Beck Water

There's the 911 call in which she spoke words, and the phone recording in which words were spoken, some in Von's voice. But, if your basic point is that prosecutors rarely pursue a case without the alleged victim's cooperation, you're right. It's so much harder to win, so especially if it's minor injuries they tend to let it drop.

I mean, that’s very admirable. But there’s this thing called commissioner’s exempt list, where Goodell says it’s too controversial to have this guy dressed and out there but we really have no cause to suspend him (yet). Then that’s exactly what happens-he gets paid to sit home

Good questions. So the NFL and NFLPA made a thing about taking a stand against DV. How much is FR and how much ‘blowing snow’, can’t tell ya. But I believe the policy requires the NFL to conduct their own investigation, independent of conviction Upthread I gave two examples

There was a murder case in StL in the late ‘80s. A young woman was found bound with duct tape, asphyxiated in a burning suburban garage. Autopsy showed she asphyxiated before the fire Prosecutors filed 1st degree murder. Her husband was convicted of manslaughter, 5 years. Relative wrist slap. Where am I going with this? Husband’s defense for the duct tape etc was consensual sexy times gone tragically awry. The arson? Failed suicide attempt after the sexy times went awry. The general public reaction was “you gotta be kidding’ me”. Nevertheless. So if the case continues, I would expect all sorts of innovative attempts at “reasonable doubt”. Suspended players do not count against the cap. But the NFL typically waits until an investigation plays out to suspend, then the team has to maintain the salary cap space until the inevitable appeal

And I understand why he didn't, but in terms of "best practices", he absolutely should have done so. https://ndaa.org/wp-content/uploads/NDAA-DV-White-Paper-FINAL-revised-June-23-2020-1.pdf

Very well said. Thank you for putting this in here. This woman has apparently been with Von for 7 years and has other children with him. It may be they don't have a formal legal child support arrangement - her entire income and ability to support herself and the other children may depend upon his good will to keep paying her. Meanwhile Von can afford much better lawyers and accountants and could delay child support hearings for months or years, or fail to pay for months or years with minimal consequences to himself in many cases. It's very common (this is from LEO friends and someone who works with DV shelters) that financial dependence is a huge factor for people with much more typical working-folks incomes. The woman is often a SAHM caring for multiple small children. Partners who are prone to DV are usually high-control in other aspects of the relationship, and asking someone to quit their job and stay home to care for children, "I'll take care of you" financially, is a common way to render someone totally dependent on the high-control partner and thus vulnerable to abuse. Then if there's a DV incident, immediately afterwards the high-control partner expresses remorse, promises change, then starts in with guilt - "sweetums, you know what will happen if you go forward with these charges, I'll lose my job, I won't be able to support you and the kids, how can you do this me? to our babies?". There are published studies of these patterns based on jailhouse visit recordings and interviews. 2023 paper: 53% of DV cases, the victim recants and stops cooperating. Many of these are cases with physical evidence and witnesses, but the prosecutor doesn't usually bring charges if the victim won't cooperate. It's one reason why most LEO hate DV calls with a passion, in many cases it's very clear what's happening but they're volatile situations where anything can happen (including the officers being shot at) and even when it's clear to everyone what's really going on and an arrest is made, they very rarely result in charges and even less often in conviction. So it's personal risk and a lot of paperwork for nothing and a huge source of frustration. Note: I'm not saying that Von Miller is guilty, or that the situation happened as described in the arrest warrant. I'm just saying that the woman recanting and saying it's all a big misunderstanding now, doesn't mean that he isn't, or that it didn't. It's more common than not in these situations.

One point I alluded to earlier is that the NFL's DV policy requires that the league conduct their own investigation, and the player be suspended if they believe DV occurred even if there isn't a criminal case. Greg Hardy (Carolina DE) jury trial for his DV case fell apart and was dismissed when the victim disappeared (allegedly after receiving a large settlement from Hardy). The NFL investigated and suspended him for 10 games anyway (appealed and reduced to 4) Tyrel Dodson DV charge was dropped to misdemeanor disorderly conduct/disruptive behavior - he entered a diversion program and had the charges expunged, but the league investigation suspended him 6 games anyway.

