Rewatching Brent

[starfrombirth]

That is not how the NFL is looking at it.

It's one incident since he has been in the NFL. The vehicular manslaugher is different and above and beyond anything he had done before too. If you want to make that connection then it is just as reasonable to look at all the people that drink and drive every night in America and don't get caught. I have done it and don't feel comfortable condemning someone else for it. A bad act is a bad act.

The NFL would be allowing him back into the league for a second time.

So what about the failed drug test while awaiting trial???

 

[starfrombirth]

It's all about your potential as a player. If a team sees you as a high upside guy, you're going to get more chances than the player they determine has a lower ceiling.

I'd be surprised if Brent isn't suspended for this year though.

I'd be ok with that..

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So what about the failed drug test while awaiting trial???

The NFLPA would have a fit if they used drug testing outside of the CBA agreed terms to suspend someone.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'd be ok with that..

Really at the end of the day. Goodell is going to do what he is going to do. I am looking at things as they were when Tagliabue was commissioner and they actually had to have a logical basis for punishments. That is no longer the case and Goodell can be as arbitrary as he wants.

He could get nothing or he could get banned for life for all we know. It's all on Roger's whim.

 

[starfrombirth]

The NFLPA would have a fit if they used drug testing outside of the CBA agreed terms to suspend someone.

I don't the the CBA takes precedence over legal restrictions. He was notified he would be subject to drug testing and he still failed. That falls under the conduct unbecoming that Goodell uses with such a broad brush. I not a labor attorney by any means but I don't believe the NFLPA would have any grounds to object. But hey.. what do I know?

 

[starfrombirth]

Really at the end of the day. Goodell is going to do what he is going to do. I am looking at things as they were when Tagliabue was commissioner and they actually had to have a logical basis for punishments. That is no longer the case and Goodell can be as arbitrary as he wants.

He could get nothing or he could get banned for life for all we know. It's all on Roger's whim.

That's funny. I was writing my above response when you posted this. Great minds think similar...

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't the the CBA takes precedence over legal restrictions. He was notified he would be subject to drug testing and he still failed. That falls under the conduct unbecoming that Goodell uses with such a broad brush. I not a labor attorney by any means but I don't believe the NFLPA would have any grounds to object. But hey.. what do I know?

Because it falls under the drug policy that was agreed to by the CBA. They are very specific and who does the testing is very explicit. And you're right Goodell can do whatever he wants but I promise you he won't list that as cause.

 

[waving monkey]

Gimmie's been around for years before either of you showed up. If he threw compliments on Brent or the original post, you wouldn't have any issue with his style or delivery.

I know I am a new comer therefor cant have an opinion.
I know also Gimmie is and intelligent poster I just disagree with his view sometimes
this is that sometimes

 

[starfrombirth]

Because it falls under the drug policy that was agreed to by the CBA. They are very specific and who does the testing is very explicit. And you're right Goodell can do whatever he wants but I promise you he won't list that as cause.

I just reread my post and apparently I've forgotten how to use all the words necessary to have a sentence make sense. Glad you could understand it ... lmao!

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I just reread my post and apparently I've forgotten how to use all the words necessary to have a sentence make sense. Glad you could understand it ... lmao!

my stuff is filled with typos and missing words. its all good. its about conveying ideas and not grammar for me.

 

[xvendettax914]

Gimmie's been around for years before either of you showed up. If he threw compliments on Brent or the original post, you wouldn't have any issue with his style or delivery.

So because someone has been here "longer" it validates their comments? Sure.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So because someone has been here "longer" it validates their comments? Sure.

He likes to roleplay as a McCarthy era rural radio propaganda type. He is an acquired taste but he means well. It's hard to tell when he is being intolerant for real or if its schtick because his schtick does call for intolerance. Dodger is just entertained by what he does and is supportinghim I am guessing.

CCboy used to reorder his sentence structure and while the words were English, you would have to 'fix' his righting to understand it. I used to hate that but he was cool and when people complained he stopped doing it. i don't know if I ever told him how much I appreciated it.

 

[CowboyStar88]

I don't the the CBA takes precedence over legal restrictions. He was notified he would be subject to drug testing and he still failed. That falls under the conduct unbecoming that Goodell uses with such a broad brush. I not a labor attorney by any means but I don't believe the NFLPA would have any grounds to object. But hey.. what do I know?

He was retired FYI don't think NFL can suspend him once he retires.

 

[Dodger12]

So because someone has been here "longer" it validates their comments? Sure.

Not all all. How about you debate the comments/opinion and not the poster when you don't like his message. It had nothing to do with his shtick.

 

[big dog cowboy]

I'd be surprised if Brent isn't suspended for this year though.

After the heat he took for the last suspension he handed out, I'd say just about anything is possible.

 

[JoeKing]

Brent is no longer the player he once was. I am rooting for this guy but it can't be understated how big the mountain is that this guys is climbing.

 

[Mr Cowboy]

Mickey said on the pre game show that it went very, very, very well for Brent at the meeting with Goodell.

Aldon Smith also met with Goodell today.

 

[jterrell]

Anyone suggesting Brent was OK is either basing off that his horrendous decision making off the field or simply is clueless about football.

He was a monster in the middle against the run. He literally required 2 blockers and even hen held the point of attack regularly versus 2 guys.

If this guy hadn't been sur-really stupid we'd be paying him a fortune to start at NT/1T.

Dallas has to hold onto him as an asset if he is re-instated because he is the right price and has plenty of talent. The sheer suck of the defense demands we keep anyone that can play a lick at this point.

 

[jterrell]

Brent is no longer the player he once was. I am rooting for this guy but it can't be understated how big the mountain is that this guys is climbing.

What are you basing that on? Have you watched him play recently or just assuming? Not being smart asking in all seriousness.

 

[Idgit]

What are you basing that on? Have you watched him play recently or just assuming? Not being smart asking in all seriousness.

I think he gets back into the league fairly quickly. I bet his strength is good, and I think he's a better fit for us in the 4-3 than he even was in the 3-4. I bet he's capable of giving us 20 snaps a game by week 5, all things considered. I guess we'll see soon enough. But I'd be really really surprised if the commissioner were to suspend him for a year. Hist retirement ploy was premeditated, and I don't think it's something his agent talked him into. I think the Cowboys consulted the league re: the best way to handle the situation, and then informed Brent's side accordingly.