higher the pick, the more likelihood for success.

Here's one analysis with numbers looking at every player drafted in the 1990's.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2016/what-does-nfl-draft-really-produce-part-i

  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, Fukui San said:

By and large, 1st rounders taken as a whole will outperform 2nd rounders who will outperform 3rd rounders, etc. However busts abound, even among those who don't suffer injuries. 1st round tackle Isaiah Wilson destroyed his career in the space of one year, getting jettisoned by two teams now. But in aggregate, the higher the pick, the more likelihood for success.

Here's one analysis with numbers looking at every player drafted in the 1990's.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2016/what-does-nfl-draft-really-produce-part-i

Hi Fukui San...Numbers...that's what we need.  Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post

The 17 game season is basically a lock and, after lamenting what Ben McAdoo did, on my deathbed I will whisper to my family “16 games was perfect, 17 games is a stupid cash grab.”

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/26/2021 at 5:42 PM, QueerGirrl said:

That sounds very Bear-like aka Mitchell Trubisky.......it didn't work.

Yeah, they're going to reach on a QB like Mac Jones or Trey Lance, now that Garoppolo is looking more and more like an injury bust.

This seems to happen almost every year - at least one team convinces themselves that they're smarter than everyone else and takes a QB way too early, then spends the next four years pretending that it's going to work out - 

Christian Ponder, Brandon Weeden, EJ Manuel, Blake Bortles, Mitch Trubisky, Daniel Jones (not certain yet, but likely).

I don't know whether this year's QB class is really good or if there are just a lot of teams desperate for a QB, but some mock drafts have the first four players off the board all being QBs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

4 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

Yeah, they're going to reach on a QB like Mac Jones or Trey Lance, now that Garoppolo is looking more and more like an injury bust.

This seems to happen almost every year - at least one team convinces themselves that they're smarter than everyone else and takes a QB way too early, then spends the next four years pretending that it's going to work out - 

Christian Ponder, Brandon Weeden, EJ Manuel, Blake Bortles, Mitch Trubisky, Daniel Jones (not certain yet, but likely).

I don't know whether this year's QB class is really good or if there are just a lot of teams desperate for a QB, but some mock drafts have the first four players off the board all being QBs.

Hi DannyFranks...I still remember Pats Coach Belichick saying that Jimmy Garoppolo could do everything that Tom Brady could do.
Not sure if Bill was just poking TB12, propping up JimmyG, or having some fun with the reporters.  

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

Yeah, they're going to reach on a QB like Mac Jones or Trey Lance, now that Garoppolo is looking more and more like an injury bust.

This seems to happen almost every year - at least one team convinces themselves that they're smarter than everyone else and takes a QB way too early, then spends the next four years pretending that it's going to work out - 

Christian Ponder, Brandon Weeden, EJ Manuel, Blake Bortles, Mitch Trubisky, Daniel Jones (not certain yet, but likely).

I don't know whether this year's QB class is really good or if there are just a lot of teams desperate for a QB, but some mock drafts have the first four players off the board all being QBs.

Daniel Jeremiah on his Move the Sticks podcast is saying "I don't understand it myself, but anyone connected to the Niners say it's Mac Jones that they traded up for."

It could be the top five picks will be QBs, between Lawrence, Wilson, Mac Jones, Fields and Lance. They're surely not the five best players, but if there are more than five teams that need a QB it'd be supply and demand.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

DeShaun Watson’s case is beyond shady (on his end) and I don’t see how he gets out of it.

Share this post


Link to post

ESPN keeps playing a drop from Greeny where he wonders why more people aren’t talking about the 17th game which a. we ARE, up to and including the players and b. what exactly does he think is going to happen if we talk about it?  The owners made up their minds two years ago.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

On 3/27/2021 at 12:37 PM, grommit2 said:

So here's the question:  what is the correlation between draft number versus actual professional performance?
That is...do all the top picks actually perform as a top player (barring injuries).  

Ranking and drafting players is all an exercise in calculated risk.  They take everything into account, including actual play on the field, athletic ability, character, positional value. They project all of that out into what they think each player could be in the NFL. Then the stack them all up on a big board.

It's important to realize that the teams don't have the prospects listed from 1-300 in order like that.  Instead, imagine they have them in rows, like a big pyramid.  The top row each year probably has only a handful of players.  These are the guys that everybody in the room believe will be a top level player.  On the next row are guys with "Round 1" grades. Players who appear to be good to great NFL starters. There are probably 15 more guys in any given draft in this group. Row after that will be players with R1/R2 grades, and that group is probably twice as big if not larger than the R1 group. After that there are R2/R3 and so on.