I'm not saying Miller did what is alleged. Clearly the police and prosecutors believe there is evidence, since he's been charged and has turned himself in. Clearly sometimes the police and prosecutors are wrong and if they aren't, it's difficult to prosecute a crime if the victim won't cooperate. So whether a prosecution will result is still unknown. I probably shouldn't go here, but assuming the actions took place as alleged, exactly what reasons or "side" do you believe might justify putting your hands around the neck of/strangling your pregnant partner? Technically, if there is solid evidence (like witness testimony from you and the two custodians), the prosecutor can file charges without the victim's cooperation. How often they do, can't say.

I'm sorry. I hope she was able to get out safely, and I hope you've been able to overcome what are often lasting and traumatic effects on the kids.

Right and there's also evidence (busted laptop she says he stomped on, chunk of hair, bruising on her neck). The majority of DV victims recant (54.8% according to one recent study). There are multiple reasons for this, most of them having nothing to do with a question of whether or not the assault actually happened as the victim's initial testimony describes. One very straightforward reason, if this woman is pregnant and has other children by Von, is financial support.

I could always be proven wrong, but this does not seem anywhere close to the Araiza situation from what has come out to date.

It doesn't sound good https://www.nfl.com/news/bills-lb-von-miller-turns-himself-in-on-felony-domestic-violence-charge Miller has turned himself in after being charged. https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-owners-endorse-new-personal-conduct-policy-0ap3000000441758 As I understand these criteria, Miller should be placed on the Commissioner's Exempt List immediately (which means he will still be paid, but won't count against the Bills Roster). He is facing a mandatory suspension of six games, even if he pleads to a lesser charge, provided the league's own investigation finds grounds to believe domestic violence occurred. And it sounds as though there is evidence - bruising on her neck, busted laptop, chunk of pulled out hair. Reportedly they've been together 7 years and have several kids Putting the hands on the neck and applying pressure (strangulation or attempted strangulation) is considered a huge "red flag" in DV work because it's considered a serious pre-event indicator for homicide.

OK, sure, if your point is that Allen didn't decide to hire him, McDermott did, sure. We agree. Hiring and firing assistant coaches was not and is not Josh's decision. My point was that in your OP post I responded to, you said McDermott decided and ran it by Josh...sure, Josh doesn't (and shouldn't) have hiring and firing power, but I think (based on what Josh said at the time and after) he went to bat for Dorsey quite a bit more than "ran it by him" sounds like, and quite a bit beyond what I would personally do in "referring a friend" for a job and recommending them to the hiring manager.

I believe both Josh and Dorsey have said in the media that Josh lobbied for him as OC. Josh has also said "my career changed when he walked in the building" about Dorsey. So I think (based on what's been put out there, but I ain't gonna dig for it) it was probably a little bit more than "McD chose Dorsey and ran the idea by Josh", though I can't speak for any "mythical heights" of the fanbase. And I think it was pretty clear that McDermott and/or Beane had reservations about that plan, hence the hiring of two assistants with prior OC experience in Mike Shula and Joe Brady at the same time Dorsey was promoted.

I'd like to tag a couple of former players here. I am not a former player of team sports. @Buffalo716 @HoofHearted - I know there are others I'm missing, sorry, speak up. To my understanding, it's a very very slippery and dangerous path for a player to start speaking out against their coach, especially during the season. That's how you can become a "locker room cancer". It's even slipperier and more dangerous if the player speaks out against the coach during the season and the coach is then fired. Think rookie Baker Mayfield speaking out and getting Hue Jackson fired mid-season, then reportedly lobbying for Freddie Kitchens to take over as HC the following year. Think Carson Wentz arguably getting Mike Groh fired as OC then Doug Pederson fired as HC. Even Tom Brady's last year in NE when it was rumored he and Belicheck were on the outs, you didn't hear it publicly. Brady finished the season, voted with his feet in FA, and made his point from afar. McDermott has said that he meets with Allen weekly. That would be the time for Allen to privately and 1:1 express any concerns he may have had. And he may have expressed concerns during those meetings, we don't know and we likely never will. As it should be. But again, to my understanding, players who succeed and sustain success at a high level do so in part because they are willing to accept appropriate boundaries in the locker room and with the coaching relationship. When players stop doing this, it can absolutely go off the rails quickly. And frankly, it really may not have had to do with Dorsey's play designs at all. It may have been a point of behavior - Dorsey had weird dilated pupils in his press conferences - is he using? Or communication - we all saw Dorsey having a total meltdown in the press box, and if his style of discussing Allen's play choices was similar or alternating nice guy/meltdown, after a while people just tune that out. (Don't tell me I have greatness in me 5 minutes after you've been putting me through the shredder) Or it may have been a point that the Jets game was 5 weeks after Josh injured his shoulder vs. the Giants, and reportedly 5 weeks is about the time it takes for that injury to heal (per Hasselbeck and per Josh's experience with a L shoulder sprain in 2020).

