Big O on QAM just said... | Page 4 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Big O on QAM just said...

HAH AHAHHH.... I love this quote:

"I'm not sure he'll be there [at No. 20]," said Andrew's agent, Rich Moran. "If he is, then he wants to go [to the Dolphins]."

Which could just as easily have been stated as:

"I'm not sure he'll be there [at No. 19]," said Andrew's agent, Rich Moran. "If he is, then he wants to go [to the Vikings]."

:roflmao:
 
The overwhelming poll says [over 70%in the SS] we go OL. More even say QB than WR. For wehatever it's worth.
 
Gonk said:
I will be very happy if we select a WR with our #1 pick. Hell, we could pick another Randy Moss if we get lucky (Randy was selected 21st overall in 1998)
Click to expand...
ya he fell to 21 cause he was a headcase , why wouldn't we pick andrews even if they say he's a headcase , he can be the next moss ... great player that fell because rumors had it that he was a headcase. we need help on the OL and andrews can and will help us . i say use our 20 on him
 
ckparrothead said:
Unfortunately aside from Andrews there is no OL worth going for at #20.
Click to expand...

....And why not???

If that player proves to be a solid addition, they will be worth it. That's how I look at it. You can't judge a player by his "draft worth". You have to do it once he gets on the field, and shows what his worth is as a player....

Smiley is worthy of first round status IMO. So is Carey. If we miss out on Andrews / Smiley / and Carey because we traded down, will it be worth it then???...

PHINZ RULE!!! :cool:
 
I cant believe that this is a smokescreen by Big O. A smoke screen would usually be about us not thinking he is a good fit, not dedicated enough, or too many health concerns. You dont use "this guys a head case and a locker room disturbance" as a smokescreen. Smokescreens dont usually include attacks on a guys character, what if we do take him what kind of message does this send to him about our organization.
 
Actually, it was kind of dangerous for Big O to say that if it weren't true. Big O is either stupid, ignorant, or he really trusts the source he heard it from.
 
Fins2theend said:
I cant believe that this is a smokescreen by Big O. A smoke screen would usually be about us not thinking he is a good fit, not dedicated enough, or too many health concerns. You dont use "this guys a head case and a locker room disturbance" as a smokescreen. Smokescreens dont usually include attacks on a guys character, what if we do take him what kind of message does this send to him about our organization.
Click to expand...

Maybe they know this and are using "character" as a new smokescreen, to make it look more legit.

It's a lot like "double secret probation" that way. :)
 
But legally if it isnt true then Big O could be sued for slander and defamation of character. Especially if his report causes Andrews to lose out on money by falling in the draft. Im not a sue happy guy but if I was Andrews and this wasnt true I would be PISSED!!!
 
To succeed in a slander lawsuit, Andrews would have to prove that the comment made was: a. knowingly false (or at least made with wanton disregard for the truth), b. malicious and c. damaged him. Questioning someone's "character" is a pretty nebulous thing. That means that proving, in court, that he's a person of high character and not a head case is going to be really hard. Also, his claim for damages would be weak. One could easily argue that his stock dropped because of his fat ***, not because someone spread rumors about him being a head case.

In short, Andrews would lose such a lawsuit. He'd also get that reputation of being a head case that he wanted to avoid.

Stuff like this happens every year. Players rise and drop because of unfounded rumors. The reasons I just outlined for you are why no one brings a suit for slander: because it's damn near impossible to win in their situation.
 
I believe "reckless disregard for the falsity of the comment" also satisfies the culpability element of "public figure" libel, doesn't it? "Reckless disregard" is satisfied if he was unsure whether it was true or not, but made the statement anyway, isn't it? Yes, "public figure" libel is more difficult to prove, but it's still a rather dangerous comment for Orlando to make if he didn't have strong trust in his source.
 
Well, I said "wanton disregard", you said "reckless disregard". To-MAY-to, to-MAH-to...

My understanding is that it has to be more than unsure of knowing whether it's true. It has to be not caring in the least if it's true, and perhaps even having a good idea that it's not true. If Big O said that in good faith (which he probably did), it's very hard to prove.

Character is a very nebulous thing, and it's hard to say that there may not be some truth to it. Slander and libel will usually revolve around hard facts being true or untrue. Vague references to a guy being a head case just won't fly. Now, if Big O (or whoever) said that Andrews suffered from manic-depression, THEN he might have a case. It's documentable, and can be proven or disproven in court.
 
It was quite a bit more than "he may be a headcase", though he definitely said that. He said [paraphrasing here]: he hid the fact that he had polyps from the team; he's a lockeroom lawyer - a troublemaker; he took himself out of the independence bowl; his coaches grew so frustrated with his failure to practice diligently, they just threw him out there and said, "well, he's talented enough to get by on this level"; he's got an opinion on everything and tells everyone about it; openly questions the coaches; he was seeing a physician without telling the team about it, hiding his treatment; quite a bit more which I can't remember. If you had listented to it, it was pretty severe and beyond "a troublemaker" or "headcase". These weren't just non-actionable comments of "opinion"; they were particularized statements of fact.

You could be correct on what constitues reckless disregard; it's been 14 years since I was in Con Law; IIrc, "NY Times Malice", was satisfied by a conscious awareness that the statement may not be true, but you make the statement anyway.

[Edited to include the following:] No, now that I'm thinking about it, I'm pretty sure that the "reckless disregard" component didn't require that the speaker be pretty sure the statement was false, BUT, it was the requirement that there be "clear and convincing evidence" of reckless disregard that created an additional hurdle for recovery under public figure libel.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ckparrothead said:
Unfortunately aside from Andrews there is no OL worth going for at #20.
Click to expand...


I would take Carey at 20. But no matter, if their is a trde deal in the works, I hope we just sit tight til our pick and THEN if neither of our target guys are there, go ahead with the trade. I would hate to trade ouit of the pick beforehand and find out one of our guys could've been had. That's what makes day 1 of the draft so interesting. Day 2 ain't all that, IMO.
 
Agua said:
You could be correct on what constitues reckless disregard; it's been 14 years since I was in Con Law; IIrc, "NY Times Malice", was satisfied by a conscious awareness that the statement may not be true, but you make the statement anyway.

[Edited to include the following:] No, now that I'm thinking about it, I'm pretty sure that the "reckless disregard" component didn't require that the speaker be pretty sure the statement was false, BUT, it was the requirement that there be "clear and convincing evidence" of reckless disregard that created an additional hurdle for recovery under public figure libel.
Click to expand...

From my Instructor's Edition of Business Law with UCC Applications:
"The US Supreme Court has given journalists the extra protection of the actual malice test when they write about public officials. In the actual malice test, a public official must prove not only that the statement made or printed was false, but also that it was made with actual malice. Actual malice means that the statement was made or printed either with the knowledge that it was false, or with a reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. Later decisions have expanded the actual malice test to cover public figures, such as...sports figures."

So, as I read that, the writer/speaker either needs to know its false, or not care if it's false. And therein, of course, lies the proof problem we've discussed. Andrews would have a very hard time proving by clear and convincing evidence that Big O either knew, or didn't care, that what he was saying was false.

Of course, truth is the ultimate defense to a slander/libel action. And hopefully, this isn't all true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom