SWA 2022: Chiefs Both Young and Dominant

Chiefs DBs Bryan Cook and Trent McDuffie
Chiefs DBs Bryan Cook and Trent McDuffie
Photo: USA Today Sports Images

NFL Offseason - Youth was served in the NFL of 2022.

The Super Bowl champion Kansas City Chiefs ended up 31st with a total snap-weighted age (SWA) of just 25.4. The only team younger than them? The playoff-contending Detroit Lions at 25.3. Four of the eight teams with SWA below 26.0 made the playoffs, including not just the Chiefs but also the New York Giants (25.5), Cincinnati Bengals (25.7) and Dallas Cowboys (25.9)?

And on the other side of the table? The oldest team in the league, shockingly, was not the Tampa Bay Buccaneers with 45-year-old Tom Brady at quarterback. They finished third overall, although first on offense. The oldest team in the league also wasn't the Green Bay Packers with 39-year-old Aaron Rodgers at quarterback. They finished eighth. Instead, the oldest team in the league was the New Orleans Saints, who led the NFL with a snap-weighted age of 27.6, 0.27 ahead of the second-place Patriots. The Saints and Patriots were boosted in age by having the oldest and second-oldest defenses in the NFL, respectively. None of the six oldest teams in the league last season had a winning record, although the Tampa Bay Buccaneers did make the playoffs at 8-9 and there were playoff teams in the SWA top 10 and close to it. (Buffalo was seventh, San Francisco ninth, Minnesota 10th, and Philadelphia 11th).

Usually, there is some correlation where the better teams come out with a higher SWA. For the last five years, the correlation of SWA and total DVOA was 0.26. However, for just 2022, the correlation of SWA and DVOA was negative at -0.15. For just offense, the correlation was -0.27.

2022 Snap-Weighted Age: By Unit

The following table shows SWA for the overall team (TOT), along with the unit breakdown for offense, defense, and special teams. Units are ranked from oldest to youngest.

2022 Snap-Weighted Age
Team TOT
SWA
Rk OFF
SWA
Rk DEF
SWA
Rk ST
SWA
Rk
NO 27.6 1 27.4 7 28.0 1 27.0 5
NE 27.3 2 26.7 14 27.9 2 27.5 1
TB 27.2 3 28.0 1 26.8 8 25.9 19
ARI 27.0 4 27.9 2 25.9 22 27.3 2
LAR 27.0 5 27.7 3 26.9 6 25.5 24
DEN 26.9 6 27.4 6 26.9 7 26.0 16
BUF 26.8 7 27.1 9 26.4 14 27.0 4
GB 26.8 8 27.5 5 26.3 19 26.2 14
SF 26.8 9 27.1 8 26.3 17 26.7 7
MIN 26.7 10 26.4 22 27.6 3 25.4 29
PHI 26.6 11 26.6 15 27.3 4 25.1 31
HOU 26.6 12 26.6 16 26.6 12 26.9 6
WAS 26.6 13 27.6 4 25.8 24 25.9 20
SEA 26.6 14 26.5 18 26.7 11 26.6 9
LV 26.6 15 27.0 10 26.3 18 26.3 12
NYJ 26.6 16 26.9 12 26.5 13 26.1 15
IND 26.6 17 26.5 19 27.0 5 25.8 21
MIA 26.6 18 26.4 21 26.4 15 27.2 3
BAL 26.5 19 26.6 17 26.7 10 25.8 23
TEN 26.3 20 27.0 11 25.7 27 26.5 10
LAC 26.2 21 26.1 23 26.7 9 25.4 27
JAX 26.1 22 26.7 13 25.7 26 25.5 26
ATL 26.0 23 26.1 24 25.6 28 26.7 8
CHI 26.0 24 25.9 26 26.0 21 26.2 13
DAL 25.9 25 26.1 25 25.8 23 25.8 22
PIT 25.7 26 24.8 32 26.4 16 26.3 11
CAR 25.7 27 25.5 30 25.8 25 26.0 17
CIN 25.7 28 25.2 31 26.1 20 25.9 18
CLE 25.6 29 26.4 20 24.9 31 25.0 32
NYG 25.5 30 25.7 28 25.3 29 25.4 28
KC 25.4 31 25.6 29 25.2 30 25.4 30
DET 25.3 32 25.7 27 24.8 32 25.5 25
NFL 26.4 26.6 26.3 26.1

The youngest teams in 2022 were very young, historically young in fact. The overall SWA for the entire league has dropped gradually over a decade before stabalizing at 26.4 during the last four years. But one result of the league as a whole getting younger is that the youngest teams in SWA are all recent. The Lions were the fourth-youngest team since 2006 and the Chiefs ranked seventh.

Lowest Total SWA, 2006-2022
Team Year SWA
CLE   2017   24.63
DAL   2018   25.25
CLE   2018   25.26
DET   2022   25.28
DET   2021   25.33
JAX   2020   25.39
KC   2022   25.39
JAX   2014   25.41
STL   2013   25.43
CAR   2010   25.44

The Pittsurgh Steelers offense (24.8 SWA) was also close to the youngest we've tracked. The 2014 Jaguars were the only offense any younger at 24.7, and the only other offenses below 25.0 were the 2017 Browns and 2021 Lions. The Steelers were at least a year younger than the NFL average at every offensive position, although they weren't the youngest at any specific position.

If you've been following these snap-weighted age articles each year, you may remember that year-to-year correlation in SWA dropped dramatically in 2020 due in large part to COVID shuffling rosters (as well as veteran quarterbacks Tom Brady and Philip Rivers changing teams). Correlation for defense and special teams rebounded significantly in 2021, but not offense. Well, offensive SWA had a much stronger correlation from 2021 to 2022, with a lot less change for most teams. Here's a look at the year-to-year correlation for each part of snap-weighted age, both last year and over the past five years:

Year-to-Year Correlation of SWA, 2018-2022
Years TOT OFF DEF ST
2021-2022 0.65 0.60 0.67 0.66
2018-2022 0.54 0.48 0.56 0.71

The Saints were the only team that saw their SWA go up by 1.0 from the year before. They ended up with Andy Dalton starting 14 games at quarterback, and he was 35. Left tackle was supposed to get younger with rookie Trevor Penning, but he got hurt so 31-year-old James Hurst was the starter. The rest of the offense was pretty much the same players as the year before, only a year older. On defense, Bradley Roby (30) replaced C.J. Gardner-Johnson (24 in 2021) as the nickelback. Safety got both younger and older with Marcus Maye (29) and Tyrann Mathieu (30) replacing Malcolm Jenkins (34) and Marcus Williams (25). In the front seven, as on offense, the Saints mostly ran the same players out there as the year before except they were a year older. The rookies who played a lot mostly replaced other young players. Wide reciever Chris Olave (22) played instead of Deonte Harty (25) and cornerback Alontae Taylor (24) played instead of Marshon Lattimore (26). The Saints had only drafted five players and those are the only two who really played.

Here's a look at the units with the biggest change in SWA from 2021 to 2022:

Biggest Changes in SWA by Unit, 2022
Team 2021 SWA Rk 2022 SWA Rk Diff
LV OFF 25.5 30 27.0 10 +1.6
TEN OFF 28.4 2 27.0 11 -1.4
DEN OFF 26.1 23 27.4 6 +1.3
PHI OFF 25.4 31 26.6 15 +1.2
NYJ DEF 25.3 32 26.5 13 +1.2
ATL DEF 26.8 11 25.6 28 -1.2

The Raiders got much older in a few places on offense. At wide receiver, you had Davante Adams (30) and Mack Hollins (29) as the outside starters instead of Zay Jones (26) and Bryan Edwards (23), plus Hunter Renfrow was a year older. Right tackle Alex Leatherwood (22) washed out quickly and was replaced by veteran Jermaine Eluemunor (28).