You made me laugh out loud. I wish I could like this 1000 times!

That would be kinda stupid to believe we aren’t making the playoffs before this loss, considering that we won last week and if we won this week we’re still one game out of the division lead and are going to play the team that holds that lead again.

This is looking like a simultaneous “did not age well” and “clarvoyance at work”

Watching Ravens Chargers on SNF and so far two very blatant 15 yd penalties on Ravens have been missed

Gah that's what I get to watch here in The Lou Returned to edit: It was a more interesting game than I thought it would be, for 3 Q

I guess my somewhat long-winded point was: what ground-and-pound teams have the Eagles faced? Yes, they have the least rushes against them in the league, but with the exception of the Dolphins (who are not a ground-and-pound team), they've also faced teams that don't run very much or successfully overall.

I think I'm talking about a somewhat different phenomenon. "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" to me is where after a specific game, the fans second guess the play calls, "that was a stupid call in this situation" and even the game plan "why did we get away from the run, it was working". For a specific game. I'm talking about a phenomenon I see where fans retrospectively critique the OC's overall approach, paying no mind to whether what they claim is actually borne out by facts. That's where we get stuff like people claiming that Dorsey will be found to have been the Bills worst OC ever and Brady is just so dramatically different, when they're running the same scheme and even the same plays with the same players in the same roles. Or that Dorsey rarely used motion and Brady used it a dramatically different amount, when it's 50% vs 62% which is higher, but it's not "rare" vs "lots", it's "lots" vs "more" or maybe "different". That doesn't mean that Brady might not be a more effective OC, because in football the "devil is in the details" of preparation and execution and even things like sequence of how plays are called and details of how they're disguised, or what the motion is. We all hope so!

I think this is one of those "let's look under the hood" statistics. The Eagles are #12 in the league, not #1, for yards per attempt. So being #1 in yards per game suggests to me that teams may do OK when they run, but aren't running very much on them. The league average Y/G given up is 111.5. The Eagles just gave up 168 rush yards against the Chiefs, who are #14 for rush yards per game. Many of the teams the Eagles have faced have not had good run games (at this point in the season where they've played 9-10 other teams) - Patriots are #26, Vikes are #27, Bucs are #32, Commanders (played twice) are #24, Rams #21, Jets #28. The good running teams the Eagles have faced are the Cowboys (#12) - held to 73 rush yards - the Dolphins (#2) - held to 45 rush yards. I could be wrong because I haven't watched them that much, but I think the Dolphins are #1 in rushing offense, paradoxically, isn't that they rely on the run that much (they're like #10 for number of attempts), but more they have speed; concern for Hill and Waddle gives them running opportunities and once Mostert or Achane get out in space, they're gone giving the Dolphins a high # Y/A. It's also still a bit skewed by them having a ridiculous 350 rush yards against the Broncos and 222 against the Giants. Or maybe I'm just salty over having to hear whatever announcer it was gush about the perfections of the Dolphins offense. Anyway, obviously games played against the Eagles where they couldn't run is part of what made the other teams lower rush YPG teams, my point is that it's not like the Eagles have been shutting down the Ravens, Browns, and 49ers run games. They've been handling the run against teams like the Jets, Patriots, Bucs and Commanders who don't run very much or very well, or teams like the Vikes and Giants who run a fair bit but aren't very good at it this season. But they also did shut down the Cowboys and Dolphins, to give them their propers. I'm not saying they're paper tigers against the rush, at all, but I think they aren't as dominating as the #1 for Y/G stat suggests - teams get behind and don't run on them so much, I think.

And the Chiefs are still 6th in the league for passing yards per game with a 67% completion percentage. Pretty good for Patty throwing to a group that cant run routes or catch a cold, so Cry Me a River.

Rodgers feels verklempt over not having the NY media focus he sees as his due Either that or he mis-spelt "gilt" as "guilt" since he was brought in to be the Golden Boy