OT: MIchigan Sports Thread: UM wins Natty Championship

Bench

3 is a good start
Aug 14, 2011
21,417
15,482
crease
No they didnt set a precedent with Ridley. I think its pretty obvious they shouldnt be allowed to bet on the league that they play in for millions of dollars. Betting non-NFL sports at the practice facility should not make them lose more than a third of the season.

Like these guys are sitting around with a bunch of down time between meetings and shit all the time. They should be able to kill it like tht if they want

What I'm saying is they were fully aware, or should have been, that gambling in such a way was taken seriously by the league.

If you look at what Ridley bet on, and the amount, you'd see it was also small potatoes that cost him a season.

Ridley violated the league's gambling policy by placing three multi-leg parlay bets that included at least one NFL game in November 2021. The bets were made online with the Hard Rock sportsbook. He placed a three-team, five-team and eight-team parlay, risking $500 on each.

It sucks your coveted Lions players screwed up, so your biases will reach for excuses and claim injustice, but after a guy gets ejected for a full season the year before, I can't really can't feign any outrage over these kids messing around with gambling and having to sit 6 games. They violated established rules.

If you want different rules in place, that's a different discussion and subsequently up the NFLPA to broker. They negotiated the current rules when they signed the 2020 CBA. For example, that's the reason they are no longer facing discipline for marijuana use. We all agreed that was pointless and so the rules changed. I'd wager gambling will be discussed at the next CBA.

But as it stands, the old adage "f*** around and find out" still applies. And in this instance, I support the NFL being hardasses. Gambling permitted, even as innocuous as this, could undermine the entire integrity of the game. Once public trust is lost, you cannot gain it back easily, if ever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Zetterberg Era

newfy

Registered User
Jul 28, 2010
15,003
8,790
What I'm saying is they were fully aware, or should have been, that gambling in such a way was taken seriously by the league.

If you look at what Ridley bet on, and the amount, you'd see it was also small potatoes that cost him a season.



It sucks your coveted Lions players screwed up, so your biases will reach for excuses and claim injustice, but after a guy gets ejected for a full season the year before, I can't really can't feign any outrage over these kids messing around with gambling and having to sit 6 games. They violated established rules.

If you want different rules in place, that's a different discussion and subsequently up the NFLPA to broker. They negotiated the current rules when they signed the 2020 CBA. For example, that's the reason they are no longer facing discipline for marijuana use. We all agreed that was pointless and so the rules changed. I'd wager gambling will be discussed at the next CBA.

But as it stands, the old adage "f*** around and find out" still applies. And in this instance, I support the NFL being hardasses. Gambling permitted, even as innocuous as this, could undermine the entire integrity of the game. Once public trust is lost, you cannot gain it back easily, if ever.
Yeah its a rule and I'm not surprised he got suspended. I'm saying its a dumb rule, which it is.

Saying that a guy betting non-NFL games deserves the same suspension as guys who have beat their wives unconscious on camera is an interest take on F around and find out. The league has only taken that stand on guys betting non football games. Everything else, FAFO doesnt apply
 

izlez

Carter Mazur Fan Club
Feb 28, 2012
5,061
4,053
We don't know what he was betting on or how much. If he was betting big money on Alabama football while texting Bryce Young, that wouldn't just be some light fun and falling victim to a technicality of a rule.

Can the NFL legally prevent players from placing bets off of team property? I'm guessing the NFL wants to take a hard-line stance against any gambling at all, but they can only restrict so much. If that's the case, again, it wouldn't be some technicality. You shouldn't be betting
 

Hen Kolland

Registered User
Feb 22, 2018
9,566
8,497
We don't know what he was betting on or how much. If he was betting big money on Alabama football while texting Bryce Young, that wouldn't just be some light fun and falling victim to a technicality of a rule.

Can the NFL legally prevent players from placing bets off of team property? I'm guessing the NFL wants to take a hard-line stance against any gambling at all, but they can only restrict so much. If that's the case, again, it wouldn't be some technicality. You shouldn't be betting

How much was bet is inconsequential to the rule. If you find out that he's betting $50k a pop, then you may be concerned that you are someone with a pretty sizable question mark as it comes to responsible decision making, but it doesn't make the action more or less against the rules.

Now the Bryce Young scenario has nothing to do with the legality of Jameson Williams involvement. How does Williams talking to Young differ at all from Young's 10th grade math teacher talking to him? What you are characterizing is an issue with Young, not with Williams. It's no different than Jameson texting with Jaden Ivey while betting on Pistons games.

Williams doesn't have a direct impact on Alabama football games or NBA games or WNBA games or Australian cricket games. He does have an impact on Lions games, and the safest way for the league to ensure that they are protected is to make it illegal for any player to bet on any NFL game. Cast a wide enough net to cover all potential influences of your own product; let the other leagues worry about themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ed Ned and Leddy

Ed Ned and Leddy

Brokering the Bally Sports + Corncob TV Merger
Apr 1, 2019
3,925
6,457
Detroit to DC to Chicago
I think it’ll be Witherspoon at #6, but mocks have been pandemonium the past few days.

