Le'Veon Bell

[Superman]

8 minutes ago, gspdx said:

1) If we were one player away from really competing for a SB and that one player was a running back then maybe.

 

Ballard:

Quote

You’re never one player away – ever. That’s what happens. People get in panic mode and they think, ‘Man, we’re one player away,’ and you’re never one player away. You just keep building and adding pieces that have talent.

 

[gspdx]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Ballard:

You’re never one player away – ever. That’s what happens. People get in panic mode and they think, ‘Man, we’re one player away,’ and you’re never one player away. You just keep building and adding pieces that have talent.

 

So true.  

[richard pallo]

57 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

A lot of this is just differing opinions, but I'm singling this out because I don't understand what you think is going to change between now and the end of the season. We're talking about Ballard's fundamental beliefs, his core principles.

 

Every single one of our backs could abruptly retire the day before free agency starts, and I still don't think Ballard makes a play for Bell. It goes against everything he's told us he finds important when it comes to building a roster and a culture. From financial discipline to being selective to growing your team together to not being one player away -- he's not speaking in code here. 

 

I think you said that Ballard said he is willing to pay premium money for a big time producer.  Bell would fit that definition.  That's all.  I addressed his second condition earlier.  What could change is that Mack has a great end to his season and shows he can stay on the field and be the primary back.  If that happens the interest in Bell diminishes.  If not then I think there is interest.  A difference of opinion like you said.  

[jvan1973]

1 hour ago, richard pallo said:

I think you said that Ballard said he is willing to pay premium money for a big time producer.  Bell would fit that definition.  That's all.  I addressed his second condition earlier.  What could change is that Mack has a great end to his season and shows he can stay on the field and be the primary back.  If that happens the interest in Bell diminishes.  If not then I think there is interest.  A difference of opinion like you said.  

No way they give bell a 60 million dollar contract.    He will end up in New York

[Moosejawcolt]

Actually if I am a team and want an elite back go after Hunt.  Hunt being available will drive down Bell's value.  Bell has a more checkered past than Hunt. Hunt is also a lot cheaper.

[jvan1973]

1 hour ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Actually if I am a team and want an elite back go after Hunt.  Hunt being available will drive down Bell's value.  Bell has a more checkered past than Hunt. Hunt is also a lot cheaper.

No one is signing hunt for awhile.   The league will be suspending him for quite a few games

[richard pallo]

2 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

No one is signing hunt for awhile.   The league will be suspending him for quite a few games

He has to go through waivers before anybody can sign him as a FA.  Will one out of 31 teams put in a claim?   The downside is how will the teams fans and city react?  He's not going to play anymore this year regardless.  The league has to complete it's investigation.  Is claiming him worth it for the long view?  We should know soon. 

[Moosejawcolt]

2 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

No one is signing hunt for awhile.   The league will be suspending him for quite a few games

 

2 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

No one is signing hunt for awhile.   The league will be suspending him for quite a few games

I agree some what.  U sign him and he probably doesn't play for the rest  of the year.  U get him next year and he is still on his rookie contract.  I am not sure if he gets the mandatory 6 games as this is an assault and and not domestic violence.  I don't no the specifics of the NFLs policies and how it applies to a situation like this

[Lucky Colts Fan]

6 hours ago, Moosejawcolt said:

U get him next year and he is still on his rookie contract.

 

Would he still be on his rookie contract?

 

If the Chiefs released him, wouldn't his new team be signing him to a new contract?

 

How ironic would it be if he started making more money next year than he would have if he had stayed a Chief... 

[Moosejawcolt]

I really bet the Colts r internally r thinking of signing him.  I wouldn't b surprised if they did.

[threeflight]

You for sure go after Hunt.  This guy has never been a troublemaker.  

 

Quite the opposite.

 

As for the night of the incident...no way he should have kicked her, but from what I understand this was a 19 year old girl, calling him a racial slur, purposely baiting him.

 

I would sign him....give him this year off (probably be suspended anyway) and start over next year.

 

Boooooooom.

[crazycolt1]

39 minutes ago, threeflight said:

You for sure go after Hunt.  This guy has never been a troublemaker.  

 

Quite the opposite.

 

As for the night of the incident...no way he should have kicked her, but from what I understand this was a 19 year old girl, calling him a racial slur, purposely baiting him.

 

I would sign him....give him this year off (probably be suspended anyway) and start over next year.

 

Boooooooom.

Purposely baiting him?  She was too drunk to know what she was doing.

[Finball]

4 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Would he still be on his rookie contract?

 

If the Chiefs released him, wouldn't his new team be signing him to a new contract?

