Ezekiel Elliott Suspended for 6 games

[Stephen1 3,237]

21 minutes ago, Ialone said:

No they have the right... It was collectively bargained.  Thats a fact. It's been proven in a court of law before. 

You just dont like it. 

 

Tough beans

Are you ok?

i littlerally said " my arguement has nothing to do with rather the NFL can suspend him or not, we all know they have that right"

And your reply was....."no, they have the right... collectively bargained....court of law, blah blah blah"

not sure what you are disagreeing with......

[NE.Jon 2,663]

45 minutes ago, Stephen1 said:

Are you ok?

i littlerally said " my arguement has nothing to do with rather the NFL can suspend him or not, we all know they have that right"

And your reply was....."no, they have the right... collectively bargained....court of law, blah blah blah"

not sure what you are disagreeing with......

 

 

[Ialone 15,318]

7 hours ago, Stephen1 said:

Are you ok?

i littlerally said " my arguement has nothing to do with rather the NFL can suspend him or not, we all know they have that right"

And your reply was....."no, they have the right... collectively bargained....court of law, blah blah blah"

not sure what you are disagreeing with......

LOL For a guy who says he understand they have the right to, you sure do seem upset that they exercised their rights.

 

It's really simple, they BELIEVE with the evidence they have, along with his history,(something that is relevant to them, again it's not a court of law where he has to be proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt) that he should be suspended. We dont know if we have seen all the evidence.

You (a cowboys fan) Do not agree with them.

 

Here is my shockey face:

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Stephen1 3,237]

3 hours ago, Ialone said:

LOL For a guy who says he understand they have the right to, you sure do seem upset that they exercised their rights.

 

It's really simple, they BELIEVE with the evidence they have, along with his history,(something that is relevant to them, again it's not a court of law where he has to be proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt) that he should be suspended. We dont know if we have seen all the evidence.

You (a cowboys fan) Do not agree with them.

 

Here is my shockey face:

 

yeah, because having the right to do something (which the NFL has), does not always mean it's justified. And yes, we have seen all of their "evidence" or lack thereof, because they had to release it as part of the appeals process

 

[VaBeach_Eagle 27,152]

NFL files motion in opposition to injunction blocking Ezekiel Elliott suspension

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/11/02/nfl-files-opposition-to-injunction-blocking-ezekiel-elliott-suspension/

The latest round of legal wrangling between the NFL and NFL Players Association got underway on Wednesday when the NFLPA filed an emergency motion seeking an injunction blocking Cowboys running back Ezekiel Elliott pending an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit of the decision by Judge Katherine Polk Failla to grant one earlier this week.

That motion has been followed by one from the NFL. As you’d guess, the league is arguing against the injunction.

Their motion notes that Judge Failla’s decision was "not a close call” and points to the Tom Brady case as a linchpin of their argument that Elliott’s ultimate bid to have the suspension thrown out is unlikely to be successful.

The NFLPA’s central argument in its motion was that courts have typically blocked suspensions from going into effect while litigation proceeds. That was how things played out for Brady, so both sides are pointing to that case to support their point of view about an injunction.

[downundermike 17,368]

23 minutes ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

NFL files motion in opposition to injunction blocking Ezekiel Elliott suspension

And after all that, Brady served his 4 games for deflating a football, why Elliott thinks he should not serve a suspension is beyond me.

[VaBeach_Eagle 27,152]

Just now, downundermike said:

And after all that, Brady served his 4 games for deflating a football, why Elliott thinks he should not serve a suspension is beyond me.

It's 'snooze button syndrome'. He's hoping he can hit the "snooze button" enough times to get 2017 into the books, like Brady did when he was fighting his (ultimately) losing battle.

[Stephen1 3,237]

6 minutes ago, downundermike said:

And after all that, Brady served his 4 games for deflating a football, why Elliott thinks he should not serve a suspension is beyond me.

i don't know...maybe because there is no evidence he committed DV?

31 minutes ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

NFL files motion in opposition to injunction blocking Ezekiel Elliott suspension

 

 

ish, I've lost track of who filed what at this point

[NE.Jon 2,663]

4 minutes ago, Stephen1 said:

i don't know...maybe because there is no evidence he committed DV?

ish, I've lost track of who filed what at this point

 

What looks bad is that is he kept being with her after her calling the cops all those times .  Maybe after the 1st or 2nd time he cut ties  he would of been ok . But from the outside looks like a DV relationship .  The Marks / Bruises  match up with story ... The ony one proven lie was the bar fight ..   Maybe she lied because of desperation because the police were not doing anyting  .  She also looks just as bad for staying with him ...  But that fits into a DV victims  profile . 

 

The longer and longer this keeps going on the worse its looking for Zeke and the Cowboys now 

[VaBeach_Eagle 27,152]

10 minutes ago, Stephen1 said:

i don't know...maybe because there is no evidence he committed DV?

What is his suspension for? I mean the actual wording of his suspension? Is it "Conduct detrimental' or 'Domestic Violence'?

[NE.Jon 2,663]

31 minutes ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

What is his suspension for? I mean the actual wording of his suspension? Is it "Conduct detrimental' or 'Domestic Violence'?

Thats what most people are missing ... He is suspended for Personal Conduct Policy 

[Wallyhorse 656]

1 hour ago, downundermike said:

And after all that, Brady served his 4 games for deflating a football, why Elliott thinks he should not serve a suspension is beyond me.