The youth movement for the Titans came primarily on the offensive line, although it wasn't all on purpose. Taylor Lewan (30) was injured while Rodger Saffold (33) and David Quessenberry (31) were gone. They were replaced by Dennis Daley (26), Aaron Brewer (25), and Nicholas Petit-Frere (23).

Denver's offense got older not only because of the arrival of 34-year-old Russell Wilson at quarterback but because of the snaps given to older running backs (including Latavius Murray, 32 and Melvin Gordon, 29) and older tight ends (Eric Saubert, 28 and Eric Tomlinson, 30).

Philadelphia's big changes included the return of guard Isaac Seumalo (29) playing instead of Jack Driscoll (24) as well as the small change of going from Jalen Reagor (22) to A.J. Brown (25). Most of the rest of the offense just stuck around and got a year older.

The New York Jets weren't particularly old on defense in 2022, they just were no longer extremely young as they had been in 2021. They got a full year from safety Lamarcus Joyner (32) and more snaps from players such as Sheldon Rankins (29). Free agent addition D.J. Reed wasn't very old at 26, but he was older than all the youngsters the Jets were putting at cornerback the year before.

For Atlanta, there was a lot of defensive turnover that led to a much younger unit in 2022. Safeties Erik Harris (31) and Duron Harmon (30) were replaced by Richie Grant (25) and Jaylinn Hawkins (25). On the defensive line, Tyeler Davison (29 in 2021) was out for the year and replaced by Abdullah Anderson (26). Linebacker got slightly younger by going from Deion Jones (27) and Foye Oluokun (26) to Rashaan Evans (27) and Mykal Walker (25).

Finally, a note about the New England Patriots. The Patriots had the biggest drop in special teams age from 2021 to 2022, going from 28.7 to 27.5. And yet, the Patriots still led the league in snap-weighted age on special teams for the fifth straight season! I would say this reliance on veterans is working out for them, except it isn't, as the Patriots fell to dead last in special teams DVOA last year. Things should be different in 2023, as the Patriots became the first team to draft both a rookie kicker and a rookie punter in the same year since the 2000 Oakland Raiders.

2022 Snap-Weighted Age by Position

Not all teams are old in the same ways. Because offensive SWA is so affected by the offensive line, and defensive SWA tends to give teams with young secondaries an advantage, it can be useful to see where teams are young or old in particular.

The following table lists every team's SWA in each positional group and is fully sortable. The colors trend from red (older) to blue (younger). Snaps listed are only offense or defense for all positions except special teams. The special teams number here differs from the special teams number above because on this table it only includes specialists (kicker, punter, and long snapper) instead of all special teams snaps by all players.

2022 Snap-Weighted Age by Position
Team QB RB WR TE OL DL ER LB DB ST
ARI 27.5 25.7 27.1 27.6 29.0 24.8 29.0 24.8 25.2 35.2
ATL 27.4 26.3 24.2 26.2 26.5 26.5 24.9 25.5 25.5 27.0
BAL 24.7 27.0 26.6 25.3 27.2 28.3 28.9 25.1 25.7 29.3
BUF 26.2 24.7 26.0 25.3 28.8 27.9 26.5 26.0 26.0 28.0
CAR 26.2 24.9 24.4 24.5 26.2 25.4 25.5 27.4 25.3 31.7
CHI 23.7 24.7 25.9 24.6 26.8 27.6 26.3 26.6 24.8 28.8
CIN 26.1 26.3 25.2 27.1 26.6 26.2 25.7 25.8 26.3 26.0
CLE 29.0 26.8 24.5 25.6 27.1 24.6 26.1 25.3 24.2 26.1
DAL 29.0 25.9 24.9 24.6 26.5 25.2 25.6 26.4 26.0 34.4
DEN 32.8 28.5 24.8 26.0 27.8 27.3 24.7 27.9 27.2 27.6
DET 28.0 25.4 25.6 24.5 25.7 24.9 23.9 25.8 24.6 26.7
GB 38.6 26.1 25.9 30.2 25.8 27.5 26.2 24.9 26.2 31.3
HOU 24.7 25.6 27.4 26.2 26.9 25.0 29.4 26.5 26.0 31.5
IND 34.2 24.1 24.3 26.2 26.7 27.8 25.5 26.2 27.8 27.9
JAX 23.1 23.7 27.7 28.3 27.0 28.3 24.6 25.3 25.4 25.2
KC 27.2 26.5 25.8 28.9 25.9 27.1 26.8 23.1 24.7 28.4
LAC 24.3 26.0 26.9 25.9 26.2 26.8 29.4 25.8 25.8 28.5
LAR 30.6 24.1 26.5 28.3 28.3 26.8 27.2 28.4 26.3 28.0
LV 30.3 25.9 29.1 26.5 25.8 26.5 27.2 26.7 25.7 27.0
MIA 25.0 27.6 26.2 26.7 26.4 27.2 27.1 27.0 25.5 29.2
MIN 33.7 26.5 26.6 25.8 24.9 26.3 27.4 29.4 27.5 28.3
NE 24.0 24.1 26.5 27.6 27.6 28.3 27.7 26.0 28.4 30.2
NO 33.1 28.1 25.4 25.9 27.1 27.3 28.5 28.8 27.8 27.0
NYG 25.3 25.6 25.9 24.7 25.9 27.4 24.7 25.2 24.7 30.7
NYJ 27.8 22.6 24.0 27.5 29.0 27.0 26.3 28.2 25.6 28.8
PHI 24.3 24.7 24.8 25.4 28.7 28.5 28.6 25.7 27.0 29.1
PIT 25.2 24.4 24.1 24.7 25.2 29.8 26.0 25.9 26.5 27.1
SEA 32.0 23.5 27.7 24.8 26.1 29.1 27.0 25.6 25.7 30.0
SF 27.6 27.5 25.0 28.5 27.6 27.6 25.9 25.6 26.6 33.1
TB 44.7 25.5 27.6 25.6 26.1 28.4 25.7 27.8 26.0 27.6
TEN 30.8 26.7 26.7 27.1 26.4 25.5 28.2 26.1 26.2 30.3
WAS 29.0 24.9 25.3 27.1 29.2 25.6 26.3 26.1 25.7 27.4
AVG 28.6 25.6 25.9 26.3 26.9 27.0 26.6 26.3 26.0 29.0

Comments

70 comments, Last at 31 May 2023, 3:05pm

#65 by GwillyGecko // May 12, 2023 - 3:49pm

I thought at the time that Araiza was getting railroaded based on the questionable, egregious and fantastical accusations from a single person(back then the allegations seemed bogus, and it's ludicrous for anyone to now think he's anything but innocent) and I hope the Bills make things right and offer him a half decent contract to rejoin the team.

Points: 0

#66 by guest from Europe // May 12, 2023 - 4:22pm

A question about contract termination: on what grounds is that? Did he get his money? If not and everything you wrote is true, can he sue and get the full contract money?

Points: -1

#67 by KnotMe // May 12, 2023 - 4:38pm

I think NFL teams can terminate contracts with non-injured players whenever they want if they are willing to eat the cap hit. According to OTC he got 216K as dead money due to guarantees but that is it. Not sure but I think he is a FA now. 

Points: -1

#69 by guest from Europe // May 12, 2023 - 4:59pm

Yes, i checked. His 6th round rookie contract was non-guaranteed. i thought all rookie contracts are guaranteed for 3 years. Apparently not. So, it was a release out of non-guaranteed contract.

 

Disclaimer: i don't have an opinion on this rape case. The reports are conflicting. 

Points: -1

#27 by theslothook // May 10, 2023 - 1:38am

Let me start with the part of this post I have the hardest time with.

 

Your approach is to presume that the 17-year old was lying or mistaken, and until someone can prove to you otherwise, you're going to continue to presume that she's lying or mistaken. 