So to answer your question, is there a correlation between draft number and actual performance, you have to take into account how the teams use that method I just described.  For example, let's look at all of the players drafted from 1-10 and from 11-20 in the NFL drafts from 2004-2016.  Using "Made at Pro Bowl" as the bar for success, 70 players drafted from 1-10 made at least one pro-bowl, or an average of 5.3 per draft class.  57 players drafted from 11-20 made a pro-bowl, or 4.3 per draft class.  The next ten players drafted from 21-30 have 49 pro-bowl players or 3.8 per draft class. 

So in the top 30 picks they average 13.5 players per year who ended up playing in a pro-bowl, with a clear pattern of higher success rate in the top ten than in the next twenty.  For comparison, 77 total players picked in the second round, picks 33-64 in that same period of 2004-2016, or 5.9 per year, made a pro-bowl.

 

 

  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Popples said:

Me waiting on the inevitable tell-all book:

cover5.jpg

It will be just blaming everyone else for his failures.   the man has refused to admit that maybe he wasn't that good a coach.   In the same article where he blames team management for not sharing their plan with him, he claims he spent very little time with Baker Mayfield.   The QB, their franchise player.   He said "why would I, we had a QB coach and an OC."     Perhaps if he had actually spoken to his QB he would have planned games better.    

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Hopefully after this year the NFL fixes their dumb 17 game season so the last game reverts back to inter-division matchups, not inter-conference.

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/30/2021 at 2:20 PM, JTMacc99 said:

Ranking and drafting players is all an exercise in calculated risk.  They take everything into account, including actual play on the field, athletic ability, character, positional value. They project all of that out into what they think each player could be in the NFL. Then the stack them all up on a big board.

It's important to realize that the teams don't have the prospects listed from 1-300 in order like that.  Instead, imagine they have them in rows, like a big pyramid.  The top row each year probably has only a handful of players.  These are the guys that everybody in the room believe will be a top level player.  On the next row are guys with "Round 1" grades. Players who appear to be good to great NFL starters. There are probably 15 more guys in any given draft in this group. Row after that will be players with R1/R2 grades, and that group is probably twice as big if not larger than the R1 group. After that there are R2/R3 and so on.

So to answer your question, is there a correlation between draft number and actual performance, you have to take into account how the teams use that method I just described.  For example, let's look at all of the players drafted from 1-10 and from 11-20 in the NFL drafts from 2004-2016.  Using "Made at Pro Bowl" as the bar for success, 70 players drafted from 1-10 made at least one pro-bowl, or an average of 5.3 per draft class.  57 players drafted from 11-20 made a pro-bowl, or 4.3 per draft class.  The next ten players drafted from 21-30 have 49 pro-bowl players or 3.8 per draft class. 

So in the top 30 picks they average 13.5 players per year who ended up playing in a pro-bowl, with a clear pattern of higher success rate in the top ten than in the next twenty.  For comparison, 77 total players picked in the second round, picks 33-64 in that same period of 2004-2016, or 5.9 per year, made a pro-bowl.

 

 

JTMac99...excellent!  Thanks: clear and concise. 
And I didn't even need to program some Excel formulas.  Ha.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, mojoween said:

Hopefully after this year the NFL fixes their dumb 17 game season so the last game reverts back to inter-division matchups, not inter-conference.

I haven't read that, but I could have missed it.  Did they perhaps mean the 17th game, as in, the extra game to be played and not the 17th game played (the final game).   You know, you have 16 games and this will be the 17th, but not in that order.

I can't imagine they'd want to change the final game being interdivisional since that seems to be working out pretty well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Johann said:
8 hours ago, mojoween said:

Hopefully after this year the NFL fixes their dumb 17 game season so the last game reverts back to inter-division matchups, not inter-conference.

I haven't read that, but I could have missed it.  Did they perhaps mean the 17th game, as in, the extra game to be played and not the 17th game played (the final game).   You know, you have 16 games and this will be the 17th, but not in that order.

I can't imagine they'd want to change the final game being interdivisional since that seems to be working out pretty well.

Ten-to-one the NFL is doing nothing as it relates to the final week of the regular season.  It is a double-standard (one of several the league has) in that they are flexing a couple games into the Saturday before Week 18.  In doing that, it ruins the art of an advantage or disadvantage; traditionally all 32 teams play on the Sunday of the regular season.  I believe one game would get moved to Monday, but unlike the Saturday games, MNF would lack playoff implications.

As for the 17th game, I hardly think the new 17th game is a Week 18 game, and if it is, it'll be short-lived.  The inter division stuff is working.  Though it won't stop teams from throwing their final games if they have sports locked up.

