Jeb Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 Ahmad Brooks was out of the game early on (maybe the 1st series, groin injury). We just fell to pieces. Its unreal how this D fell apart with Caleb Miller and then Marshall taking over at MLB. It appears to me we have no backup for Brooks. Certainly not a disruptor like Brooks. We need Thurman back and even if he was to come back tomorrow then he'd still need to get back to game speed but we're better with him then without him. Even if he's not ready to backup yet, he's better than what we have now. Hey Mike Brown, ...start lobbying Goodell! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgilgris Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 No more calls for Thurman, he is the past. The fact that the front four having a combined 6 tackles at the half had to show how pi$$ pour the DL can be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeb Posted September 17, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 No more calls for Thurman, he is the past. The fact that the front four having a combined 6 tackles at the half had to show how pi$$ pour the DL can be.Its not a matter of if but when Thurman comes back. He's remained sober this whole time. He's been tested 10 times per month on his suspension. He will win the EEOC claim and it would be better for the league if he is brought back now rather than after they are forced to reinstate him on an EEOC ruling. So, Mr. Brown will be doing the league a favor by lobbying right now for his return. The league can't afford to lose that claim and we need him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agreen_112 Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 No more calls for Thurman, he is the past. The fact that the front four having a combined 6 tackles at the half had to show how pi$$ pour the DL can be.Its not a matter of if but when Thurman comes back. He's remained sober this whole time. He's been tested 10 times per month on his suspension. He will win the EEOC claim and it would be better for the league if he is brought back now rather than after they are forced to reinstate him on an EEOC ruling. So, Mr. Brown will be doing the league a favor by lobbying right now for his return. The league can't afford to lose that claim and we need him.I'm with you, it's sickening to watch this defense. Odell would make a huge difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJJackson Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 Its not a matter of if but when Thurman comes back. He's remained sober this whole time. He's been tested 10 times per month on his suspension. He will win the EEOC claim and it would be better for the league if he is brought back now rather than after they are forced to reinstate him on an EEOC ruling.That's a lot of conjecture posted as fact. You been talkin' to Ms Cleo? Spain? Agreen? JoePong?Fact of the matter is, the CBA is written in such a fashion that God-dell (yeah, I dislike the guy) does not have to ever reinstate him, and does not to my knowlege even have to give a reason, at least publicly. When Odell signed his contract, he (as any NFL player) signed in part a statement that says (paraphrased) "if I reach a certain point in the nfl drug program and am suspended, the commissioner is within his rights to never reinstate me if he so chooses."I'm not a lawyer, but Odell is not being barred from earning a living......he can go and apply for any job he likes.....but he violated the terms of his union contract and is not welcome in the NFL. If I did what Odell did and my employer fired me, do you think they'd let me come back after a year? 2 years? 3? No.....in the real world, you get fired for violation of the terms of your employment contract/agreement, you're likely not ever going to get to go back. The fact that the NFL has a structured procedure wherein you MIGHT return under the right circumstances places it as MORE forgiving than the average employer.Now if you want to bring in someone who can make a positive impact on this team - special teams has been a disaster this year thus far - yep, you got it......look ever so slightly to your left. He's available :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ickey44 Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 You guys really think he could come in and make a difference after not playing football for a year? Would he even be in shape? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazkal Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 You guys really think he could come in and make a difference after not playing football for a year? Would he even be in shape?Being that he thought he was gonna play football this year i'm guessing he was in shape,all I know hes been doing is construction though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeb Posted September 17, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 Its not a matter of if but when Thurman comes back. He's remained sober this whole time. He's been tested 10 times per month on his suspension. He will win the EEOC claim and it would be better for the league if he is brought back now rather than after they are forced to reinstate him on an EEOC ruling.That's a lot of conjecture posted as fact. You been talkin' to Ms Cleo? Spain? Agreen? JoePong?Fact of the matter is, the CBA is written in such a fashion that God-dell (yeah, I dislike the guy) does not have to ever reinstate him, and does not to my knowlege even have to give a reason, at least publicly. When Odell signed his contract, he (as any NFL player) signed in part a statement that says (paraphrased) "if I reach a certain point in the nfl drug program and am suspended, the commissioner is within his rights to never reinstate me if he so chooses."I'm not a lawyer, but Odell is not being barred from earning a living......he can go and apply for any job he likes.....but he violated the terms of his union contract and is not welcome in the NFL. If I did what Odell did and my employer fired me, do you think they'd let me come back after a year? 2 years? 