Mr. WEO

I'm with you there on Purdy. But let's face it that is still one of the worst QB rooms in the top 10 teams if he's not gold this year again: Mr. Irrlevant is your starter backed up by 2 1st round busts.

How many fair catches are there in a season on kickoffs? This rule's whining to impact ratio is approaching infinity...

You certainly seem to think so--as far as to why teams are hesitant to bring him in, despite being cleared. You can't articulate what may be holding the back--you say it has nothing to do with civil court....at the same time as you say all potential team suitors are waiting specifically to hear what is said in civil court. You're making no logical sense.

How many kickoffs result in a fair catch anyway? NFL models predict it will reduce returns from 38% to 31%. Not earth shattering.

Kaep brought his team to a SB. Araiza punted once in a preseason. You must have something in mind that would, in a civil trial, sway people who were not convinced by the DA's statement--you keep repeating this. Just tell us what that might be, in your estimation. "who knows" doesn't make any sense, since you're also convinced there is no such new info.

This guy is ridiculous, given how he has titled his article. He has SF at #3 "Most complete", despite a QB room filled with Purdy, Lance and Darnold He has Dallas at #5....yet for the Offense, he leads with "there are at least depth concerns at almost every spot". The O-line is "unsolved". Every WR other than newly acquired Cooks, needs to "step up". "RB took a hit". Also, they "need to find a Kicker". At #7, the Ravens "fortunes changed dramatically".....by re-signing their QB--a guy who hasn't made it past 12 games in 2 years nor passed for 3000 yards in 4 years. Their "reimagined" WR room features journeymen OBJ and Agholor, a rookie and Rashod Bateman! And RB? "They certainly could use some more insurance". On D--"they still have a few boxes to check...a lot of question marks....more is needed"---and that's just the secondary! This guy is a straight up dope.

so public opinion was not swayed by the DAs recent announcement? And it also has “nothing to do with” what would be testified to in civil court? then public opinion is fixed as it is now. Bring him in., no point in waiting.

TNF is a massive ratings hit every season, why would they get rid of it? Viewers love it.

How is this a new rule? Any team has always been free to keep a 3rd (or 4th, 5th) QB on the roster. It wouldn't have helped SF last season as they didn't have another one on the roster that day.

Rochester

I didn't say this: "he was the 3rd punter taken so he sucks". What I said is that no team looking for a Punter has thought he was that great to draft before the other two and no team since has brought him in despite his "tons of promise' 1 Punt preseason performance. Maybe, as a one year college Punter, they don't think he's worth any public scrutiny at all--even if he wins the civil suit. Not to draw too straight a line, but look at Kaepernick. No team ultimately signed him because the bottom line is that he wasn't worth the heat he would bring. He was post peak career-wise. He wasn't that good. If he was a very good/great player, he would have been signed. Pretty simple.

I didn’t say that

No one is attacking his character, nor throwing dirt on it---Jim Brown did that all by himself for much of his adult life. In public, the persona you mention is the one he was keen to cultivate. In private, He treated people close to him badly (to put it very mildly). If you insist on memorializing him, this is part of that memorial. No one did thsi to Brown. This is the life he led. Simply mentioning it isn't an "attack".

Not sure what the approval process is but pretty much anyone with the cash and an owner who is offering can buy a stake in a team.

Why wouldn't they have the same confidence as you then? What "could come out there"? And in your opinion, a single punt = "tons of promise"? That's heavy lifting doc...

No I’m confident the plaintiffs lawyer doesn’t have anything the DA didn’t have, which is why I think if a team was interested, they should/would bring him in. You on the other hand clearly think he could lose a civil trial. Therefore your confidence in this matter is lower than mine in that regard. So, you’re “shaky” at this point. No other way to say it. I don’t care if he gets signed or not, loses a case or not. He’s a Punter.. Most are a dime a dozen. The most easily replaced position in the NFL.

I saw more of Miller on TV this past week than all of last season....

The guy is being lionized everywhere right now, and not just for his play. In real life, he beat women, was accused of raping them, perhaps tried to kill one, treated his wife badly, even did a night in jail for choking out his golf partner. In his dealings with individual people he was close to, he was an a-hole. This is all well documented and consistent through his life ----absolutely can be appropriately mentioned in an RIP thread. He may have been the greatest ever, but he was a man playing amongst boys. Who knows how he would fare vs current front 7's and modern schemes devised to stop him.

that was before he was “cleared” doc. Doesn’t that change everything? What’s left for doubt? why are you suddenly so shaky about the thought of him before a jury. Yiu had them acquitting him months ago. This is very strange…

Nantz is an unmatched maestro. He really gave sincere props to Roc and Oak Hill. Both were totally deserving. This course was pure perfection--they were able to play through steady rain without a delay--the drainage design was genius. The layout was challenging (unlike the miniature golf layout at, say, Augusta) and produced an incredibly entertaining and exciting major.

Only after they brought in a new HC...

Why would he have held damning evidence "up his sleeve" instead of giving it to the DA? that makes zero sense. You were convinced he was innocent immediately doc--way before the recent DA released evidence. Why would a jury think otherwise. Yes teams that wanted to upgrade at punter The legal journey continues as long as neither side wishes to settle, of course. Civil or criminal, the jury will be asked to decide whether he raped her. They won't really be splitting the hair of "beyond a reasonable doubt" vs "by the preponderance of evidence". If the plaintiff had such evidence that would convince a jury "yeah, I think he did it", he would have produced it already--if only to influence the potential jury pool by this point.

Hauschka wasn't a punter.

it’s camp—1 dozen practices