News: PFT: Jerry Jones is being quiet for a very good reason

[Reality]

Jerry Jones is being quiet for a very good reason

All he’s said is that he’ll eventually say something.

Here’s why he’s being quiet. Jones recognizes the sensitivity of the Elliott case at this specific juncture. With the appeal now filed, the Commissioner first must decide whether to handle it himself, to assign it to a league employee, to farm it out to an independent arbitrator deemed to be friendly to the league’s interest (Harold Henderson), or to ask a truly neutral, independent arbitrator to handle it.

The next move is critical to the potential success of the appeal. Based on what the Commissioner decides, it could determine whether Elliott wins or loses.

Jones likely is opting for public silence while he privately lobbies Goodell to appoint a truly neutral and independent person to resolve the question of whether Elliott did indeed commit domestic violence. In this regard, Jones (and Elliott) have leverage that can be exerted in a subtle (or not so subtle) way.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/08/16/jerry-jones-is-being-quiet-for-a-very-good-reason/

 

[Denim Chicken]

Well, that didn't work.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Jerry Jones is being quiet for a very good reason

All he’s said is that he’ll eventually say something.

Here’s why he’s being quiet. Jones recognizes the sensitivity of the Elliott case at this specific juncture. With the appeal now filed, the Commissioner first must decide whether to handle it himself, to assign it to a league employee, to farm it out to an independent arbitrator deemed to be friendly to the league’s interest (Harold Henderson), or to ask a truly neutral, independent arbitrator to handle it.

The next move is critical to the potential success of the appeal. Based on what the Commissioner decides, it could determine whether Elliott wins or loses.

Jones likely is opting for public silence while he privately lobbies Goodell to appoint a truly neutral and independent person to resolve the question of whether Elliott did indeed commit domestic violence. In this regard, Jones (and Elliott) have leverage that can be exerted in a subtle (or not so subtle) way.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/08/16/jerry-jones-is-being-quiet-for-a-very-good-reason/

Too bad he didnt keep his mouth shut before the suspension. Him piping off about how Zeke wouldnt get suspended probably didnt go over too well.

 

[Reality]

Too bad he didnt keep his mouth shut before the suspension. Him piping off about how Zeke wouldnt get suspended probably didnt go over too well.

The ruling had already been made by the time he said that, it had just not been announced yet, so anything he said at that point had no effect on the outcome beyond some eye rolling.

I think the fact that Jerry, as an NFL owner, came out and emphatically declared there was no evidence to suspend Elliott is actually a really smart move by Jerry as it put any potential (at that time) suspension ruling in question even before it was announced. Remember, Jerry isn't the defense in this case. He's technically part of the prosecution/plaintiff side so even ignoring an expected bias from the owner of the team the player plays on, Jerry's a powerful figure in the NFL and for him to not only say the player was innocent, but also that he has seen all of the evidence and there is nothing at all that justifies a suspension, creates a big crack in the NFL shield.

 

[Idgit]

The ruling had already been made by the time he said that, it had just not been announced yet, so anything he said at that point had no effect on the outcome beyond some eye rolling.

I think the fact that Jerry, as an NFL owner, came out and emphatically declared there was no evidence to suspend Elliott is actually a really smart move by Jerry as it put any potential (at that time) suspension ruling in question even before it was announced. Remember, Jerry isn't the defense in this case. He's technically part of the prosecution/plaintiff side so even ignoring an expected bias from the owner of the team the player plays on, Jerry's a powerful figure in the NFL and for him to not only say the player was innocent, but also that he has seen all of the evidence and there is nothing at all that justifies a suspension, creates a big crack in the NFL shield.

Yeah, it was obvious both he and Stephen made a point of publicly saying there was no basis for a league suspension specifically to have it out there prior to it being announced by the league.

And the fact that they're not commenting on it now means they're reserving the possibility of legal action if things don't go Zeke's way with the appeal.

And things aren't going to go Zeke's way with the appeal.

 

[Reality]

Yeah, it was obvious both he and Stephen made a point of publicly saying there was no basis for a league suspension specifically to have it out there prior to it being announced by the league.

And the fact that they're not commenting on it now means they're reserving the possibility of legal action if things don't go Zeke's way with the appeal.

And things aren't going to go Zeke's way with the appeal.

I expect the NFL will reduce his suspension to 2-3 games (which I believe was their plan all along) in an effort to look like they took a tough stance, but had to cooperate due to lack of evidence. However, I don't see Elliott's team being satisfied with any length of suspension unless there is evidence that has not been released yet (which is still possible). If Elliott accepts a reduced suspension, that will most likely mean there was evidence of some kind against him, and he and his legal team know this.