3? No.....in the real world, you get fired for violation of the terms of your employment contract/agreement, you're likely not ever going to get to go back. The fact that the NFL has a structured procedure wherein you MIGHT return under the right circumstances places it as MORE forgiving than the average employer.Now if you want to bring in someone who can make a positive impact on this team - special teams has been a disaster this year thus far - yep, you got it......look ever so slightly to your left. He's available :-)If your circumstances are exactly like Thurman's ...Yes, the ADA states that your employer has to reinstate you if you have remained sober (a qualified disabled person) during a company sponsored suspension unless you work in the transportation or the nuclear industries. The agreement the NFL has means squat to the US government if it is found to be illegal. The US government usually stays out of bargained union agreements because they are implied to be fair since both parties are considered equal until proven not but they will get involved if the union is considered weak. That is the whole reason why the union gave no formal response back to Thurman when he asked for help. They open the door for the government by doing that. Thurman turned to the EEOC and the rest is left to be written.If you compare the ADA and the CBA, the NFL has problems. It would be to their benefit to bring back Thurman and hope he drops the claim. Thurman actually has a better case than Cox, IMO.So, ...its not a matter of if but when he will return, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 You guys really think he could come in and make a difference after not playing football for a year? Would he even be in shape? Not that it matters, but I think Odell Thurman could step out of a taxi...run onto the field in street clothes...and make an immediate impact. He has rare ability, just like Chris Henry. It's why they were drafted after warning signs were ignored. I'm just saying.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The PatternMaster Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 Its not a matter of if but when Thurman comes back. He's remained sober this whole time. He's been tested 10 times per month on his suspension. He will win the EEOC claim and it would be better for the league if he is brought back now rather than after they are forced to reinstate him on an EEOC ruling.That's a lot of conjecture posted as fact. You been talkin' to Ms Cleo? Spain? Agreen? JoePong?Fact of the matter is, the CBA is written in such a fashion that God-dell (yeah, I dislike the guy) does not have to ever reinstate him, and does not to my knowlege even have to give a reason, at least publicly. When Odell signed his contract, he (as any NFL player) signed in part a statement that says (paraphrased) "if I reach a certain point in the nfl drug program and am suspended, the commissioner is within his rights to never reinstate me if he so chooses."I'm not a lawyer, but Odell is not being barred from earning a living......he can go and apply for any job he likes.....but he violated the terms of his union contract and is not welcome in the NFL. If I did what Odell did and my employer fired me, do you think they'd let me come back after a year? 2 years? 3? No.....in the real world, you get fired for violation of the terms of your employment contract/agreement, you're likely not ever going to get to go back. The fact that the NFL has a structured procedure wherein you MIGHT return under the right circumstances places it as MORE forgiving than the average employer.Now if you want to bring in someone who can make a positive impact on this team - special teams has been a disaster this year thus far - yep, you got it......look ever so slightly to your left. He's available :-)If your circumstances are exactly like Thurman's ...Yes, the ADA states that your employer has to reinstate you if you have remained sober (a qualified disabled person) during a company sponsored suspension unless you work in the transportation or the nuclear industries. The agreement the NFL has means squat to the US government if it is found to be illegal. The US government usually stays out of bargained union agreements because they are implied to be fair since both parties are considered equal until proven not but they will get involved if the union is considered weak. That is the whole reason why the union gave no formal response back to Thurman when he asked for help. They open the door for the government by doing that. Thurman turned to the EEOC and the rest is left to be written.If you compare the ADA and the CBA, the NFL has problems. It would be to their benefit to bring back Thurman and hope he drops the claim. Thurman actually has a better case than Cox, IMO.So, ...its not a matter of if but when he will return, IMO.Well being that the NFLPA is being run by Uncle Gene Upshaw who never has a cross word the massas err..owners and NFL I would say that the Union is extremely weak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The PatternMaster Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 After watching Ohio State I wouldn't mind if we somehow got James "The Mini-Animal" Laureanitis(sp?)