For what it's worth, pushing the season back a week is stupid as all hell.  I sorta wanted them to implement that this year just so that I could see how they'd handle the Valentine's Day conflict.   Of course, they'd move the Super Bowl up a week with no Pro Bowl, and given we're still in a pandemic, there wouldn't be a big issue restaurant-wise.

Looks like we'll have to wait until 2027, but I imagine by then they'll have a plan or deal with it to where the league wouldn't down down in flames.  February 2038 definitely won't be an issue since whatever happens in six years will be handled (and maybe before it becomes an issue).

 

Instead of having an off-week the week before Labor Day, I would have had everyone start their season that Thursday before (09/02/2021).  Everyone except Tampa Bay and their foe, who would start on 09/01/2021.  That way, they could keep the Superbowl on the first Sunday in February while still getting in their 17 games.  OR, they could have it be the second Sunday in February while implementing the second bye week.

Sucks for the players, but TBH, I couldn't care less.  They had the opportunity to do the best thing (with warning), but chose this deal

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

The funniest thing to come out of the idiotic 17th game change was that Jeff Fisher became a running joke trending on Twitter with many people pointing out how it's now mathematically impossible to go 7-9 anymore.

Edited by Popples
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

Nice. 

I tend to think the NFL doesn't want a compress calendar and wants to eventually sprawl right up to March Madness. 

  • Surprise 1

Share this post


Link to post

Wow...17 games.  
I remember when there were only TEN games in the regular season.  
And outstanding players like Jim Brown were able to run for 5+ yards PER CARRY.
And 104 yards PER GAME. 
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

When the owners have to vote on something, do they send a letter out to the Green Bay shareholders and hope the majority of them answer?

  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, mojoween said:

When the owners have to vote on something, do they send a letter out to the Green Bay shareholders and hope the majority of them answer?

Not quite.  The Packers are run by an Executive Board.  The President of the Executive Board (Mark Murphy) is the only one who gets paid and is the person who hires the GM and basically makes the financial decisions of the organization.  He works with an executive board. The executive board is chosen/voted on by the board of directors.  The members of the board of directors are technically voted on by all the share holders but they're selected by a subcommittee of the board of directors and the President of the Executive board.   

Shareholders basically hold a ceremonial vote once a year.

Edited by Irlandesa
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

To go along with @Irlandesa, Mark Murphy is the team's representative at the League Meetings.    he does the voting on behalf of the Packers.   Most of the teams have minority owners, but the League Rules state that one person (with the exception of Green Bay) must have voting control.   So in essence, Mark Murphy acts as the person with voting control.

  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

On 4/1/2021 at 11:05 AM, grommit2 said:

I remember when there were only TEN games in the regular season.  

It's been at least 12 since 1947. 

I have nothing to add but.... you have an excellent memory.

  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, AimingforYoko said:

It's been at least 12 since 1947. 

I have nothing to add but.... you have an excellent memory.

Ah geez...Yes, Jim Brown played in 12 games each of his seasons in the NFL.  
Ok...I will now go sit in the back of the room. 

  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

I do think the salient point there is with less games, players like Jim Brown were more of a force on a per game basis. Even then he retired what was considered kind of early. With the Thursday short week plus an extra game now, I don't know how the game itself isn't going to decline unless they can expand rosters again. Which on the upside, means more jobs. 

Share this post


Link to post

Sam Darnold to the Panthers, and I will continue on my tour of “I have NO ISSUE with the Giants drafting Barkley second”.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know whether I expect Darnold to suddenly flourish in a competent environment or whether he's a busted flush. But I still feel terrible for whichever QB the Jets draft at the end of the month, because that guy has no fucking chance at all.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Danny Franks said:

But I still feel terrible for whichever QB the Jets draft at the end of the month, because that guy has no fucking chance at all.

Looks like Cleveland has turned it around. If they can do it, any team can.

Share this post


Link to post

So, it looks like Rodgers started his Jeopardy hosting appearances.  Despite his "desire" to host full time, I think I'd laugh if the show somehow snuck in TB12 to guest host right after Aaron's set of episodes

  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Lady Whistleup said:

I don't remember Phillip Adams (which isn't surprising, reading about his career).  How horrifying -- two of the victims were kids, five and nine years old.

Quote

 

Adams, 33, played in 78 NFL games over five seasons for six teams. He joined the 49ers in 2010 as a seventh-round draft pick out of South Carolina State, and though he rarely started, he went on to play for New England, Seattle, Oakland and the New York Jets before finishing his career with the Atlanta Falcons in 2015.

As a rookie late in the 2010 season, Adams suffered a severe ankle injury that required surgery that included several screws being inserted into his leg. He never played for the 49ers again, getting released just before the 2011 season began. Later, with the Raiders, he had two concussions over three games in 2012.

