Antonio Brown

lol at the disagree, @PatsGirl2011 do you think somehow his behavior at the deposition was acceptable?

maust1013 said:

lol at the disagree, @PatsGirl2011 do you think somehow his behavior at the deposition was acceptable?

Click to expand...

Just because AB isn’t a model citizen doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be able to play.

PatsGirl2011 said:

Just because AB isn’t a model citizen doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be able to play.

Click to expand...

Sometimes, especially as a player, there are consequences, right or wrong, to the choices you make.

Tony2046 said:

All I know is that of all the AB fallout that has occurred QM changing his avatar has got to be the most painful.

Click to expand...

Just noticed that. Of all the possible avatars to use, Captain Avatar is most underrated.

I, for one, welcome our new Gamilon overlord poster.

Regards,
Chris

Clonamery said:

...for the pleasure of the NFL Commissioner.

Click to expand...

Nope not with the cba coming up soon.

Tony2046 said:

All I know is that of all the AB fallout that has occurred QM changing his avatar has got to be the most painful.

Click to expand...

Is it just me, or does everyone picture the avatars as the actual poster?
QM to me is a cantankerous retired Naval captain.

maust1013 said:

AB is precisely the kind of tool that makes precedents happen. Again, they could simply go with a 'pattern of behaviour' to justify it. His behaviour at his deposition further cements the appearance that his habit of making poor judgements remains unchecked.

Click to expand...

I don't think this is about the individual (AB or anyone else), but the process of placing a player in the EL over civil allegations. Many people have said this would be a terrible precedent for the NFL to set and I for one agree, nvm about using people's judgments as a reason (half the league would be on the EL).

Look at what NFL is doing about 2 Pats that actually have criminal charges filed against them, and for which police investigations have been conducted (Kraft and Chung), absolutely nothing!

How can the league justify treating these two situations so differently, especially when it has never been done before. Regardless of how you feel about AB, that would be total BS.

Triumph said:

AB should get a 2nd chance with this franchise.

Click to expand...

Would you say the same thing for Ryan Izzo if he was cut under the exact same circumstances as Antonio Brown?

moosekill said:

This is the kind of stupid made up stuff that pisses me off. All of these stories are made up dreams of sports writers trying to get clicks, and gullible fans who believe those writers who are found to have lied to us over and over again.
The Patriots don't air their dirty laundry in public. Writers have to guess and simply make things up based upon their hunches, and looks Brady gave, and brief answers in press conferences. We simply don't know. Claiming these rumors as truth is plain stupidity.

Click to expand...

Right on the money. And those who keep saying this deliberately omit the fact that Lynch asked Belichick if he would be willing to trade Brady 5 months before the Garrapolo deal, and Belichick scoffed at him, and that’s according to Lynch.

PatsGirl2011 said:

Just because AB isn’t a model citizen doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be able to play.

Click to expand...

At no point did I say, absent a finding in the league's investigation, he shouldn't be allowed to play. The discussion wasn't about should be able to play but rather will be allowed to via avoiding the exempt list due to some vague notion of precedent. Again, Ezekiel Elliott was suspended without criminal finding, in part due to a 'pattern of behavior.' It seems a dispassionate view on this subject is getting harder and harder to come by. For instance I think the furniture heaving incident was insanely dangerous and should have resulted in criminal charges and threatening a GM with violence is more than enough to justify a suspension. That said, regardless of sensibilities, the truth is there were no criminal charges and no suspension and therefore if he were on a team I think he should be playing regardless of them happening. The slippery slope of a suspension over the civil suit and texts without the findings of an investigation in hand must be avoided but the league placing him on the exempt list during an investigation is certainly within their purview.

venecol said:

I don't think this is about the individual (AB or anyone else), but the process of placing a player in the EL over civil allegations. Many people have said this would be a terrible precedent for the NFL to set and I for one agree, nvm about using people's judgments as a reason (half the league would be on the EL).

Look at what NFL is doing about 2 Pats that actually have criminal charges filed against them, and for which police investigations have been conducted (Kraft and Chung), absolutely nothing!

How can the league justify treating these two situations so differently, especially when it has never been done before. Regardless of how you feel about AB, that would be total BS.

Click to expand...

It is disingenuous to compare instances that involve ongoing criminal cases to this situation, the league has a long history of deferring to the legal system's findings when criminal charges exist. In the absence of criminal charges the league, via the moronic Personal Conduct Policy, has assumed the mantle of judge, jury and executioner. The league doesn't need to base placing AB on the exempt list for the civil suit, simply to do so based on the need to complete their investigation. Remember, exempted players are paid. The precedent of suspending based on a pattern of behavior does in fact exist. The commissioner's exempt list shouldn't be confused with a suspension.

PatsGirl2011 said:

Just because AB isn’t a model citizen doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be able to play.

Click to expand...

The issue is how long he will play for. The fear is they bring him back, he messes up, and he's out of here during the tough part of the schedule. Going by his checkered past, it would only be a matter of time before he messes up again.

PP2 said:

This requires the complete delusion that girls and women voluntarily enter into prostitution which is pure fantasy. Oh sure, there's a rare exception or two, but the vast majority of research has put it beyond a doubt that prostitution is little more than enslavement.

What Orchid Bob did, went against everything Myra Kraft ever stood for.

Click to expand...

Don’t forget that the billionaire philanthropist returned to get the Early Bird Special the next morning to save $15. What a guy...not exploitative at all.

I actually am AB

NYCPATS4LIFE said:

Nope not with the cba coming up soon.

Click to expand...

Crawl back into you wormhole Cape. Future, my comment has to do with present day....whether you like it or not you can't escape reality unless you light up.

maust1013 said:

It is disingenuous to compare instances that involve ongoing criminal cases to this situation, the league has a long history of deferring to the legal system's findings when criminal charges exist. In the absence of criminal charges the league, via the moronic Personal Conduct Policy, has assumed the mantle of judge, jury and executioner. The league doesn't need to base placing AB on the exempt list for the civil suit, simply to do so based on the need to complete their investigation. Remember, exempted players are paid. The precedent of suspending based on a pattern of behavior does in fact exist. The commissioner's exempt list shouldn't be confused with a suspension.

Click to expand...

I'm not confusing suspension with EL since I've never brought up suspension at all.

Again, no player has ever been placed on the EL over civil allegations or investigations related to civil allegations. What you are proposing would be a first.

If the league wants to suspend AB, I'm sure they can make up whatever excuse they want.

Here's something that I don't see being discussed.

Before Brown can be signed by ANY team, the league will have to finish their investigation into the accuser's allegations. The league has heard from the accuser, but before that investigation can be finished it has to hear from Brown. But here's the thing. Brown, to this point, has REFUSED to present his side to the league. He has steadfastly refused to set a date to meet with them, and not for want of trying. Thus the league can't finish their investigation and Brown can't be signed.

So why hasn't he cooperated if he really wants to play My guess is that he really doesn't. The union has pretty much told him that he's going to get paid for NOT playing, so why work up a sweat when you can PRETEND to be the victim in all of this. It is just speculation on my part, but can you come up with anything better. Why won't the guy even make the attempt at defending himself?

venecol said:

I'm not confusing suspension with EL since I've never brought up suspension at all.

Again, no player has ever been placed on the EL over civil allegations or investigations related to civil allegations. What you are proposing would be a first.

If the league wants to suspend AB, I'm sure they can make up whatever excuse they want.

Click to expand...

But as I mentioned, no one has refused to me with the league in order to refute the allegations either. Pretty curious, don't you think?

Clonamery said:

Well, give Bob Kraft a call and let him know how you feel about the situation. Maybe you could tug on his "good nature" and see what he says.

Click to expand...

you can have your old job back.

pivotman.

maust1013 said:

The discussion wasn't about should be able to play but rather will be allowed to via avoiding the exempt list due to some vague notion of precedent. Again, Ezekiel Elliott was suspended without criminal finding, in part due to a 'pattern of behavior.

The slippery slope of a suspension over the civil suit and texts without the findings of an investigation in hand must be avoided but the league placing him on the exempt list during an investigation is certainly within their purview.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, it seems that you are the one mixing suspension with EL. In the 1st 2 sentences you talk about avoiding EL due to precedent and then use an example of a suspension. They are not the same.

Then in the last 2 sentences, you say "avoid suspension over civil suit" but placing him on EL (over the same matter) should be allowed.

My points are:

1. No one has ever been placed on the EL over civil matters, and thus NFL probably will not do so now (contrary to your view);
2. NFL can suspend him if they choose almost for any reason (including your ex. of pattern of behaviour, whatever that means). Yet you find a suspension to be a slippery slope w/o an investigation, so you go full circle to justify being placed on EL, because of the investigation.

I respectfully disagree. Let them conduct their investigation and at the conclusion suspend him for whatever reason they come up with. In the meantime let him play since placing him on EL would open Pandora's Box.