..he's a beast.Also we need call that Beck kid from Cal Poly or get Hartwell on the phone. We are in desperate need of a playmaker on the defensive side of the ball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeb Posted September 17, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 Well being that the NFLPA is being run by Uncle Gene Upshaw who never has a cross word the massas err..owners and NFL I would say that the Union is extremely weak.I can't blame Gene for his predicament. His own players have grown to like Goodell. Gene has lost the PR battle and can't take Goodell on face-to-face, ...but he can still back stab him! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJJackson Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 I can see where Gene would not want to rock too many boats - his income of 7+ million dollars a year as the head of the NFLPA puts him in some platinum handcuffs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The PatternMaster Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 Well being that the NFLPA is being run by Uncle Gene Upshaw who never has a cross word the massas err..owners and NFL I would say that the Union is extremely weak.I can't blame Gene for his predicament. His own players have grown to like Goodell. Gene has lost the PR battle and can't take Goodell on face-to-face, ...but he can still back stab him!Upshaw has been a weak union head long before Goodell showed up, compare him with the union heads for MLB and the NBA and you see how pitful he is at his job. He acts like he works for the NFL instead of for the players, maybe they have some incriminating evidence against him or something but he's is highly ineffective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeb Posted September 17, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 I can see where Gene would not want to rock too many boats - his income of 7+ million dollars a year as the head of the NFLPA puts him in some platinum handcuffsSweet gig if you can get it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeb Posted September 17, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 Upshaw has been a weak union head long before Goodell showed up, compare him with the union heads for MLB and the NBA and you see how pitful he is at his job. He acts like he works for the NFL instead of for the players, maybe they have some incriminating evidence against him or something but he's is highly ineffective.Is it coincidence that Cox and Thurman file a claim with the EEOC around the same time, ...or is it Gene? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinneymulleT Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 I think Thurman will eventually win reinstatement just not soon. The NFL is a monopoly in law as well as in fact. They lost an antitrust suit to the USFL back in the 80s and can't get that finding of fact and law lifted unless another top quality league is created and thrives. That won't be any time soon. The NFL also has a contractual relationship with Thurman. They've found him to be in breach of his contract and disciplined him under the contract. It isn't voided. He isn't free to go play football in Canada frex. The CBA gives the commissioner considerable discretion in handing out punishments. There is an implied covenant of good faith in every contract and Goodell has a duty to not be arbitrary or capricious in exercising his powers. The EEOC would look to see if Goodell treated similarly situated players similarly, if Thurman has established that he's not under the influence, and would be interested in Goodell's stated reasons for his handling of various cases. Even if the reasons aren't made public, the NFL would be in better shape legally if they offered Thurman and the team a reason for denying his application for reinstatement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeb Posted September 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 Allen's suspension for substance abuse violation reduced to two gamesBy Len PasquarelliESPN.comUpdated: July 15, 2007Kansas City Chiefs defensive end Jared Allen, sanctioned in April for a repeat violation of the NFL's substance abuse policy, has had his four-game suspension reduced to two games as a result of an appeal. The rare reduction, first reported by the Kansas City Star, was confirmed late Sunday by a league source. The NFL had never publicly announced the suspension, but Allen had admitted to it. Allen will miss the first two contests of the season, on Sept. 9 at Houston and Sept. 16 at Chicago, instead of the campaign's entire first month. He will be eligible to return to the team on Sept. 17, provided he meets all the conditions of the suspension. "I'm excited about this," Allen told the newspaper. "It changes training camp for