 

How ironic would it be if he started making more money next year than he would have if he had stayed a Chief... 

 

It's technically a new contract but he won't make more money, or at least not a lot more until after year 3. I think he can be RFA after year 3 which would be the real benefit as he would be eligible for offer sheet or high qualifying tender. But that's negated if he gets long suspension and/or the market for him gets smaller.

[ColtsBlueFL]

10 hours ago, threeflight said:

You for sure go after Hunt.  This guy has never been a troublemaker.  

 

Quite the opposite.

 

As for the night of the incident...no way he should have kicked her, but from what I understand this was a 19 year old girl, calling him a racial slur, purposely baiting him.

 

I would sign him....give him this year off (probably be suspended anyway) and start over next year.

 

Boooooooom.

 

Roger decides when a suspension starts and for how long, not the team. 

 

Being on the exempt list, he can't practice nor play right now. {essentially, it is paid leave of absence}

 

In my mind, the NFL screwed up.  They didn't learn from the Ray Rice  case.  Now that this case is reopened (and player exempt listed), how long will it take before they conclude the investigation and decide if/how long a suspension is necessary?   It is not beyond the realm of possibility he could possibly start the 2019 season with a 6 game suspension.

[Moosejawcolt]

8 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Purposely baiting him?  She was too drunk to know what she was doing.

Alcohol is never an excuse for some ones behavior.  If it is and u exscuse her doesn't  Hunt deserve the same treatment  as he may have been under the influence???

[Moosejawcolt]

Just now, Moosejawcolt said:

Alcohol is never an excuse for some ones behavior.  If it is and u exscuse her doesn't  Hunt deserve the same treatment  as he may have been under the influence???

Plus, I have been intoxicated before and I have done a lot of dumb things.  It gave me the courage do things that I wouldn't do wen I was sober.  However.....never...ever did i throw around racial slurs.  That's who she is when she is either drunk or sober.

[Malakai432]

52 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

Alcohol is never an excuse for some ones behavior.  If it is and u exscuse her doesn't  Hunt deserve the same treatment  as he may have been under the influence???

 

That's kind of what I think as but unfortunately many people cannot handle alcohol and probably shouldn't be drinking.  What he did was way out of line but to me it looks like she was definitely antagonizing him, she still continued to hang around as well after stuff hit the fan.  Cooler heads definitely didn't prevail here. 

[crazycolt1]

On ‎12‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 11:31 AM, Moosejawcolt said:

Alcohol is never an excuse for some ones behavior.  If it is and u exscuse her doesn't  Hunt deserve the same treatment  as he may have been under the influence???

You always put your own twist on what someone says?

My comment was directed at her purposely baiting him. She was too drunk to think of things like that. That has exactly zero to do with him kicking her when she was already down.

I am sure the whole group was under the influence of alcohol but it still does not excuse him from his actions.

There is no excuse for making excuses for him by no one.

[Superman]

On 12/2/2018 at 5:26 AM, ColtsBlueFL said:

In my mind, the NFL screwed up.  They didn't learn from the Ray Rice  case.  Now that this case is reopened (and player exempt listed), how long will it take before they conclude the investigation and decide if/how long a suspension is necessary? 

 

I just dislike this angle on these issues, and it always becomes the prevailing storyline: What did the league/team know, when did they know, and why didn't they handle it better?

 

Kareem Hunt is the one who committed the wrong, not the Chiefs, and not the NFL. And reportedly, when he discussed this with the Chiefs, he told them he didn't even leave his room and was not involved in this altercation. He's since admitted publicly that he lied to the Chiefs.

 

These are Hunt's actions. He's responsible for them. When the NFL was made aware of what happened, they took him off the field, pending investigation. And when the Chiefs determined that he had lied to them, they released him. 

 

The cynical viewpoint is that either the team or the league knew what happened and chose not to react until it went public, or that they should have known before it went public and reacted. I'm not a cynical person, but even if I was, that's hard to believe, especially after the Ray Rice situation. The league can't go chasing down every accusation against every player, and they certainly can't preemptively shut down every player who faces an accusation (nor should they). 

 

I just wish these stories didn't always turn into a reason to accuse the league of doing something wrong, because in doing so, it takes away the focus from the actual wrongdoing. The focus needs to be on the actual issue here, not deflected onto the league.

[ColtsBlueFL]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I just dislike this angle on these issues, and it always becomes the prevailing storyline: What did the league/team know, when did they know, and why didn't they handle it better?

 

Kareem Hunt is the one who committed the wrong, not the Chiefs, and not the NFL. And reportedly, when he discussed this with the Chiefs, he told them he didn't even leave his room and was not involved in this altercation. He's since admitted publicly that he lied to the Chiefs.