I never said this. I don't even think I intimated this either. Saying one should wait for the full facts before passing judgement is absolutely not the same thing as assuming the alleged victim is lying. Furthermore, I never took the ESPN article as proof that Araiza was innocent either. I simply said, it helps to have all of the facts. Search all you want, but nowhere did I make the claim you have ascribed to me. Hard not to be personally offended reading that to be honest.

I also find it odd how much else you've ascribed to me based on the idea that judgement should be reserved before a proper accounting of the evidence has occurred. Or stated another way, why the heck should someone shoot from the hip and react when they aren't fully informed? Somehow, suggesting patience implies illogic?

I just think it's unreasonable to expect them not to have an opinion, and even more unreasonable to expect them not to act on that opinion, during periods of uncertainty.

 

This brings about some more questions to ponder:

You are saying, sometimes it's reasonable to act before all of the facts are present. Just when is it inappropriate to do so and who decides? Is it ok for some people to react with little evidence but not others, or should everyone be encouraged to behave this way?

If the evidence is pure hearsay, is it still ok for a mob of people to call for someone to be fired? What recourse do such people face when it turns out they were spectacularly wrong? Especially when we are talking about a diffuse group that is unlikely to be sued.

If it turns out Matt Araiza is innocent, is anyone going to be issuing a mea culpa and demanding he gets his job back? Is anyone here who wrote him off as a rapist psycho going to bother posting an apology?

Just why is it reasonable for people who are not informed on the full facts to be taking actions anyways? When does it start to go into overreach, or is that justified as well? Why should we be ok/encouraging people to action with little evidence in the first place? Is that how you would teach your kids?

Imagine if this were applied in other domains. How would you feel if climate policy, econ policy, prison sentencing, and other social issues were left to knee jerk public opinion based entirely on news articles and second hand gossip? Would you want this? Or is someone's lost livelihood and ruined reputation considered a perfectly acceptable low cost bad outcome? 

 

You've jumped to the conclusion that the information in this article is the final word on the matter, even though the trial hasn't even occurred yet

 

I never said this either. I have never stated his innocence or his guilt. I will emphasize:  I never claimed Araiza was guilty when the news first broke out, nor do I claim he is now innocent of what he has been accused about. Rather, I simply stated; I am uncomfortable going with knee jerk reactions proclaiming his guilt or his innocence when we aren't informed about the incident beyond surface level news reports and he said, she said testimonies.

Points: 3

#32 by Eddo // May 10, 2023 - 9:29am

"You are saying, sometimes it's reasonable to act before all of the facts are present. Just when is it inappropriate to do so and who decides? Is it ok for some people to react with little evidence but not others, or should everyone be encouraged to behave this way?"

It sounds like you're trying to determine some universal truth here, but that's not ever going to be the case.  Every situation and decision maker is going to have different threshold here.  They'll incorporate, either implicitly or explicitly, their own morals, time constraints, assumptions about public reaction, etc.  In this case, I'm sure the Bills weighed the costs of cutting him when he's innocent vs. the cost of continuing to employ him when he was guilty, and decided the latter was greater.

And we know that even within the league, different teams have different thresholds.  Some teams stayed away from Deshaun Watson for moral reasons.  Others were probably interested, but didn't want to pay too much.  And, of course, at least one team was willing to overlook all the risks and acquire him.

You've mentioned working in the machine learning field before, and I wonder if that's impacting your stances here.  I work in software engineering and it's really tempting to find a "correct" and logical solution to things, but real life is never that clean.  Humans are social and emotional creatures, and that impacts every decision everyone makes in some capacity, and will never really change.

Points: 1

#33 by theslothook // May 10, 2023 - 11:25am

I would probably blame my econ training for forcing decisions down a very logical set of rules and doing a bunch if and then analysis + on the one hand but also on the other.

Just a point to clarify. I don't blame the Bills at all for this situation. Given the circumstances, Matt Araiza was far more trouble than he was worth. And so those actions based on limited information make sense.

My argument is aimed mostly at the general outrage from ordinary people. Their knee jerk reaction, to me, is wrong and all of what I said above holds. 

When I referenced the comments in that FO thread, it was aimed that way. I didn't even bother asking them, "But how do you even know that he's guilty?", because we all know they didn't but the presumption of guilt so neatly aligned with the need for righteous justice and what made them feel good.

Let me turn it around and ask you or anyone who cares to respond. "How do you feel about people demanding he lose his job before a full accounting of the facts are discovered? How would you feel now that the facts paint a much murkier story - video evidence and witness testimony say he wasn't at the party at the time the victim said the rape occurred? Once more, how would you feel if your own livelihood and reputation were tarnished based entirely on he said, she said statements?"

 

This reflexive need to demonize, unfortunately, I've seen way too many times manifested in the form of xenophobia. Some perceived ailment in society gets aimed squarely at the feed of some group that people don't like. 

 

Points: 0

#35 by Eddo // May 10, 2023 - 12:05pm

I'll give it a go:

"How do you feel about people demanding he lose his job before a full accounting of the facts are discovered?"

I do sympathize with your implications (maybe even outright statements?) that the general public wants action faster than is ultimately reasonable, so I don't love that action was taken before all the facts were discovered.  However, in reality, as others have pointed out, we still don't have a full accounting of the facts - and the Bills felt they needed to do something when the evidence at the time pointed to him being guilty of sexual assault.  So I think people were justified based on the information at the time, especially given he had admitted to sexual activity with the underage victim.

"How would you feel now that the facts paint a much murkier story - video evidence and witness testimony say he wasn't at the party at the time the victim said the rape occurred?"

This isn't super cut-and-dried.  I do believe there are instances where "guilt by association" is completely valid, albeit something that's very subjective and will vary on a case-by-case basis.  Far too many people in privileged positions - whether that's a formal position of power or merely being a white man in a society that still favors them - stand by while injustices happen.  So unless he left the party and tried to get the bad actors to stop, or has enough "goodness" about him that it offsets some of this badness, I'm not really going to feel bad that he doesn't get to make millions of dollars.

"Once more, how would you feel if your own livelihood and reputation were tarnished based entirely on he said, she said statements?"

This is tough.  I mean, of course, nearly everyone is going to feel sorry for themselves if they get fired for any reason.  No one wants that.  But in reality, the chances of a completely innocent man being taken down by "he said, she said" accusations is very low - so it's not something I practically worry about for people who are not doing bad things.

It also takes a lot to actually tarnish someone's livelihood and reputation.  Has he been unable to get a job that pays him well enough to live since then?  At a personal level, it's hard for me to feel that my empathy for someone whose only consequence is no longer being able to have the seven-figure job they would have had, otherwise, unless they have been actually imprisoned or forced below the poverty line wrongly.

Points: 0

#37 by theslothook // May 10, 2023 - 12:12pm

Fair enough. And all are very reasonable positions to have. 

I admit to demanding a universality to this. A any and always call is rigid and inflexible, but at the very least, is applied even handily and consistently across all cases. Thats probably a position unique to myself.

As to Matt Araiza himself. To me, there is a very big difference between left the party knowing a young girl was in the presence of a bunch of alcohol charged college students and knowingly participated in a gang rape of the young girl very much against her will. One of these suggests bad character and the other a violent criminal.

Points: 0

#54 by guest from Europe // May 10, 2023 - 2:40pm

demanding a universality to this.

This is supposed to be law. Hopefully it will be applied properly.

"Universality" in public opinion will never be reached. The only way i can think of is to stop expressing opinions about human behaviour and wait for "the institutions" to do their work. Which they may or may not do. In many countries they don't.

If Araiza did nothing wrong, hopefully he can sue the NFL in a few years and get some money from his contract back.

 

is applied even handily and consistently across all cases. Thats probably a position unique to myself.

It's not unique . It's moral idealism. Kant and others. I theoretically agree, but can't achieve this.

Points: 0

#41 by Aaron Brooks G… // May 10, 2023 - 12:33pm

Far too many people in privileged positions - whether that's a formal position of power or merely being a white man in a society that still favors them - stand by while injustices happen.

The first step in real bigotry is deciding your opponent is sub-human and can be othered without cost.

Points: 0

#45 by Eddo // May 10, 2023 - 1:06pm

I'll admit I'm not clear what your point is here - is it intended to be critical or supportive of mine?

Points: 0

#51 by Aaron Brooks G… // May 10, 2023 - 1:46pm

Critical.

Your 2nd through 4th paragraphs are basically classic examples of the lines of thinking that are required to result in really devastating examples of misjustice.

It's lynch mob and inquisition-type thinking.

Points: 0

#52 by theslothook // May 10, 2023 - 1:59pm

This is not aimed at your critique of Eddo's post. But just want to note; that's why I see an equivalence between Araiza and xenophobia. Reactions based off emotions can sometimes be understood/justified - a farmer in rural India murdering a man who raped his daughter. Or they can be really terrible; like residents in a village deciding an outbreak is the result of witchcraft and a subsequent stoning to death is warranted. (I was horrified to read about witchcraft in Tanzania that occurs EVEN to this day). 

Points: 0

#36 by Eddo // May 10, 2023 - 12:11pm

I'll respond to this separately, as it's sort of a different thought:

"This reflexive need to demonize, unfortunately, I've seen way too many times manifested in the form of xenophobia. Some perceived ailment in society gets aimed squarely at the feed of some group that people don't like. "

I'm with you here, in general, but that's not the case here.  Far more sexual assaults - particularly when committed by someone in a position of privilege, such as white male football player - go unpunished than punished.  The group being marginalized when it comes to sexual assault are victims, overwhelmingly women.  That's what the #metoo movement was going after, to show just how many women have experienced it and gone unacknowledged.  I'm positive that's why there was such a quick reaction against Araiza, because on its face this seemed like yet another instance.  #Metoo doesn't imply there are never any false allegations or women who lie, but if we over-correct by listening to more women and believing their stories, I don't think that's a bad thing.  (The caveat there being that it should still take evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to actually take away someone's freedom, but that was not done to Araiza, at least not yet, as the trial hasn't even started.)

Points: 0

#38 by theslothook // May 10, 2023 - 12:20pm

Also a reasonable perspective, although my remaining issue here is once again, I see it applied unevenly.

Kobe is one example, but consider this article I read recently on Magic Johnson.

https://www.basketballnetwork.net/.amp/off-the-court/frank-brickowski-talks-about-magic-johnsons-notorious-house-parties

Here's a short excerpt from it:

"He would have the finest girls in L.A. there. The absolute finest. And at midnight you had to get busy with somebody or you had to get the (expletive) out. So if you were a guy, at midnight, you'd get as close as you could to the hottest possible woman. Magic went around in this freaky voyeuristic way. He'd check on you. He'd go throughout the house, the pool. He'd order people to start doing things. All you had to be was near a chick. There were guys who would yell, 'Magic, she's not getting busy! She's not!' He'd run over and she'd get busy. Celebrity is seductive in L.A. Girls have this desperation about them, like moths to a flame. It's sad. But when you're young and single, fame matters."

One could read that statement in many different ways, but I find it interesting what Magic's reputation is and how this article was actually written as a positive, celebratory piece.

Points: 0

#46 by Theo // May 10, 2023 - 1:15pm

There has been an over-correction that opened the door to false rape/violence allegations, if you want to quickly want to ruin a man's career. Or when you just want to save your own reputation. 

You make an allegation and the mob does the work for you. 

The harm is quickly done and the punishment when found out relatively low. 

Points: 0

#25 by theslothook // May 09, 2023 - 3:42pm

Unlikely to make it as an extra point but I found this article on ESPN. 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/37589684/witness-says-matt-araiza-present-alleged-rape 

EDIT - curiously, the URL reads, "witness says matt araiza present alleged-rape" yet the title of the actual article, in case you don't click the link, says, " Witness says Matt Araiza wasn't present at time of alleged rape." The bold and italics are my emphasis.

Here's a link to a FO article where this topic came up.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/walkthrough/2022/trey-lance-justin-fields-and-preseason-stock-index?page=0

Sure, it doesn't prove his innocence to the extent that can be done, but it is something worth considering. I bring it up now for people who remember the original FO thread discussing Matt Ariaza's release. Many of the comments were particularly galling in their certainty of his guilt and subsequent release. Some of the comments in there are flat out embarrassing and the authors should be ashamed of themselves.

I remember the general outrage that followed Araiza, effectively calling for his release and branding him a scumbag rapist. In the aftermath, as far as I know, there is little to no mention at all calling for him to be signed back in the NFL. I doubt, had there been an Extra Point in FO, that those same commenters would have the decency to walk back some of their rush to judgements. But its not surprising; the mob mentality's role for dolling out vigilante justice has little time for patience nor nuance, let alone logical consistency for that matter. As long as the firing squad hits the evil targets, who cares if a few innocent bystanders get shot dead along the way. Collateral damage. Out of sight, out of mind. 

In the comments, I made the point that we need to exhibit a little caution before rushing to judgement. Let the full facts come to light before we feel the need to protest. Clearly, calls for patience and caution lost out to emotionally charged pearl clutching. A plea to everyone who reads this: If you are someone who is predisposed to just believing someone is guilty sight unseen; please please please do yourself and society at large a favor by waiting for the full facts to come out. 

Points: 1

#26 by Lost Ti-Cats Fan // May 09, 2023 - 11:04pm

I've debated whether to post a reply or not, and decided to proceed.  Not because I think it will change your mind.  You have your philosophy and your view of the world.  So consider this simply an attempt to explain why not everyone may see this the way you do. 

From where I stand, what I see is that you're advocating for your own illogical inconsistencies and jumping to your own conclusions, and the solution you're proposing to the problem you perceive doesn't necessarily lead to a better society.  

It's not logical, to my mind, to claim that employers should not be allowed to hire or not hire people based on the facts known to them at the time.  It's not logical to assume that "the full facts" could ever come to light.  It's particularly not logical to assume that the American justice system will surface and publicize the full facts.  It certainly won't do so in a timely manner.  And the standard that an employer sets for themselves need not conform to the standards of the criminal or the civil justice systems, and probably shouldn't.

People need to make decisions based on what they know at the time.  Just like you're doing with this article you quoted.  You've jumped to the conclusion that the information in this article is the final word on the matter, even though the trial hasn't even occurred yet (I believe it's set for October).  Maybe conflicting facts will come out, maybe they won't.  All that matters, from my perspective, is that the Bills were well within their rights to make their decision based on what they knew when the released Araiza.

Maybe the fact that Araiza admitted to having oral sex with a minor was sufficient grounds for the Bills not to want to employ him.  Maybe what Araiza did or didn't tell them about the incident prior to the Bills drafting him was sufficient grounds for the Bills not to want to employ him.  This doesn't seem to matter in your philosophy, because you're of the view that people should not be held accountable for their actions until sufficient evidence is presented to satisfy your standards.  Which is fine, if you're the one hiring Araiza.  Go ahead and put him on your football team if you'd like to employ him.  I'd watch him play, doesn't fuss me.  But if the Bills - and the other 31 NFL teams - don't want to hire him because of his past behavior, that doesn't fuss me either (absent collusion, which always lurks beneath the surface of NFL behavior, but that's going off on a different tangent).

This is not a case of vigilantes taking justice into their own hands.  No one is being executed, contrary to your colorful rhetoric.  The power of the state is not being wielded to oppress anyone.  What is happening is that free people are exercising their free choice to employ, or not employ, to watch, or not watch, entertainers for reasons that are sufficient to them.

I know it galls you that those reasons are sufficient to others when they aren't to you.   But your stated solution to this issue is to impose your standards on the whole of the rest of society.  Everyone should wait, take their time before rushing to a judgment that differs from yours.  In your mind, that's better.  But I don't think it is.  If someone other than the Bills wanted to hire Araiza, they could have.  I think that's better.  Not everyone has to have the same opinion, not everyone has to behave the same.  Let people make up their own minds; let anyone who wants to influence their opinion do so, but ultimately we all make our own choice. 