me. It will change the way I approach the season." Allen, 25, was suspended by commissioner Roger Goodell after twice being charged with DUI last year. He has demonstrated much remorse over the incidents and has become very involved in several local charities, most notably working with a group that raises funds to combat juvenile diabetes. The former Idaho State star pleaded no contest to the most recent charges in September and entered a diversion program to resolve the first DUI incident from May 2006. On May 22, as first reported by ESPN.com, he signed a one-year qualifying offer for a restricted free agent, worth $2.35 million. Barring an extension, he will be eligible for unrestricted free agency next spring. A fourth-round choice in the 2004 draft, Allen has developed into one of the league's top young sack threats. He has 165 tackles, 27½ sacks, 10 forced fumbles, eight fumble recoveries, one interception and 15 passes defensed in 47 appearances and 41 starts. Allen has an explosive first step and combines with that a relentless drive to get to the quarterback. Allen indicated in February, with discussions on a long-term contract stalled, that he wanted to be traded. It is believed the Chiefs made him a multi-year offer but with significantly less in guarantees than other defensive ends, some of them with statistics inferior to his, have received lately. Allen said in February that he was "shocked and hurt" by the lack of progress toward a long-term deal. In anticipation that this might be his final season in Kansas City, he recently sold his home there. He will live with a friend during the season but has continued to make strong contributions to the community this offseason.http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2937915 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeb Posted September 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 Goodell lifts the suspensions of five playersBy Adam Schefter | NFL Network September 17, 2007 After a busy week, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell had a busy Monday.Goodell lifted the suspensions of five players: Kansas City defensive end Jared Allen, Carolina guard Jeremy Bridges, Tennesse linebacker Robert Reynolds, former San Francisco wide receiver Antonio Bryant and former Cincinnati linebacker A.J. Nicholson.The Chiefs and Panthers were granted roster exemptions for their players. Reynolds reverted to the injured-reserve list.Both Bryant and Nicholson are free agents.http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8...mp;confirm=true Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalszoneBilly Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 No more calls for Thurman, he is the past. The fact that the front four having a combined 6 tackles at the half had to show how pi$$ pour the DL can be.Dude...as long as there is ANY possibility of him returning to play for the Bengals, I'm going to be tooting his horn! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripes Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 No more calls for Thurman, he is the past. The fact that the front four having a combined 6 tackles at the half had to show how pi$$ pour the DL can be.Dude...as long as there is ANY possibility of him returning to play for the Bengals, I'm going to be tooting his horn!Agreed. The same goes for Pollack.No matter how bleak their futures may appear, having either or both back in football shape next year would be tremendous. Who cares how unlikely it is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The PatternMaster Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 Well being that the NFLPA is being run by Uncle Gene Upshaw who never has a cross word the massas err..owners and NFL I would say that the Union is extremely weak.Man, what is with you and the race card again. Kinda makes you look...um, i dont know...Racist! Oh, must be your pattern "massas"(spelling?). Next time try another card in your deck and make a logical comment without some Nat X routine.I'll try to respond although your little rant doesn't make much sense..but anyway..Just because I point out that Gene Upshaw ,who is the head of a union that is comprised of mostly black players, cowtows and rarely challenges the owners and the NFL doesn't make me a racist. Gene Upshaw goes about his business in a subordonate and submissive manner, which is about as bad as it can be for a union head who is supposed to be fighting for the rights of the players. Also my toungue in cheek comment about the owners being the massas was because all of the owners are white men, so you have a older black guy who acts submissive towards a group of wealth white men. You act racism doesn't exist and if I say make a comment that pertains to anything having to do with racism then I'm a racist, your a moron. Get a life and quit studying my post to see if I make a comment that you perceive to be racist. I see your still bitter from a couple of weeks ago, let it go! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeb Posted September 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 I love the new Miller Light Commissioner ads. Will we see Goodell flanked by two "sponsored by Miller Light" banners in his next press conference?Will his suspensions be sponsored by Miller Light or Budweiser? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.