Also before the draft I wanted to circle back to Frk It’s question and say I actually would draft Bijan at #18, but I don’t think he’ll be there.

I still hate that we’re likely not bringing in anyone to even challenge Goff, but I’ll make peace with it.
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
11,577
9,624
I think it’ll be Witherspoon at #6, but mocks have been pandemonium the past few days.

Also before the draft I wanted to circle back to Frk It’s question and say I actually would draft Bijan at #18, but I don’t think he’ll be there.

I still hate that we’re likely not bringing in anyone to even challenge Goff, but I’ll make peace with it.
If the Lions go corner at 6 and running back at 18, I might throw something out the window.

They need a pass rush. Take the most disruptive guy up front at 6. If they want to go corner at 18 I'll live with it. But they still have plenty of more important work to do in the trenches.
 

Ed Ned and Leddy

Brokering the Bally Sports + Corncob TV Merger
Apr 1, 2019
3,925
6,457
Detroit to DC to Chicago
If the Lions go corner at 6 and running back at 18, I might throw something out the window.

They need a pass rush. Take the most disruptive guy up front at 6. If they want to go corner at 18 I'll live with it. But they still have plenty of more important work to do in the trenches.

Spoon isn’t my first choice at #6, although I do like him he’s a dawg, that’s just the way I think we go based on what I’m seeing outta Vegas and the profile of players that Holmes targets.

Tough for me to gauge what pass rush option is there at #6 through the smoke right now. Don’t think best front 4 player available at #6 is the worst strategy, but I honestly don’t love the talent there this year. If we could trade back I probably would.
 

Hen Kolland

Registered User
Feb 22, 2018
9,566
8,497
Spoon isn’t my first choice at #6, although I do like him he’s a dawg, that’s just the way I think we go based on what I’m seeing outta Vegas and the profile of players that Holmes targets.

Tough for me to gauge what pass rush option is there at #6 through the smoke right now. Don’t think best front 4 player available at #6 is the worst strategy, but I honestly don’t love the talent there this year. If we could trade back I probably would.

Was thinking the same on the trade back scenario. If the Eagles rumor of wanting to move up to 6 if Carter is around, I think I would take that chance.

I don't believe that it would be 10+30 coming back alone, but if it ended up being a structure of like 6+55/81 for 10+30 with Philly paying a bit extra (how much is the debate) by the value chart, I would take that chance.

Then at 10, you set the table where Spoon/Gonzo make more sense if they are there. You put yourself in a position where maybe you liked Nolan Smith or Lukas Van Ness closer to the top 2 edge guys more than most and you are happy with those options
 

ChaosLord

Registered User
Jan 16, 2010
5,209
1,204
Lions with the #6, #18, #48 (#17 second round) and #55 (#24 second round) picks.
Even Matt Millen couldn't screw this up.
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
11,577
9,624
Just took what fell to me:

1682624935064.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ed Ned and Leddy

Reality Check

Registered User
May 28, 2008
16,994
2,746
Would’ve liked a little more than #34 for that drop tbh, but don’t mind moving back at all. Think the talent in this range is pretty interchangeable.

Samesies.

At the same time, I would have passed and take Carter. Now I'm wondering if they really go WR at #12.

Which, with this defense, would be a mistake.
 

YpsiWings

Registered User
Feb 5, 2016
1,191
480
I think it’s going to be Van Ness from Iowa, cornerback at 18, TE, LB and DT 34 & 48 & 55.

Edit : Nevermind, Can’t believe they took a RB that wasn’t Robinson in the first round.
 
Last edited:

Bench

3 is a good start
Aug 14, 2011
21,417
15,482
crease
Ummm... Gibbs? What Lions? Didn't you just sign a great RB?

I mean the Lions have plenty of other picks but that at #12 I don't get.
 

BSHH

HSVer & Rotflügel
Apr 12, 2009
2,160
281
Hamburg
This is the same feeling when Avila did not draft Mayer at #3 but Jobe. The anticipated draft gets deflated immediately.

This feels wrong on so many levels. I was already not too happy about the return for trading down, but then the Lions took a player who
- fills one of the least valuable positions,
- does not fill a current need (with similar RBs Swift and Montgomery under contract),
- would likely have been available at #18 and perhaps even at #32,
- might have benefited a lot from good teammates at Alabama. Unless Gibbs becomes one of the best RBs in the league (which is not very likely), he will be overpaid in year 4 at the latest.

Obviously, two years of not being a laughing stock was enough for the Lions. I did not miss the old times too much.

Gruß,
BSHH
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad