Anders Carlson

[Voyageur]

Agreed. He has, or had, some recent baggage with the ****** assault charge in London, but the NFL said there wasn't enough to back it up. I have mixed feelings about this. I guess in an otherwise incident-free 11 year career, he gets the benefit of the doubt. But the Jags whacked him for a reason. Hopefully for a better kicker rather than the alternative.

He's an upgrade. Career 81% or so I read somewhere. Go with it and keep an eye on the guy, assuming he hits FGs.

Not much difference except McManus has a stronger leg. He has a history of 50+ FGs. But, we have to remember, his home games were in Denver, so that's a factor.

You're right on the 81%. We've seen people bring out the tar and feathers for someone with that percentage, so it remains to be seen how he's accepted. Miss one, and no doubt, he's gonna be dog meat to some fans. Make a key kick and he's rehabbed and now following in Mother Theresa's footsteps.

Fans ae kind of that way.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Agreed. He has, or had, some recent baggage with the ****** assault charge in London, but the NFL said there wasn't enough to back it up. I have mixed feelings about this. I guess in an otherwise incident-free 11 year career, he gets the benefit of the doubt. But the Jags whacked him for a reason. Hopefully for a better kicker rather than the alternative.

I am guessing that no other team wanted to touch him as well back in Sept., at least until everything was well vetted and the legal process played out.

I keep finding the same information and wonder if it has changed. Basically, what I am finding is this:

1. The 2 women filed the SA complaint against McManus as "Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2", hoping to avoid the public backlash/scrutiny that they might face.

2. The Judge dismissed the complaint due to it being filed by "Jane Doe's", stating "Fairness requires Plaintiffs be prepared to stand behind their charges publicly in the same way Defendant McManus must openly refute them."

3. The women's lawyer, Tony Buzbee, who also represented many of the women involved in Deshaun Watson's SA cases, said he had anticipated that and they would refile. Basically stating, "this isn't over."

4. The NFL investigated the situation and decided at the end of Sept. to not pursue any discipline against McManus.


So if this isn't over and the women refile correctly, this could end up being a nightmare for McManus, as well as the Packers.

I really hope that Gute and the Packers did their research and vetted this well. It is one thing to have the drama of an inconsistent FG kicker, but quite another to have the drama surrounding a very public SA court case of an NFL Football player.

“desperate times call for desperate measures” ~Hippocrates

 

[Heyjoe4]

Not much difference except McManus has a stronger leg. He has a history of 50+ FGs. But, we have to remember, his home games were in Denver, so that's a factor.

You're right on the 81%. We've seen people bring out the tar and feathers for someone with that percentage, so it remains to be seen how he's accepted. Miss one, and no doubt, he's gonna be dog meat to some fans. Make a key kick and he's rehabbed and now following in Mother Theresa's footsteps.

Fans ae kind of that way.

Fans are that way and I'm no different I guess. I always thought 80% plus was a decent average over a number of years. I've been surprised at the disagreement on that. But I'll take 80% and taking 3 from 50-55 rather than punt or risk a 4th down.

But even the great kickers can fall off. Zeurlein has had a good career, but he missed from 32 and 44 in the Jets' loss. Yikes that makes Narveson look good.

 

[Sanguine camper]

I am guessing that no other team wanted to touch him as well back in Sept., at least until everything was well vetted and the legal process played out.

I keep finding the same information and wonder if it has changed. Basically, what I am finding is this:

1. The 2 women filed the SA complaint against McManus as "Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2", hoping to avoid the public backlash/scrutiny that they might face.

2. The Judge dismissed the complaint due to it being filed by "Jane Doe's", stating "Fairness requires Plaintiffs be prepared to stand behind their charges publicly in the same way Defendant McManus must openly refute them."

3. The women's lawyer, Tony Buzbee, who also represented many of the women involved in Deshaun Watson's SA cases, said he had anticipated that and they would refile. Basically stating, "this isn't over."

4. The NFL investigated the situation and decided at the end of Sept. to not pursue any discipline against McManus.


So if this isn't over and the women refile correctly, this could end up being a nightmare for McManus, as well as the Packers.

I really hope that Gute and the Packers did their research and vetted this well. It is one thing to have the drama of an inconsistent FG kicker, but quite another to have the drama surrounding a very public SA court case of an NFL Football player.

“desperate times call for desperate measures” ~Hippocrates

I would hope the Packers looked into the complaint to judge its severity. If it's something that could be pleabargained down to a settlement, I think they would take their chance. If it's something more severe, shame on the Packers for getting near him. None of it's good, but one shouldn't lose sight of the distinctions in the severity of the charges. My hunch is that it's perhaps less severe since the league didn't take any action. If the complaint was for some reason sealed, then in no way would I touch the guy If there's no way in judging the severity of his actions. By the way, he wouldn't want me on his jury. The dude looks creepy to me.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

My hunch is that it's perhaps less severe since the league didn't take any action.

I don't pretend to represent the league, but I doubt they could take any action, once the initial complaint was dismissed. We have seen this before. Accusations being made, the NFL taking notice, but letting the process unfold before taking any action. I think the NFL would be subjecting themselves to a ton of lawsuits if they took action on someone that by law is "innocent until proven guilty."

So sure, the NFL may have vetted it more than we know, but I would hope that the Packers took it about 10 steps further and made sure that this is behind McManus.

This was about all I could find on "what the NFL did":

"The NFL reportedly interviewed 30 people during their investigation of the allegations and two weeks ago decided there was not sufficient evidence to discipline the veteran kicker. The accuser's attorney Tony Buzbee claims that the league never talked to either of the women who are suing McManus."

 

[Heyjoe4]

I am guessing that no other team wanted to touch him as well back in Sept., at least until everything was well vetted and the legal process played out.

I keep finding the same information and wonder if it has changed. Basically, what I am finding is this:

1. The 2 women filed the SA complaint against McManus as "Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2", hoping to avoid the public backlash/scrutiny that they might face.

2. The Judge dismissed the complaint due to it being filed by "Jane Doe's", stating "Fairness requires Plaintiffs be prepared to stand behind their charges publicly in the same way Defendant McManus must openly refute them."

3. The women's lawyer, Tony Buzbee, who also represented many of the women involved in Deshaun Watson's SA cases, said he had anticipated that and they would refile. Basically stating, "this isn't over."

4. The NFL investigated the situation and decided at the end of Sept. to not pursue any discipline against McManus.


So if this isn't over and the women refile correctly, this could end up being a nightmare for McManus, as well as the Packers.

I really hope that Gute and the Packers did their research and vetted this well. It is one thing to have the drama of an inconsistent FG kicker, but quite another to have the drama surrounding a very public SA court case of an NFL Football player.

“desperate times call for desperate measures” ~Hippocrates

Yeah I didn't see any of this info. Over the years, I trust in how the Packers decide on who to bring onto the team. None of this sounds very good though, especially if charges can be brought back. I just don't think Gluten would do anything to harm the team.

So trust the Packers vetting process. Can't do much more than that. I don't recall hearing about any earlier, similar allegations against McManus. If there is anything like that, then this is not a good call.

 

[gopkrs]

I'm curious and did not see it anywhere. What did he/them supposedly do?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm curious and did not see it anywhere. What did he/them supposedly do?

Women file amended complaint against NFL kicker Brandon McManus alleging sexual assault

Two women who sued NFL kicker Brandon McManus alleging he sexually assaulted them last year when they were serving as flight attendants on the Jacksonville Jaguars' flight to London have filed an amended complaint that includes their names.

apnews.com

 

[Half Empty]

Not much difference except McManus has a stronger leg. He has a history of 50+ FGs. But, we have to remember, his home games were in Denver, so that's a factor.

Kicker stats He's right at 55% over 50 for his career. Just a few active kickers are below that this year.

 

[Magooch]

In the past the NFL has had pretty broad latitude to hold players accountable for their off-the-field actions, even if the legal system has not done the same.

Taken from the personal conduct policy:

It is not enough simply to avoid being found guilty of a crime in a court of law. We are all held to ahigher standard and must conduct ourselves in a way that is responsible, promotes the values of the NFL,and is lawful...

...even if the conduct does not result in a criminal conviction, players found to have engaged in any of the following conduct will be subject to discipline....

Assault and/or battery, including ****** assault or other sex offenses; Stalking, harassment, or similar forms of intimidation; Disorderly conduct; Conduct that poses a genuine danger to the safety and well-being of another person; and Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL personnel.

And so on... of course that is not to say that the league has always implemented this standard well and/or with consistency, but just to say that even if a person is not found guilty of a crime or civilly liable of wrongdoing, the league still can enact their own punishment independent of that. I won't claim to know much of the details of this particular case and wouldn't consider myself qualified to make any sort of judgement on it, but I guess that's just something to keep in mind.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I just don't think Gluten would do anything to harm the team.

That is my hope too and I think you and I agree, SA charges aren't something to take lightly.

My guess is this. Enough information via interviews and fact checking is out there that Gute and the Packers attorney's are confident that this won't blow back on them or McManus. Possibly a settlement with the women and Jaguars/McManus is in the end stages.

I don't take SA lightly, so its really hard for me to just say "meh, wasn't a big deal and nothing should happen." I also think that public opinion on SA accusations is a lot different today as it was 30 years ago, as it should be.