Whether he suffered long-lasting concussion-related injuries wasn’t immediately clear. Adams would not have been eligible for testing as part of a broad settlement between the league and its former players over such injuries, because he hadn’t retired by 2014.

Adams’ father told a Charlotte television station that he blamed football for problems his son had, and which might have led him to commit Wednesday’s violence.

“I can say he’s a good kid — he was a good kid, and I think the football messed him up,” Alonzo Adams told WCNC-TV. “He didn't talk much and he didn't bother nobody.”

 

Quote

 

Adams often isolated himself, even as a player, his agent, Scott Casterline, told the AP. Casterline said he spoke regularly with Adams' father, who left him a voicemail Wednesday morning.

“He was part of my family. I loved him. He’s a great kid, a great guy. This is so unlike him. He had to not be in his right mind, obviously,” Casterline said.

“All of us who knew Phillip are shaking our heads. He struggled away from the game. I tried to get him to come to Texas. I was going to find him a job, but he wouldn’t leave South Carolina because he had a son. He was a good father."

"Seeing Phillip shoot two kids, it’s not him. I can’t fathom it. It’s devastating for the victims and the families,” Casterline said.

 

So his child is another victim in this, now growing up not only without a father but with the knowledge their dad killed five people, including two little kids.

  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post

Well so with Tom Brady's contract extension last month  the Tampa Bay  Bucs freed up another 19M and with that they became the first SB winning team since 1977 to keep/resign all their starters for the next season.  That defensive unit will be intact. 

Those signings  don't  include Antonio Brown, who Brady likes of course but I doubt it's a priority with Arians.   With his baggage, can't see the 32 year old AB  getting a great deal with another team.   

 

Edited by caracas1914
  • Like 1
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

This doesn't seem good for Deshaun Watson. Obviously some of these women have receipts or his lawyer wouldn't be shifting to a "consensual sex" defense. Also, saying he had consensual sexual encounters with some of his masseuses renders irrelevant what a few of his masseuses had put out about the massages always being totally professional (and I understand that that really didn't matter in itself, as predators don't attack literally everyone they come in contact with, but this just underlines that he didn't treat all masseuses the same way).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/29/2021 at 3:07 PM, Fukui San said:

Daniel Jeremiah on his Move the Sticks podcast is saying "I don't understand it myself, but anyone connected to the Niners say it's Mac Jones that they traded up for."

It could be the top five picks will be QBs, between Lawrence, Wilson, Mac Jones, Fields and Lance. They're surely not the five best players, but if there are more than five teams that need a QB it'd be supply and demand.

It’s amazing to me how these professional GM’s and scouts talk themselves into something that isn’t there. During the season, and especially after the Clemson game, it was accepted—based on what people saw with their own eyes—that the top two QB’s were Lawrence and Fields. Jones was considered a 2nd round pick and talked about in the same tier as the Florida QB. Nothing has changed since January except owners, coaches, and GM’s are overthinking their pick. I really think  the Jets will end up regretting that they picked Wilson over Fields,  but not as much as the 49ers will regret trading away all those draft picks to move up for Jones. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, Black Knight said:

This doesn't seem good for Deshaun Watson. Obviously some of these women have receipts or his lawyer wouldn't be shifting to a "consensual sex" defense. Also, saying he had consensual sexual encounters with some of his masseuses renders irrelevant what a few of his masseuses had put out about the massages always being totally professional (and I understand that that really didn't matter in itself, as predators don't attack literally everyone they come in contact with, but this just underlines that he didn't treat all masseuses the same way).

I'm eye-rolling the attorney claiming the pandemic forced Watson to find massage therapists on Instagram. Seriously? You mean to tell me Watson didn't have access to professionals through the Texans organization? Let's be real, the guy was looking for happy endings. I don't know if he's a rapist, but at best he's a sleaze. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, BitterApple said:

I'm eye-rolling the attorney claiming the pandemic forced Watson to find massage therapists on Instagram. Seriously? You mean to tell me Watson didn't have access to professionals through the Texans organization? Let's be real, the guy was looking for happy endings. I don't know if he's a rapist, but at best he's a sleaze. 

His lawyer has backed him into a corner. His initial defense was that he would never treat a woman with disrespect. The implication was that he would NEVER proposition someone during a professional massage appointment. Now he’s claiming he had consensual encounters. Does this mean he DID proposition some of the women and a few inexplicably decided to have sex with him? Or is he now saying female professionals massage therapists threw themselves at him first? I just don’t think it’s believable that dozens of licensed Houston massage therapists 1) had sex with him and 2) put their business and reputation at risk by lying so they could sue him. He’s looking more and more like a serial predator with a very specific kink. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size