Your approach is to presume that the 17-year old was lying or mistaken, and until someone can prove to you otherwise, you're going to continue to presume that she's lying or mistaken.  That's a reasonable position for the criminal law system to take - in fact, the best position for it to take, in my opinion, although it has the unfortunate side effect of encouraging sexual assault victims to shut up, lest they be assaulted a second time by a court system that presumes them to be liars - but it's a ridiculous standard to impose on everyone else.  I can make up my own mind about who I want to associate with and spend my money on, and I'll do so for my own reasons, thank you very much.  You're free to make a different decision.

I do think that you're right that people should look for facts and reserve judgment as best they're able.  I just think it's unreasonable to expect them not to have an opinion, and even more unreasonable to expect them not to act on that opinion, during periods of uncertainty.  Because things are almost always uncertain.  And "do nothing until we know more" is absolutely not a neutral position.  That's forming an opinion ("I'm good with this until I learn more").  It may be an opinion based on an underlying matter of principle for you, but it's still forming a current opinion that drives your behavior ("I'll act like this is nothing until I learn more").

Points: 1

#28 by theslothook // May 10, 2023 - 1:48am

Your post covered a lot so replying in a separate comment.

I think the source of our disagreement specifically to the Araiza being cut stems from the reasons why. If you think he was cut due to lies, or statutory rape, or other such issues...I agree, those are perfectly valid reasons.

However, if he was cut because of the outpouring of public outrage that an alleged rape perpetrator was playing for the bills and it was best to cut ties because he was merely a lowly punter, in my opinion I find that rational far less acceptable.

 

 

Points: 0

#29 by guest from Europe // May 10, 2023 - 4:19am

was cut because of the outpouring of public outrage that an alleged rape perpetrator was playing for the bills and it was best to cut ties because he was merely a lowly punter

Araiza was released and remained unemployed becuse of PR-reasons of rape accusation that you wrote and a punter can easily be replaced. A QB-position player accused of a series of rapes  was sought by multiple other teams after the accusations and was suspended for 11 games. He will play for many years.

In NBA K. Bryant was arrested and about to be trialed for rape, it was settled out of court, nobody should talk about it and such a player is now a role-model and statues are built to celebrate him. NBA has great PR-department. He wasn't suspended for a single game during court trial. When a journalist wrote in 2020 that this occured, she was suspended:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/washington-post-suspends-reporter-after-kobe-bryant-rape-allegation-tweet-n1124031

 

 

If i may say, this seems to be the source of disagreement on a general level:

I do think that you're right that people should look for facts and reserve judgment as best they're able.  I just think it's unreasonable to expect them not to have an opinion, and even more unreasonable to expect them not to act on that opinion, during periods of uncertainty. 

You want to have full information until passing a purely rational judgement. Lost Ti-Cats Fan says people are allowed to have an opinion  and make decissions, judgements without full information, based on some information.

Both worldviews are valid. It's an interesting discussion.

Points: 0

#30 by Eddo // May 10, 2023 - 9:24am

"You want to have full information until passing a purely rational judgement. Lost Ti-Cats Fan says people are allowed to have an opinion  and make decissions, judgements without full information, based on some information.

"Both worldviews are valid. It's an interesting discussion."

This is really interesting, I agree.  I actually think a far smaller number of decisions are rational than people think; our emotions guide so many of our choices.  Even seemingly rational decisions like finances usually have some element of risk tolerance, which is a very emotional decision.

Points: 0

#39 by Aaron Brooks G… // May 10, 2023 - 12:26pm

It's probably easier to conceptualize human thinking as heuristic, rather than rational.

Consider stereotypes. Rationally, they are dubious. However, in the sense that they are 1) usually accurate and 2) vastly time-saving, we adopt them on a heuristic basis as extremely efficient.

Points: 0

#43 by guest from Europe // May 10, 2023 - 12:50pm

It's probably easier to conceptualize human thinking as heuristic, rather than rational.

All human thinking (concerning abstract things, society ... ) or some personal decisions (what to do, everyday stuff...)?

Points: 0

#49 by Aaron Brooks G… // May 10, 2023 - 1:37pm

*waves hands vaguely* Something like that. *waves hands vaguely*

Points: 1

#34 by theslothook // May 10, 2023 - 11:33am

Your post about Kobe is something I touched on in the Gruden post and got universally slammed for it. Kobe was forgiven, raised to folk status, and has been lionized ever since even though he effectively admitted he raped her. Yet Matt Araiza was effectively labeled an evil rapist based on allegations and no formal proof at that moment.

More evidence that the mob is incredibly fickle about who deserves what punishment for what crime.

Let me quickly say that for me personally, I am inclined to lean on forgiveness when someone shows true contrition for a terrible mistake. Zach lowe touched on this in a podcast after Kobe 's death. Some years prior, Kobe reached out to Zach to discuss some things. Zach was leery to deal with Kobe because of deep reservations he has related to the Colorado incident. Zach was assured by many of his friends who knew Kobe that he had now gone out of his way to help women and showed real contrition for his actions. 

Points: 0

#40 by Aaron Brooks G… // May 10, 2023 - 12:28pm

Kobe did an enormous amount of work to rehabilitate his image, although he was likely also enormously fortunate he had a daughter rather than a son.

\while Kobe was nearly a perfect clone of Michael Jordan, as it regards an awareness of larger social perception, Kobe was vastly better than MJ.

Points: 0

#47 by guest from Europe // May 10, 2023 - 1:21pm

This good work that rapist Bryant did, he did later, in his 30s. In his 20s he denied the rape, then used all his money and attorneys to try to attack the victim, they claimed that somebody else raped her the day before and that caused her injuries, they claimed she wants his money and so on. A full year of that. He got absolutely zero punishment for his actions! Even most of the sponsors such as Nike stayed with him, because "he is such a good player".

If anybody forgot, i found here the details of their testimonies to the police, what happened later, that she totally broke down, the details of his statement in trial and so on. Her blood was found on his t-shirt, he strangled her, there were marks around her neck. To me this is brutal rape.

So, no punishment is needed if someone sincerely does good social work years later? You surprise me, theslothook. I am no lawyer, nor sociologist. What would happen to any society if this became a praxis? 

Points: 0

#48 by theslothook // May 10, 2023 - 1:36pm

My opinion on this caries no more authority than the ordinary person. So please take it for what its worth. The chargers were dropped and he was let out. Much like OJ, the criminal justice system failed but its his prerogative to beat it. Meanwhile, lots and lots of poor people are talked into plea deals because they don't have the money to poke holes in the prosecution's case and are forever labeled criminals.

For me personally, what can I do? Hate the man forever? Maybe I am too soft on this issue, but I tend to become swayed by people who express deep remorse. This isn't limited to rapists. Murderers who find redemption in prison write with remarkably clarity both a) how stupid their decision was and b) how monstrous the consequences were for the victim. Maybe I am being conned, but there is real remorse. I don't see prison as purely punitive. It should be rehabilitory. And I do think people feel great sadness for their actions.  As Aaron Brooks mentioned, the fact that Kobe had a daughter probably impacted him even more on this issue. 

Points: 0

#50 by Aaron Brooks G… // May 10, 2023 - 1:44pm

That may be true, but my take was somewhat more cynical in nature than that.

Much (but not all) of Kobe's public image rehabilitation was via his interactions with his second daughter, Gianna, and his pushing of female sports in the context of her sports activities. I don't know if that effort would have been so successful had his sports-forward children been sons, like MJ had, rather than daughters, like Kobe had.

Regardless, Kobe used everything at his disposal really effectively.

 

Points: 0

#53 by guest from Europe // May 10, 2023 - 2:18pm

The charges were dropped because she was psychologically unstable and didn't want to testify in court after all the things his lawyers did. She knew his lawyers would go at her with all their might about her sex life and her underwear and anything and everything....

 

who find redemption in prison write with remarkably clarity

On this i agree. For any act when someone is punished and they truly remorse i am for giving them a new, clean opportunity. The punishment doesn't have to be prison. Long social work is way better than prison.

However, this guy is a hero, it isn't allowed to talk about what he did or you may get fired, during all the years before his good work, he did a lot of bad work. For many years he showed no remorse.

Sure, you don't have to hate him. In a comment below you write that you want it to be universal treatment for everyone! That is the law treatment. Who gets such a treatment that rapist Bryant did?

The following is nothing personal: why do you then ask what some commenter wrote here after it was published that Araiza participated in gang-rape? They felt enraged after reading some article. Let's assume that Araiza is not-guilty. Maybe this will be proven a few years from now. Maybe then these commenters and general public will show genuine remorse like Bryant did. If you are willing to wait for years to Bryant show remorse and forgive him, you should do the same to anyone who wrote comments without having the full information. These two opinions of yours are in collision. Regarding Bryant you are thinking with hindsight bias.

 

On a general level, i agree with you, everyone should get the universal treatment. In practical sense this is really hard to achieve. There are too many people, too many events, conflicts between them...

 

 

 

Points: 0

#55 by guest from Europe // May 11, 2023 - 4:11am

I thought you would get a lot more scorn by others here, so i didn't want to "throw stones" at you, theslothook. It seems noone has reacted. So, i would really like to know how did you get to the thoughts you expressed here: at the same time you are worried what someone posts here because 

"Once more, how would you feel if your own livelihood and reputation were tarnished based entirely on he said, she said statements?"

and you think the rapist Bryant reached redemption.

I know nothing about off-court Bryant except this rape case. I know he was an ego-maniac in the NBA, destroyed a championship team, held conferences on parking lots to destroy it even more years later, was a very selfish player until his last game. So, try to convince me that this man showed true remorse. What, when and where and how did he do this? Put some links with dates. I wrote above what his lawyers did, there is a link to details of police statements, evidence... you agree he commited rape and admitted it. Are you really sure the rape victim has had a good life in the last 2 decades? Did Bryant make anything good later towards her? (links please)

To me some PR-stuff or appearances or money donations or playing with children aren't good enough. Is there anything that he did for some rape victims in L. A. or something? Something with "his own hands" where he had to suffer with them, not just words?

Aaron Brooks wrote that he is cynical so he does or doesn't agree with you. He can speak for himself.

The way you wrote it, if you were a juror during trial you are willing to let anyone go if that person shows true remorse. Words are equally important to you as actions.

Maybe I am too soft on this issue, but I tend to become swayed by people who express deep remorse. This isn't limited to rapists.

You are very honest, so i will give you the benefit of a doubt as far as i can. On an abstract, idealistic level i agree with you and Immanuel Kant about reserving judgements. I wish i was that good of a person, but i am not.

Points: 0

#56 by theslothook // May 11, 2023 - 9:15am

To be 100 percent clear, I never myself forgave him. I am a warriors fan who hates the Lakers, so I never spent a minute rooting for him. And of course, the minute he retired, he largely disappeared from the NBA as far as I was concerned. He was never a color commentator. He never wrote recaps or long articles on a series. Yes he did Detail, but thats on ESPN insider and I didn't have access.

I mentioned the redemption angle because in a podcast with Zach Lowe, he had I believe Ramona Shelburne or Rachel Nichols, and they explained all the ways he had attempted to atone for his past. Up to that point, I had virtually the same opinion of Kobe that I always had. Great individual scorer, but largely an overrated all timer with a terrible past that was largely being ignored. 

Kobe after his fifth ring had everything. An unending legacy, universal love and adulation, and untold millions. He simply didn't have to change a thing about his behavior or feel anything differently. But those women said Kobe did try. I then started to change my opinion on him.

Of course, he is now dead. I felt terrible that so many innocent people, including his daughter, died and in that way. I felt for his wife who lost two members of her family just like that. But as far as the topic of Kobe the person, well, his death has effectively ended any continuing thoughts on that as well. 

Points: 0

#57 by guest from Europe // May 11, 2023 - 3:20pm

This has nothing to do with Bryant, the NBA player nor his family.

Are you saying that you thought he reached redemption because you heard it on Lowe podcast? That's it? Nothing more? Then you are very gullible, at least.

I searched now what he did for charities etc. It's a lot of money donations, public appearances, playing basketball with kids, a lot of PR. This is all fine. I can't find anything else quickly.

What i did find is this article https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-02-04/kobe-bryant-sexual-assault-survivors-legacy

You can read how she received serious death threats. This rape trauma doesn't go away. This will stay in her brain until her death.

Here is something with comprehensive thoughts of Bryant https://slate.com/culture/2020/01/kobe-bryant-rape-allegation-coverage.html

His donations are acknowledged, but it's also about this

Part of the legacy of that rape case was the extreme victim-shaming that Kobe’s lawyer did, and that the media ran with. The law didn’t protect her, the legal system didn’t protect her, and the media certainly didn’t protect her. And so a lot of people do remember that, and remember him never, never reckoning with that. Him still enforcing the nondisclosure agreement—a couple of years ago he did an interview with the Washington Post, a big feature, and they reached out to her and she couldn’t talk because of the NDA.

And that’s important. That impacted a lot of people too, as did, of course, his work in women’s basketball, and his relationship with his daughter. It all exists. And it’s uncomfortable that it all exists, but it does. And ignoring it doesn’t help. I think ignoring it just makes survivors from all communities feel more shame, feel more confused, and feel like they’re not a part of our culture, our society.

This is no redemption. Victims are more important than money donations.

Bryant was worse than Watson, in my opinion. He got away with unsanctioned rape.  Watson may still be trialed or may "find redemption years from now".

Your comments from yesterday about Bryant are unacceptable to me.

(Again, maybe you or someone else has more info, where he really hepled her or any other rape victim. I found only rape denial.)

Points: 0

#58 by theslothook // May 11, 2023 - 3:41pm

Your comments from yesterday about Bryant are unacceptable to me.

I am genuinely confused what comments I made that you find so unacceptable. I never said I personally felt like he redeemed himself. As I mentioned above, Kobe practically vanished from my mind the minute he retired. He stopped appearing on tv or general media that I consume. Sure, his name was mentioned here and there but I tried to put it out of my mind. So again, he simply never entered my mind. Should I have remained outraged at him? Well, there's unfortunately lots of injustices in this world and it would be a sad universe if all anyone ever did was occupy their mind with the outrages of humanity. And this is not aimed as any kind of defense, but there are far worse monsters guilty of far worse crimes than Kobe to occupy one's mind if you so choose. Right now, we have one country waging a war against another country purely for megalomaniacal reasons. Senseless deaths and destruction, threatening a nuclear calamity, for no reason but a man's ego. Does it bother me? Yes. Can I do anything about it? No. So does it occupy my thoughts over everything else going on my life? No.  

I guess you felt like I had forgiven Kobe because I mentioned Zach Lowe. Let me clarify this point. I said I personally don't take the position that once a monster, that person stays a monster. I have forgiveness in my heart(although god only knows if that would still be true if I or someone close to me were the victim of a crime). 

I mentioned Zach Lowe because HE found something redemptive with Kobe. He did. Not me. However, because I respect Zach Lowe for his talent as a writer and podcaster, but also his general demeanor and character; it said a lot that he found a redemption in Kobe. So that made me start to change my mind about him. 

 

Points: 0

#59 by guest from Europe // May 11, 2023 - 5:11pm

Then i misinterpret this comment of yours:

For me personally, what can I do? Hate the man forever? Maybe I am too soft on this issue, but I tend to become swayed by people who express deep remorse. This isn't limited to rapists. Murderers who find redemption in prison write with remarkably clarity both a) how stupid their decision was and b) how monstrous the consequences were for the victim. Maybe I am being conned, but there is real remorse. I don't see prison as purely punitive. It should be rehabilitory. And I do think people feel great sadness for their actions.  As Aaron Brooks mentioned, the fact that Kobe had a daughter probably impacted him even more on this issue. 

in combination what you wrote before about that Lowe podcast on Bryant.

I just heard this Lowe podcast from January 2020 with Shelbourne and Nichols about Bryant. You can listen to it again, i can tell you my opinion now: it's a lot of crap and aggrandizing a player that "there was something about him" "he is a legend", than how they sent texts to each other, that Bryant was good with the media, he would become a media master etc. They mention "he was a tragic figure", "he was good and bad", there is no redemption explained. It's about NBA and sports media. Maybe there is another podcast. Maybe you missremember something.

Lowe can be no authority on this matter. Please read the two links i posted above or read some other article on this or find anything by Lowe or anybody that clearly explains the redemption angle.

 

I said I personally don't take the position that once a monster, that person stays a monster. I have forgiveness in my heart

i can agree with this. This would mean Bryant did something like this hypothetical

I, like Smith, wonder, “Could Bryant have also been pushed to take more direct action to stop sexual violence, or done so of his own accord, and what would that action have looked like? Would he have been embraced?

It’s a shame that never happened, especially when he publicly reckoned with his mistakes elsewhere.

Was Bryant the worst monster? No. Was he a true legend? Absolutely not. Was he a good person? No. He was a maniac on NBA courts and it was part of his personality. Was he equal to or worse than D. Watson? Yes. Did he help children? Yes.

You described recently Watson as a "scumbag". I can't accept anything less for Bryant. 

This is nothing personal. I appologize for being stubborn. But this is more important than NBA or NFL. You and me write many comments here about meaningless NFL. Please take some time to think about this and later tomorrow let me know your opinion of Bryant.

 

 

Points: 0

#60 by theslothook // May 11, 2023 - 6:44pm

I don't have much to add that I haven't already said. Kobe has not been part of my thought for a very long time now stretching back to before his death.

I wouldn't say zach lowe or that podcast swayed me into anything other than perhaps he had changed. PERHAPS. And once again, since he was no longer alive, I didn't put further thought, research, or effort into whether it was genuine. 

I can't tell if you think i'm somehow so devoted to his mythology that I'm desperate to believe he changed. Quite the contrary as I will maintain, I think he's one of the more overrated top whatever players in NBA history.

 

Rather, I share your general astonishment about how just about everyone has swept all of this completely under the rug. 

Points: 0

#62 by guest from Europe // May 12, 2023 - 5:48am

I can't tell if you think i'm somehow so devoted to his mythology that I'm desperate to believe he changed.

No. It seems to me that you read/listened to this redemption story and "ate it all up". You didn't write anything "perhaps" in above comments. You wrote that there is a redemption angle you heard on Lowe podcast and you are willing to forgive a rapist or a murderer. For a murderer you described in which case you are forgiving them. So, it seemed you are forgiving Bryant!

And once again, since he was no longer alive, I didn't put further thought, research, or effort into whether it was genuine. 

So i am asking you now for the last time to put effort and research if it's genuine. Send an e-mail to Z. Lowe if you will. 

Why is this very important? In a few hours i was searching for this redemption story that you mentioned, i found many articles where there were death threats made to her. A man was coming to get her. Police stopped him! There are many Bryant fanatics. Do not play with this. 

If you or Z. Lowe claim Bryant found redemption during his life, better be sure of it. Don't write maybes. The only person that could have given him full redemption was her. Not you, not me and certainly not media members. Otherwise you are somewhere between "insensitive to this matter" and "supporter of rape".

In the above quotes and links that i posted, you or anyone else can read how rape victims feel reading this. Do not do it.

Bryant could have publicly said many times "don't strangle women. That is wrong" or "don't send anyone death threats. This woman isn't guilty of anything" or he could have at least made a foundation for help to rape victims and actively participated in that counseling each summer of his life. Many rapes do happen.

He made a foundation to help children and donated some money. Nothing more, nothing less. In all the articles the journalists write he didn't do anything for rape problems. I take their word on that. She was not allowed to talk about it.  That means there is no redemption. To me it's unsanctioned brutal rape.

Bryant issued a stetement of apology on this. So did D. Watson! Why did you call D. Watson a "ghoullish scumbag"? Maybe he will also make a foundation a decade from now, it will be a redemption story, statues to Watson in Houston will be built and we will all celebrate Watson and Bryant on Lowe podcast.

If anyone disagrees with me on this topic, bring some hard evidence or i can't talk to you about anything else. This is a "cold case". No new evidence will be presented. We had some police info, blood evidence, injuries.

If it's unclear to you what are the moral and legal problems with this "story", take a look at an artistic interpretation of this problem: The Godfather Part I, opening scene. It lasts only 6 minutes.

 

On Araiza story, i agree with you. It's unclear what happened there.

If you at the end, after you do the research, find no true redemption in Bryant's story, you should do something about your comments above. Edit them in a proper way. Don't just delete. This is real life, not a computer file. If you find redemption, explain it in detail. That was Bryant: attention to detail, including legal ones. 

Points: 0

#63 by guest from Europe // May 12, 2023 - 2:49pm

This is a somewhat public sphere. You have to assume women, including raped women, are reading this. I am nobody in this, i don't matter. 

Your comments were:

#25 we shouldn't condemn Araiza until more info (a possible rapist)

#34 Bryant rehabilitated his image (he was a rapist), you are for forgiveness

#48 you want to forgive rapists and murderers if they show remorse

When some woman reads this and adds it up, what is she supposed to think of you? You didn't mention the victims first and foremost, you go on about rights of rapists. It looks really bad. Try showing this to some woman and what happens?

You can't assume anyone knows what you are thinking. On such matters you have to express yourself carefully.

Points: 0

#64 by theslothook // May 12, 2023 - 3:04pm

Ok, I think you have overread what I wrote and now are implying things about me that I never stated or intended. If anyone, especially women, are reading this; allow me to make my stance on this absolutely firm. This is frankly the last time I am going to comment on this topic:

1) I have no idea if Matt Araiza is innocent. I have no idea if he is guilty. I am not a police officer investigating the case. I have no knowledge about what happened other than what has been reported by third parties. So as far as Matt Araiza is concerned, I have no comment to make other than I don't know and people shouldn't feel certainty in either direction.

2) For murders and rapists; my personal philosophy has room for forgiveness. Maybe right, maybe wrong but this is just my personal philosophy. Unlike other things, I don't claim to have any special insight into this either and certainly would not demand others share this philosophy. If someone else feels like murders and rapists can never be forgiven and should burn in hell for eternity - that's their view and they have every right to feel this. Once again, for me personally, I have forgiveness for them provided they show tremendous remorse for their actions and come to the full realization that their actions severely harmed another human being. This is somewhat unknowable and once again, I don't claim to have any kind of defined criteria for what constitutes "enough" remorse. However,I was convinced when reading about Tookie Williams and became convinced of his redemption and remorse. I have listened to two podcasts with Dwayne Betts going over his redemption story for being a car thief. So for me, it is possible.

3) For the last time, I have not been convinced of Bryant's redemption. I, however, started to wonder,  Once again WONDER, if maybe he had. That was furthest extent. Saying I have forgiven Bryant as a rapist is utterly ridiculous. I never said that. If I may have intimated that, well, than that was a mistake and unintentional. Once again, I do not know if Bryant has redeemed himself or not. 

Points: 0

#68 by guest from Europe // May 12, 2023 - 4:47pm

Good to clean up the misunderstanding.

Points: 0

#31 by Eddo // May 10, 2023 - 9:25am

"EDIT - curiously, the URL reads, "witness says matt araiza present alleged-rape" yet the title of the actual article, in case you don't click the link, says, " Witness says Matt Araiza wasn't present at time of alleged rape." The bold and italics are my emphasis."