I would not be surprised if some judge looked at the circumstances of the Brady suspension, especially if you add in what happened a week earlier vs. the Ravens, you could see a Judge rule in favor of Elliot and say the judge who ruled against Brady was wrong (as noted, I believe the Ravens and the City of Baltimore privately threatened massive legal action against the NFL unless Brady was suspended because it potentially cost the Ravens a Super Bowl and the chance to host the opening Thursday game after the rioting in Baltimore). 

[VaBeach_Eagle 27,152]

So, let's assume that the suspension will be served for the next 6 games.

Predict the Cowboys record over those 6 games:

1. vs. KC
2. @ Atlanta
3. vs. Eagles
4. vs. Chargers
5. vs. Redskins
6. @ Giants

[Stephen1 3,237]

7 hours ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

What is his suspension for? I mean the actual wording of his suspension? Is it "Conduct detrimental' or 'Domestic Violence'?

DV, shpuld have been 2-4 games for conduct detrimental for all the other stuff

[Stephen1 3,237]

1 hour ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

So, let's assume that the suspension will be served for the next 6 games.

Predict the Cowboys record over those 6 games:

1. vs. KC
2. @ Atlanta
3. vs. Eagles
4. vs. Chargers
5. vs. Redskins
6. @ Giants

I think 3-3 at best...but 2-4 would not suprise  me at all

[VaBeach_Eagle 27,152]

2 minutes ago, Stephen1 said:

I think 3-3 at best...but 2-4 would not suppress me at all

I was actually thinking 3-3 at the worst, with 4-2 a possibility.

[Stephen1 3,237]

6 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

I would not be surprised if some judge looked at the circumstances of the Brady suspension, especially if you add in what happened a week earlier vs. the Ravens, you could see a Judge rule in favor of Elliot and say the judge who ruled against Brady was wrong (as noted, I believe the Ravens and the City of Baltimore privately threatened massive legal action against the NFL unless Brady was suspended because it potentially cost the Ravens a Super Bowl and the chance to host the opening Thursday game after the rioting in Baltimore). 

I thought his only shot would be that some judge would look at what the NFL did  in the 1st appeal (lying about whiteness testimony, lying about the availability of whinesses) and decide that that sort of behavior isn't in line with the CBA....but that's not going to happen.

[Stephen1 3,237]

3 minutes ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

I was actually thinking 3-3 at the worst, with 4-2 a possibility.

I think Denver is a loss,  NY is a win....the rest could go either way....I think philly is the better team, philly should win...but it's a division game, just have to hope for something fluky

[VaBeach_Eagle 27,152]

Just now, Stephen1 said:

I think Denver is a loss,  NY is a win....the rest could go either way....I think philly is the better team, philly should win...but it's a division game, just have to hope for something fluky

You already played Denver. I was looking at KC and Atlanta. I hate trying to pick Divisional games, but of course I'm going to go with the Eagles. The Falcons game though, is an iffy game. You never know which Falcons are going to show up.

[gameshowfan91 977]

37 minutes ago, Stephen1 said:

I think 3-3 at best...but 2-4 would not suprise  me at all

 

33 minutes ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

I was actually thinking 3-3 at the worst, with 4-2 a possibility.

1. vs. KC- L
2. @ Atlanta- L*
3. vs. Eagles- L
4. vs. Chargers- W
5. vs. Redskins- W*
6. @ Giants- W*

I think 3-3, with 2-4 and 4-2 as possibilities. Falcons have been up and down. Redskins and/or Giants games could be surprises. I think Cowboys should beat Redskins though.

[VaBeach_Eagle 27,152]

Just now, gameshowfan91 said:

 

1. vs. KC- L
2. @ Atlanta- L*
3. vs. Eagles- L
4. vs. Chargers- W
5. vs. Redskins- W*
6. @ Giants- W*

I think 3-3, with 2-4 and 4-2 as possibilities. Falcons have been up and down. Redskins and/or Giants games could be surprises.

That's exactly the 3 I was thinking, but Divisional games can bite a team in the asp. So I won't count the Redskins or Giants out in terms of an upset. Even the Chargers can have their moments.  

[UK_EaglesFan89 12,238]

7 hours ago, gameshowfan91 said:

1. vs. KC- L
2. @ Atlanta- L*
3. vs. Eagles- L
4. vs. Chargers- W
5. vs. Redskins- W*
6. @ Giants- W*

I'm not even sure they get 3 wins over this stretch. I mean everything on that offense is built on and goes through Zeke. Without him they are going to have to ask Dak to carry them more and when they've done that in the past they've struggled. 

I'm not saying Dak is a bad QB, he's not and he's done really well since coming in to the league... But asking him to go and win games is asking a lot and I don't see that he can do that over a stretch. 

[boogyman 3,715]

1 hour ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

I'm not even sure they get 3 wins over this stretch. I mean everything on that offense is built on and goes through Zeke. Without him they are going to have to ask Dak to carry them more and when they've done that in the past they've struggled. 

I'm not saying Dak is a bad QB, he's not and he's done really well since coming in to the league... But asking him to go and win games is asking a lot and I don't see that he can do that over a stretch. 

I'm thinking 2 and 4. They will still score some points but I am not sure the defense will be able to handle being on the field a bit more, as i think they will be without Elliott.

[UK_EaglesFan89 12,238]

25 minutes ago, boogyman said:

I'm thinking 2 and 4. They will still score some points but I am not sure the defense will be able to handle being on the field a bit more, as i think they will be without Elliott.

Yeah that's kind of what I mean... That team is set up around Elliott. He dictates what they do on offense and keeps them on the field. 

[Iron Wop 13]

On 10/23/2017 at 8:56 AM, Couch Potato said:

@mattwill

 to win 27-23