Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Dec 13, 2013 -> 03:17 PM) The defense was that the parents were negligent in the raising of their child and he killed four people. I assume the parents were called to testify and thus this can be used against them in a court of law by the victims parents. The defense was that the parents raised a spoiled brat. I haven't read anywhere that the parents testified, I read that an "expert" testified that kids from rich families often "suffer" from this "problem." But again, being a negligent/s***ty parent doesn't mean they were negligent in causing this specific accident. You have to come up with a workable theory on that and there are only two that i'm aware of - an agency argument (I ordered my son to the grocery store to pick up something and he hit someone while doing my bidding....that's an agent-principal relationship) or that the parent negligently entrusted the vehicle to the kid. But that theory, at least in Illinois, requires that the parent know that the kid is such a s***ty driver that it was basically a strong likelihood that he was going to hurt someone. The only other theory i can think of is if the parents provided the alcohol or did something to basically encourage the kid to drive drunk.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Dec 13, 2013 -> 03:16 PM) I don't think they ever said anything about blood in her panties. It was referenced in that deadspin article.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Dec 13, 2013 -> 03:09 PM) The problem with this is that it's so UNLIKE Jameis Winston. Now, obviously, we don't know the guy personally, but from all accounts (recruiting stories, HS and FSU coaches, teammates, media members) pretty much anyone who has ever come in contact with JW lauds how mature he is, how he's a great guy, a great leader, always laughing and joking, and has great character. That doesn't mean he can't make a stupid mistake, but I have a hard time believing it. Plus, the timing of when this went public is ridiculously suspect, and the attorney of the accuser today just threw out accusation after accusation about things being tampered with, deleted, who was or was not there, etc. His DNA on her, blood in her panties, and her claim that it was rape should have been enough for a charge. Let a grand jury decide. The prosecutor took the law in his hands here and she unfortunately has no recourse other than a civil action.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Dec 13, 2013 -> 02:49 PM) I guess my question to the legal experts would be if the criminal defense attorney's theory as presented in court is usable by the victim in a civil suit against the parents. It might be, but it's not going to prove anything. Being a bad parent doesn't equate to negligence or an actionable cause of action.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Dec 13, 2013 -> 09:24 AM) Because the parents said so. The defense's case at trial was basically "this kid is a spoiled moron who gets whatever he wants and has no understanding of consequences because his parents never taught him." First, I doubt that the parents admitted to being bad parents. That was a theory the attorney ran with on behalf of the kid. Second, I think this is where the headlines and articles are a bit misleading. I'm not sure the "affluenza" stuff was a defense so much as an attempt to excuse his behavior. It's more along the lines of character evidence than an actual defense to the crime. It's not much different than putting granny on the stand and having her testify that he has never made a mistake in his life prior to that night. There's really no indication that the Judge even acknowledged that "defense" in her sentencing. All I've seen is the judge make mention that sending him to jail for 20 years, when supposedly he would have been available to be released after two years, was less of a punishment and wouldn't rehabilitate him. You'd also have to look at how Texas treats other similar cases (juvenile involuntary manslaughter) and find out if the sentencing trends lean towards forced treatment detention and probation and not jail time. It obviously seems way too light, but it might not be as outrageous as it sounds.

QUOTE (Jake @ Dec 13, 2013 -> 02:03 PM) I don't think he minds that so much as the prospect of indefinite rebuilding, since nobody tends to be so good at it that it can be achieved during one season I don't see why next year would need to be a rebuild. Barring something unforeseen you're going to have a core of Rose, Butler and Noah. Taj, Kirk and Dunleavy off the bench. Maybe a little more than the ordinary seasonal change but not much.

The stat they use takes away dropped passes by the WR and intentional misses like throwing the ball away. Rogers is a little over 80 percent. That's insane.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 13, 2013 -> 02:13 PM) What awful shows are you forced to watch because of your significant other or children? Mine is Project Runway. I've been watching it so long with my wife that I actually enjoy it now. Lots of Mickey Mouse Clubhouse and Jack and the Neverland Pirates. Luckily the wife and I like the same shows other than sports for me and CW shows designed for 16 year olds for her.