I've seen this with various "slugifying" functions, where common enough words are removed from headlines.  In this case, the common word ("wasn't") is pretty important to the meaning, but usually it's not as noticeable.

Points: 0

#61 by BSK // May 11, 2023 - 10:17pm

I gotta ask:

What was your take on Kaepernick's ouster from the league?

Points: 0

#70 by theslothook // May 31, 2023 - 3:04pm

Are you asking me?

I think it's sad. Kaepernick's heart was in the right place. I think he went about it poorly, but that doesn't mean he deserved to be blackballed by the NFL. 

Points: 0

#15 by guest from Europe // May 08, 2023 - 3:46pm

All these teams are very close by snap-weighted age: from youngest to oldest the difference is only 2.3 years. They are all well below age 30. To me this shows that the career of a NFL player is short and thus a lifespan of a well-built team as well.

 

Points: 0

#17 by Lost Ti-Cats Fan // May 08, 2023 - 4:59pm

Careers are insanely short, especially the paid part of the career.  Two to four years as an unpaid intern in college (this has changed slightly, but only slightly), followed by a chance at maybe three to five paying years, which is already winning the lottery, but then you need to win another lottery to have a career that stretches beyond five years.  The pay during those paying years is great, in isolation, but when combined with the lifestyle, it doesn't amount to much.  EDIT:  meant to say, combined with the lifestyle common for young athletes, doesn't usually amount to enough savings to to survive on this career alone.  Which isn't necessarily a problem - used wisely, the money they make can give them a great financial head start on their next career.

The only saving grace is that careers are over so quickly, the players are still young enough to learn a new trade to pursue for the rest of their working years.

Points: 0

#19 by theslothook // May 08, 2023 - 5:34pm

Dont NFL players accrue lifetime benefits based on years in the league? 

Points: 0

#20 by Lost Ti-Cats Fan // May 08, 2023 - 7:21pm

Hmm, looks like they do earn a pension, which can typically be drawn starting at age 55.  Looks like they need a minimum of 3 years (now, used to be 4 years prior to 2020). 

Based on the numbers I'm seeing, for a 3 year career, the pension is $21,000 per year from age 55 onwards.  I hope that's inflation adjusted, or else in the approximately 30 years from the end of their career to the start of the pension, that $21,000 per year will be worth about half that in real terms.  For a 10+ year career, the pension maxes out at $105,000 per year.

Points: 0

#23 by theslothook // May 08, 2023 - 9:27pm

U are right. They get 5 years. More generous than typical Americans but sadly not enough considering the profession 

Points: 0

#10 by Robopunter // May 08, 2023 - 1:55pm

Unless I've missed someone, the only age 30+ players currently on the Packers roster are Pat O'Donnell (32), David Bakhtiari (31) and Preston Smith (30) with De'Vondre Campbell also turning 30 this summer.

Points: 0

#8 by ImNewAroundThe… // May 08, 2023 - 12:54pm

Lol Marcedes single handily taking GBs TE room to the oldest despite only playing 41% of the snaps.

Thankfully, and finally, they're deciding to move on despite the pleas of casual fans and a couple players! 7.2 yards per game and no actual tangible evidence he's a good "mentor" to washed Jimmy Graham, out of the league Jace Sternberger, Deguara, Tyler Davis, Rob Tonyan (outside of his fluke year that many will blame his injury on it not continuing), etc. 

Here's to youth.

Points: 0

#4 by Aaron Brooks G… // May 08, 2023 - 10:45am

It seems worth remarking that the correlation between age and injuries seems to flow in the counter-intuitive direction that injuries result in a higher SWA.

Points: 0

#5 by theslothook // May 08, 2023 - 11:51am

I've always wondered something. Let's say a team spends exactly 1 dollar below the salary cap. Then suddenly, it has a rash of injuries and has to sign replacements to vet mins. Are they allowed to exceed the salary cap then?

Points: 0

#6 by KnotMe // May 08, 2023 - 12:10pm

Did this come up with the game in (2020?) when all the Bronco's QBs were dumb and got stuck in covid protocols so they had to start a WR? I suspect the league would grant waivers or something if something crazy (say a bus crash) happened but it's hard to see their being enough injuries for it to come up. That's partly why there IS a 53 man roster. 

Points: 1

#7 by Lost Ti-Cats Fan // May 08, 2023 - 12:15pm

As a I understand it, it depends on the player's contract.  If they still get paid on IR, it still counts against the cap, so adding a new player would put them over.  If the player's contract provides that they get paid less if they end up on IR, then that would free up some room.

Points: 0

#9 by IlluminatusUIUC // May 08, 2023 - 1:15pm

Players on IR count against the cap but not the roster limit, so the team would not be able to sign anyone until they cleared enough cap to accommodate the minimum signings. Technically a team only needs 47-48 players active to play a game, so as long as they can roll out that many warm bodies - off you go.

If a team is so capped that it can't cut anyone without penalties and can't field a full gameday roster, then it would have to play shorthanded up to a point. I've never seen a rule on minimum roster sizes but the NFLPA would step in if it was becoming a safety hazard. At that point the NFL would either start voiding the team's contracts to clear space or forfeiting their games (likely the former).

Points: 0

#11 by Aaron Brooks G… // May 08, 2023 - 2:01pm

At that point the NFL would either start voiding the team's contracts to clear space or forfeiting their games (likely the former).

Players don't get paid for a forfeit. I suspect the NFLPA would push back hard on either prospect -- it's a team-created problem, the players won't bear the burden of the cost.

Points: 0

#18 by IlluminatusUIUC // May 08, 2023 - 5:15pm

As far as I can find, there's no explicit provision for a minimum roster size. If the healthy bodies dwindled to the point where guys are having to iron man the entire game, the NFLPA would likely have to lean on a generic provision about ensuring the safety of the players to make its protest. In that case, it's a negotiation and the owners and union would have to come to an agreement because there's no obvious precedent. That's what they did with the Bills-Bengals game this year even though there was a rule.

Points: 0

#14 by Noahrk // May 08, 2023 - 2:31pm

You got a downvote, but that is my understanding as well. However, in the past it didn't matter as only the top 51 players counted towards the cap IIRC. I seem to recall the Saints didn't field a full 53 in the recent past for at least a few games, but maybe I'm hallucinating.

Points: 0

#16 by IlluminatusUIUC // May 08, 2023 - 4:49pm

The Top 51 rule applies before the season to handle the expanded rosters. After the final cutdown, the cap applies to all 53 + the IR.

Points: 0

#12 by Raiderfan // May 08, 2023 - 2:16pm

To me, there is nothing counterintuitive about it.  Teams try and get as many players on cheaper contracts (i.e. younger) that fit their roster build as they can.  If they get hurt—except for training camp, when there is still time to train up new guys—then teams sign replacements who they know can step in and play (i.e. older/veterans).  So, again to me, intuitively older players are more likely to get injured, but also intuitively injured players’ replacements are more likely to be older.

Points: 0

#3 by RickD // May 08, 2023 - 10:32am

Editing note, Aaron.  Last two paragraphs read "Further text".

Points: 0

#42 by andrew // May 10, 2023 - 12:41pm

We know you can't say anything, but we appreciate all you have built and look forward to the day when this unfortunate saga is over and we can go back to just good, fun football analytics.  

Points: 2

#1 by AFCNFCBowl // May 08, 2023 - 10:09am

NO didn't lose Brees this season

Points: 0

#2 by Aaron Schatz // May 08, 2023 - 10:27am

Well, that was a weird brain freeze on my part! I'll fix that.

Points: 0

Save 10%
& Support Aaron
Support Football Outsiders' independent media and Aaron Schatz. Use promo code SCHATZ to save 10% on any FO+ membership and give half the cost of your membership to tip Aaron.