As I said earlier though, this is not just about missing a few games. His brand is tainted right now if not destroyed, so he has a lot more to lose than a few game checks and pro-rated signing bonus that I doubt the Cowboys will even make him pay back.

 

[Idgit]

I expect the NFL will reduce his suspension to 2-3 games (which I believe was their plan all along) in an effort to look like they took a tough stance, but had to cooperate due to lack of evidence. However, I don't see Elliott's team being satisfied with any length of suspension unless there is evidence that has not been released yet (which is still possible). If Elliott accepts a reduced suspension, that will most likely mean there was evidence of some kind against him, and he and his legal team know this.

As I said earlier though, this is not just about missing a few games. His brand is tainted right now if not destroyed, so he has a lot more to lose than a few game checks and pro-rated signing bonus that I doubt the Cowboys will even make him pay back.

I can definitely see it being the league's idea to cut the suspension on appeal. The fact that the Cowboys came out specifically beforehand to say that there's zero evidence suggests they and Elliott's camp aren't going to be satisfied with that. I think we're walking through the kabuki theater of a process here, knowing full well this probably goes to court.

They've had a full year to get to the bottom of whatever happened. The Cowboys believe Elliott, and the league either believes the accuser or thinks it's smart to take the public stance that they do. I don't see how this ends short of in the courts.

 

[Reality]

I can definitely see it being the league's idea to cut the suspension on appeal. The fact that the Cowboys came out specifically beforehand to say that there's zero evidence suggests they and Elliott's camp aren't going to be satisfied with that. I think we're walking through the kabuki theater of a process here, knowing full well this probably goes to court.

They've had a full year to get to the bottom of whatever happened. The Cowboys believe Elliott, and the league either believes the accuser or thinks it's smart to take the public stance that they do. I don't see how this ends short of in the courts.

I can't imagine the NFL believes the accuser at least based on the evidence the public has at this point, but given their past rulings and the perception of going easy on domestic violence offenders, I think they were painted into a corner and had to side with the accuser because they could absolutely not afford to have another Ray Rice post-ruling video evidence release eventually happen.

 

[DrunkWithPower]

I expect the NFL will reduce his suspension to 2-3 games (which I believe was their plan all along) in an effort to look like they took a tough stance, but had to cooperate due to lack of evidence. However, I don't see Elliott's team being satisfied with any length of suspension unless there is evidence that has not been released yet (which is still possible). If Elliott accepts a reduced suspension, that will most likely mean there was evidence of some kind against him, and he and his legal team know this.

As I said earlier though, this is not just about missing a few games. His brand is tainted right now if not destroyed, so he has a lot more to lose than a few game checks and pro-rated signing bonus that I doubt the Cowboys will even make him pay back.

Agreed. Elliott's real quandary is if he truly didn't do it and his suspension is reduced to 2 games. Do you take the 2 games and make some public statements to the effect that you're completely innocent and move on? Will the team pressure him to accept a 2 game suspension? Or do you stick to your guns and pursue other options in the hope somehow you can clear your name? Unfortunately, from all that I've read, getting a clean slate from the NFL may be impossible.

 

[CowboyRoy]

The ruling had already been made by the time he said that, it had just not been announced yet, so anything he said at that point had no effect on the outcome beyond some eye rolling.

I think the fact that Jerry, as an NFL owner, came out and emphatically declared there was no evidence to suspend Elliott is actually a really smart move by Jerry as it put any potential (at that time) suspension ruling in question even before it was announced. Remember, Jerry isn't the defense in this case. He's technically part of the prosecution/plaintiff side so even ignoring an expected bias from the owner of the team the player plays on, Jerry's a powerful figure in the NFL and for him to not only say the player was innocent, but also that he has seen all of the evidence and there is nothing at all that justifies a suspension, creates a big crack in the NFL shield.

Well said. Makes total sense.

 

[DrunkWithPower]

The ruling had already been made by the time he said that, it had just not been announced yet, so anything he said at that point had no effect on the outcome beyond some eye rolling.

I think the fact that Jerry, as an NFL owner, came out and emphatically declared there was no evidence to suspend Elliott is actually a really smart move by Jerry as it put any potential (at that time) suspension ruling in question even before it was announced. Remember, Jerry isn't the defense in this case. He's technically part of the prosecution/plaintiff side so even ignoring an expected bias from the owner of the team the player plays on, Jerry's a powerful figure in the NFL and for him to not only say the player was innocent, but also that he has seen all of the evidence and there is nothing at all that justifies a suspension, creates a big crack in the NFL shield.

My only question is how much of the evidence was Jerry allowed to see? I hope it was all of it...

 

[Stash]

I can definitely see it being the league's idea to cut the suspension on appeal. The fact that the Cowboys came out specifically beforehand to say that there's zero evidence suggests they and Elliott's camp aren't going to be satisfied with that. I think we're walking through the kabuki theater of a process here, knowing full well this probably goes to court.

They've had a full year to get to the bottom of whatever happened. The Cowboys believe Elliott, and the league either believes the accuser or thinks it's smart to take the public stance that they do. I don't see how this ends short of in the courts.

Fait accompli

 

[Stash]

I can't imagine the NFL believes the accuser at least based on the evidence the public has at this point, but given their past rulings and the perception of going easy on domestic violence offenders, I think they were painted into a corner and had to side with the accuser because they could absolutely not afford to have another Ray Rice post-ruling video evidence release eventually happen.

That's exactly what happened. Past history of failure set the precedent for this course of action. Justice has nothing to do with it, while perception has everything to do with it. Not how it works, but how it looks.

 

[waldoputty]

The ruling had already been made by the time he said that, it had just not been announced yet, so anything he said at that point had no effect on the outcome beyond some eye rolling.

I think the fact that Jerry, as an NFL owner, came out and emphatically declared there was no evidence to suspend Elliott is actually a really smart move by Jerry as it put any potential (at that time) suspension ruling in question even before it was announced. Remember, Jerry isn't the defense in this case. He's technically part of the prosecution/plaintiff side so even ignoring an expected bias from the owner of the team the player plays on, Jerry's a powerful figure in the NFL and for him to not only say the player was innocent, but also that he has seen all of the evidence and there is nothing at all that justifies a suspension, creates a big crack in the NFL shield.

Yes Jerry fired the first shot in this whole thing.

 

[wrongway]

I expect the NFL will reduce his suspension to 2-3 games (which I believe was their plan all along) in an effort to look like they took a tough stance, but had to cooperate due to lack of evidence. However, I don't see Elliott's team being satisfied with any length of suspension unless there is evidence that has not been released yet (which is still possible). If Elliott accepts a reduced suspension, that will most likely mean there was evidence of some kind against him, and he and his legal team know this.

As I said earlier though, this is not just about missing a few games. His brand is tainted right now if not destroyed, so he has a lot more to lose than a few game checks and pro-rated signing bonus that I doubt the Cowboys will even make him pay back.

I agree, surely he must see dak's brand growing while he's in negative exposure purgatory.

 

[Reality]

I agree, surely he must see dak's brand growing while he's in negative exposure purgatory.

Very good point! How many times have we seen running backs come into the league and have a great first season only to become just average, at least stat-wise, afterwards. He needs to protect and capitalize on his brand as soon as and as much as possible in case things don't continue for whatever reason (injury, offensive scheme, etc.).

 

[wrongway]

Very good point! How many times have we seen running backs come into the league and have a great first season only to become just average, at least stat-wise, afterwards. He needs to protect and capitalize on his brand as soon as and as much as possible in case things don't continue for whatever reason (injury, offensive scheme, etc.).

BINGO

 

[gimmesix]

I can't imagine the NFL believes the accuser at least based on the evidence the public has at this point, but given their past rulings and the perception of going easy on domestic violence offenders, I think they were painted into a corner and had to side with the accuser because they could absolutely not afford to have another Ray Rice post-ruling video evidence release eventually happen.

I think the league made another mistake by overreacting after the Rice situation. You don't want to downplay DV, but you also don't want to falsely accuse one of your players of it. IMO, the league should have taken a stance from the start that it is not an investigative body and would instead leave that up to the DA and police in this case. If those bodies found reason to charge Elliott or evidence emerged showing that he did commit DV, then the league would punish him.

The NFL is putting itself out on a limb with rulings such as this on cases that do not see the light of day in court. It's different when there is clear, factual evidence that a player committed an offense. Without that clear evidence, though, the NFL has opened itself up to its "investigations" blowing up in its face. I'm hopeful that Elliott is the one who will be able to do as information that was overlooked by the league about the victim it chose to believe comes out.

 

[Alexander]

I am pretty pleased at his restraint. I thought for sure he would have slammed a few too many drinks and went on some rant.

He wants to come across well. He may also be picking and choosing his statements deliberately to get enough support to get Goodell dumped when his contract is up.

This is not all about Elliott's guilt or innocence. He has other dogs in the fight, namely getting marijuana rules overturned, etc.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

I am pretty pleased at his restraint. I thought for sure he would have slammed a few too many drinks and went on some rant.

He wants to come across well. He may also be picking and choosing his statements deliberately to get enough support to get Goodell dumped when his contract is up.

This is not all about Elliott's guilt or innocence. He has other dogs in the fight, namely getting marijuana rules overturned, etc.

It's not too late for such a rant.