QUOTE (Jake @ Dec 13, 2013 -> 01:05 AM) What nobody seems eager to acknowledge that trying to tank may run Thibs out of town. This dude does not want to coach a developmental squad Honestly as much as I like the guy and want him to be the coach, if he can't see the bigger picture, f*** him. Goodbye. This year is going nowhere. Why not try and get another all start level talent to play with Rose next year?

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Dec 12, 2013 -> 06:07 PM) Nice backpedal. What bar am I setting? There's been all this talk about Zook around here. Same thing happened in his first 2 years. Were you calling for his firing then too? Or did you want to give him a chance to get his systems put in place and some consistency going? The point is, coaches have turned things around in year 3. Whether or not Beckman does that, I don't know. That being f***ing terrible your first two season is acceptable. I don't find that acceptable when you can see that the future doesn't really look any brighter. And no, people weren't clamoring for Zook to be fired because everyone understand we had a roster full of JV players (MUCH worse than what Beckman inherited) AND he IMMEDIATELY began recruiting not only D1 one players, but FIVE STAR D1 players. No one was ever thrilled with his coaching. EVERYONE was thrilled with his recruiting ability. And most fans expected that if he couldn't turn the coaching around we should fire him while we still had good players to get a coach in who could coach them up. Thank Guenther for f***ing that up.

Was listening to the Holmes and Speigel show and they had some advanced stats for QB's from profootballfocus.com. Apparently McCown is the 4th most accurate passer behind Rogers, Rivers and Manning.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 13, 2013 -> 10:56 AM) I tip them. They're standing in a s***ty bathroom all night long. It's ridiculous they're there (I only see them at bars in the city, though). Normally I'll give like $5 and say "remember my face, I'm covered all night". You're the reason they're there. I laugh when I see those guys at strip clubs. That's usually where I see them. It's a failed attempt to class a place up.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Dec 12, 2013 -> 04:49 PM) I'm not sure where anyone said it's "acceptable." But let me correct you, it's 1-15. You're going to have to make me do this, since you've now posted it twice. Do you know what Ron Zook's BT record was his first 2 years? * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1-15. And 4-19 overall. Really? Is that the bar you want to set? Zook at least brought in some top recruits. His first year he signed two 5 star guys. His 2nd and 3rd year were probably two of the top recruiting classes in the programs history. Has Beckman done that?

Reading that Stein blog about it is akin to reading the 9/11 conspiracy stuff. Total nonsense based on nothing but make em up conjecture created for the blog post he wrote.

Yeah I don't get that at all from anyone's perspective but the Knicks. Why would Thibs want to go to that headache of a situation? It's possible Carmelo takes off and they have little room to make improvements to the roster in the short term. Why would the Bulls want to part ways with him, even if he doesn't get along with Gar, when he's done nothing but win despite major injuries? I think all this nonsense started with the NY press and it became a talking point for Chicago media in a boring/s***ty start to the season.

Butch Davis wants a job.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Dec 12, 2013 -> 03:00 PM) To me, it really isn't different at all, except for the fact that you've then become the school that was so desperate that it violated the unwritten "at least three years" rule that, like it or not, applies to even the s***tiest of head coaches. When your AD has a sketchy reputation to begin with, you don't want to complicate matters by being "that school." I think that could hamper and slow the rebuild (and the ones after that), both with respect to recruiting and hiring. Now if you're talking about firing Thomas and Beckman together, that would mitigate that perception, but that certainly won't happen. Honestly I've never heard of the unwritten "at least three years" rule, and if there is such a thing, i think it's pretty stupid. Again, tell me who in their right mind thinks 1-18 in conference play in two years is acceptable, even for a guy taking over a s***ty roster (which we've established isn't really THAT s***ty given the defense they had last year and the offense they had this year). I've never heard of Thomas having a sketchy reputation. What's the back story there?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 12, 2013 -> 04:05 PM) I gave him a chance against Detroit and he lied to me. I dont give second chances. And we're in the middle of a playoff race...an important fact in this scenario of who should be starting, an injured star player or his back up that is playing well.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 12, 2013 -> 02:31 PM) If he picks McCown, McCown loses, Cutler leaves, Marshall leaves, etc, his career will quickly be done. Its why Cutler will be starting because for Trestman it really makes little career sense to start McCown and take so much heat. Completely disagree. The only way Trestman is gone is if in year three or four he's still not in the playoffs. Even if Cutler and Marshall both leave you've got a good o-line, a good receiving TE, a great do-it-all RB and a playmaking WR. The offense will continue to be a top offense IMO. Edit to your edit: some people might, but the vast majority won't. Seems to me a pretty large section, if not a majority, of Bears fans don't think it would be the end of the world if Cutler doesn't come back next year because they have Trestman leading the offense.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 12, 2013 -> 02:25 PM) Opportunities are a strange thing. Sometimes you look at history and go "What if". I think Cutler is the safe play if you are Trestman. Playing McCown would be a bold move, the type of move that puts your HC job on the line very quick if it goes wrong. I imagine Trestman feels that this may be his 1 shot at a HC job in the NFL, and its hard to risk it all on McCown. That being said, I would. Sometimes you catch lightning in a bottle and when you do, you have to take advantage of that moment, you cant fear the unknown. Eh, I don't think his job is on the line at all. Despite a .500 season Trestman's turned around a terrible offense into a great one in less than a year with a backup QB. And he's managed this many wins with a potential league worse defense.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Dec 12, 2013 -> 01:48 PM) I kind of split the difference between the two arguing camps on Beckman: Yes, he was an absolutely reach of a hire and in his 2 years has done way more to earn the label "incompetent buffoon" than "capable B1G head coach;" and yes, as much as he probably should be fired now (and almost certainly will be next year), firing a HC after only two years just typically isn't done for a reason, and an AD can do more long-term damage to a program by doing that, than by keeping a horrible coach one extra year. I really don't see anything positive at all about the guy. My thinking is, what harm is there to fire the guy and start over? He's not bringing in tons of awesome recruits that might decommit. It's not like he's got some amazing scheme that the roster has been molded for. We're at the bottom of the barrel anyway. This just isn't a case where the program would be set back another few years because the new coach would have to start from scratch. How is losing next year and firing Beckman then any different from where they are right now?

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 12, 2013 -> 01:52 PM) Because Jay is the starter. If Jay is healthy throughout the game and is rusty, well that really sucks, but he is the starter. The way I look at it is put any other starter in the same position. Say Manning goes down and his 2nd string comes in and performs well for 4 games(which, looking at their offense and weapons, is very possible). Does the 2nd stringer take the job away because he performed well? Should manning get the hook if he comes in and is rusty in the 5th game and they lose? Leaving Jay in the game while he is injured, that is different. He deserved criticism for that. But if your starter is healthy enough to play, you play him. Jay's not a hall of fame quarterback. He really hasn't done anything with the Bears to warrant this unquestionable devotion to him other than the hope that when healthy (an issue) and with the proper tools around him (we've now fixed every excuse I think) he's a good not great QB. Obviously I leave this up to the coaches and doctors to see if he's healthy. And I can agree that generally a starter should always keep his spot. But we're talking about a loss and they're out of the playoffs. This is an important game. I think he should have a short leash. If it's half-time and they're down 14 or whatever, you gotta pull him and see what McCown can do. And btw, I hope to God Cutler is amazing and puts up 500 yards and 5 TD's. I'd love it if he were the real deal and McCown is never heard from again. But using that old coaching mantra of "we feel we have the best chance to win with X at QB," that needs to be the deciding factor on Sunday.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 12, 2013 -> 01:43 PM) I think everyone just wants the win. The only thing that will get "meatheads" really going is if the Bears lose and Jay is bad. Why are you a "meathead" if you want the Bears to win and not lose on a decision to put a QB in who hasn't played in 8 weeks, over a guy that has played the best stretch OF ANY QUARTERBACK IN THE HISTORY OF THE GOD DAMN FRANCHISE? Can I repeat that point any stronger? The best f'n stretch of games as QB in ALMOST 100 YEARS.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 12, 2013 -> 01:36 PM) There will be blow back if the Bears lose, but there shouldnt be. From the minute Jay got hurt, Trestman has maintained that Jay will start when he is healthy enough to do so. Why the hell not? Healthy or not, Cutler missed what, 7 weeks? While the rest of the offense has played well together, he's been on the sidelines. If his timing is off or he's out of sync with the offense and the Bears lose, Trestman should absolutely be criticized for losing the season on this move, just like he was rightly criticized for leaving Cutler in the Detroit game about 2.5 quarters too long.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 12, 2013 -> 01:30 PM) He's not going to lose his job over it, so I doubt he'll care all that much. True.