 

These are Hunt's actions. He's responsible for them.

 

Indeed

 

Quote

When the NFL was made aware of what happened, they took him off the field, pending investigation. And when the Chiefs determined that he had lied to them, they released him. 

 

"Kareem Hunt assured the Kansas City Chiefs that he “didn’t have anything to do with the altercation.”

"Of course, the Chiefs either believed his story or pretended to, and thus are dumbstruck to learn so belatedly that they were led astray by his masterful efforts to hide the truth.

"In this same way, the NFL believed the Chiefs and fans believed the NFL."

 

Read more here: https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/melinda-henneberger/article222557290.html#storylink=cpy

 

Quote

The cynical viewpoint is that either the team or the league knew what happened and chose not to react until it went public, or that they should have known before it went public and reacted. I'm not a cynical person, but even if I was, that's hard to believe, especially after the Ray Rice situation. The league can't go chasing down every accusation against every player, and they certainly can't preemptively shut down every player who faces an accusation (nor should they). 

 

Unfortunately, they did/do not have subpoena power to get a copy of a tape 'they knew' existed.  And while they attempted to talk to the 'girl' and her friend, they never even interviewed Hunt. Took the Chiefs word for it.  Thus their investigation is flawed. The leaked tape later just sheds light on it.

 

Quote

 

I just wish these stories didn't always turn into a reason to accuse the league of doing something wrong, because in doing so, it takes away the focus from the actual wrongdoing. The focus needs to be on the actual issue here, not deflected onto the league.

 

If they are going to investigate independent of mainstream authorities for internal punitive measures, they need to do it to the best of their ability.  In this case, did they?  Knowing there was a 'tape' out there, they also had to know there was a possibility of a smoking gun being revealed (the possibility Hunt was less than truthful to the Chiefs).

 

Finally, how does TMZ sports always end up getting these items when the NFL can't/doesn't?

 

In the end though, does the fact Hunt lied to remain employed deserve any additional scrutiny beyond what he was already shown to have done on tape.

[Superman]

13 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

If they are going to investigate independent of mainstream authorities for internal punitive measures, they need to do it to the best of their ability.  In this case, did they?  Knowing there was a 'tape' out there, they also had to know there was a possibility of a smoking gun being revealed (the possibility Hunt was less than truthful to the Chiefs).

 

Finally, how does TMZ sports always end up getting these items when the NFL can't/doesn't?

 

In the end though, does the fact Hunt lied to remain employed deserve any additional scrutiny beyond what he was already shown to have done on tape.

 

It's not that I disagree with the assertion that the NFL didn't carry out an effective investigation. It's that I disagree with the focus being turned almost entirely on the NFL (and the Chiefs), rather than on the person who actually did something wrong.

 

(On time, Urban Meyer is announcing his retirement today. Same thing happened with him, when it was his assistant coach who was the wife beater. And they've accused him in the past of "enabling" wrongdoers like Aaron Hernandez. Of course, this is all with the benefit of hindsight; there's no legitimate reason to think Meyer knew that Hernandez was a potential murderer, but still people want to hold him accountable for the things that bad people did.)

 

As for TMZ, the difference is that they're willing to pay for dirt, and the NFL isn't. And that's long been a distinction between tabloids and journalism. It's getting blurry in recent years due to outlets like TMZ and WikiLeaks, but it is not and never has been a reasonable expectation that any responsible and credible organization would pay heaven-knows-who for leaked and probably illegally obtained information or videos. 

 

As for Hunt, the Chiefs say his lying is the reason he's not on the team anymore, and he confirmed that he lied to them. Some will ask whether he deserved to lose his job, but the relevant question is whether the Chiefs wanted to continue to employ him, and the answer to that is obvious.

[ColtsBlueFL]

Law enforcement deflected the attention form Hunt.  They evidently believed Hunt just like the Chiefs.  They admit they never looked at the tape either. They also admit there was no investigation because it was at worst a misdemeanor and detectives investigate felonies only.

 

It also sends a bad message that an institution would (apparently) sell a video to a (dirt digging) media outlet, yet not let an employer (of an employee involved) have a copy of video.

 

So Chiefs, NFL, and Law Enforcement all knew this event took place early in 2018 and seemed top sweep it under a rug. But it is late in 2018 when someone finally sees and releases the video at shows one of the parties involved lied to police and his employer?

 

It is a bad look all around... except TMZ getting and releasing incriminating evidence.     

 

It’s not sending a very good message either.  I don’t like any of it.