So The Superbowl is Over (Unofficial 2007 NFL Draft/Free Agency Thread)

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Incorrect sir!

[bhlloy]

Could the Raiders possibly be more of a joke right now? You are coming off one of the worst seasons in league history. Do you work hard in the offseason under your new coach, trying to turn things around for the new season? Fuck no... you go to the NFLPA and cry that the practices are too hard, and get a whole week of minicamp cancelled. Go team!

[k0ruptr]

it's the Raiders. You can't expect anything more.

[JeeberD]

I'm embarrassed that two Miners are part of that organization. At least they were drafted there and didn't have any say in the matter...

[Doug5984]

Yesterday the Saints cut WR/KR Michael "The Beerman" Lewis, and DT/DE Willie Whitehead. Both are veterans that should have a chance to make a roster somewhere else. Lewis was still a good return man last year, but didn't quite have the burst he had a few years ago- and with all the depth at the position there just wasn't room for him on the roster. I like that they cut him this early- it gives him plenty of time to find a team before training camp and hopefully catch on with someone else, he is a good guy so I wish him the best.

Willie Whitehead has never been a starting talent- but has always been a great backup, steps up when needed and is has veteran leadership, and again probably wouldn't have made the final roster with all the young talent on the team- so best to cut him now and give him a chance to catch on with someone else.

[TazFTW]

Rhodes looking good with Raiders...

Originally Posted by KFFL

Raiders | Rhodes suspended four games
Tue, 3 Jul 2007 18:30:02 -0700
Jason Jones, of the Sacramento Bee, reports Oakland Raiders RB Dominic Rhodes has been suspended the first four games of the 2007 season for violation of the NFL's Substance Abuse policy. He can return to the active roster Oct. 1 and is allowed to practice during training camp while also taking part in preseason games. His suspension begins Aug. 31.

[JonInMiddleGA]

http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D8Q877980.html

Fox Sports Broadcaster Maas Arrested
Jul 8, 1:17 AM (ET)

PEORIA, Ill. (AP) - Former NFL player and Fox Sports broadcaster Bill Maas was charged with drug possession and weapons charges following a roadside safety check.

The 45-year-old Maas and a passenger in his Hummer, Sarah J. Murphy, 27, were arrested late Friday by Illinois State Police. During the stop, police indicated Maas seemed nervous, and he agreed to a search of his vehicle.

Police found a .22-caliber revolver, 5 grams of suspected marijuana, 6 grams of suspected cocaine and 28 pills of Ecstasy. Maas and Murphy were charged with possession of a controlled substance and possession of marijuana. Maas was also booked on a charge of unlawful use of a weapon.

"We didn't recognize him until about 5 p.m. this afternoon," Trooper Tony Halsey told the Journal Star of Peoria on Saturday.

Halsey said he had no idea why Maas and Murphy, both residents of Lee's Summit, Mo., were in the area.

They were taken to the Tazewell County Jail in Illinois and will appear for a bond hearing Sunday before a county circuit court judge.

Maas was drafted from the University of Pittsburgh by the Kansas City Chiefs in 1984, and was the NFL's Defensive Rookie of the Year. He was a two-time All-Pro selection. He played with the Chiefs until 1992 and joined the Green Bay Packers the following year.

Maas joined Fox in 1996. From 1998-01, he served as studio anchor and game analyst for NFL games. Last season he reported games for the network.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

he agreed to a search of his vehicle.

This has been the downfall of countless people. When asked this question, just say NO (if you actually have something). People think they will look innocent by agreeing to a search and will get lucky with the cops not finding anything. Wrong. If the cops have probable cause, they aren't going to bother to ask, they're just going to go searching. If they do ask, it's because they know they don't have probably cause; which was clearly the case here as the guy got stopped for a routine safety check. It's just dumb to say yes -- albeit dumb to have that crap in your car to begin with.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

If the cops have probable cause, they aren't going to bother to ask, they're just going to go searching. If they do ask, it's because they know they don't have probably cause; which was clearly the case here as the guy got stopped for a routine safety check.

Um.........no.

If they ask to search your car, that means they intend to search your car whether or not you agree. They've already established probable cause, and the outcome is the same whether or not you consent to the search.

They probably got asked the question in the first place because either the driver or passenger were visibly intoxicated or perhaps they noticed something odd in the backseat of the car after flashing their light inside of it.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Um.........no.

If they ask to search your car, that means they intend to search your car whether or not you agree. They've already established probable cause, and the outcome is the same whether or not you consent to the search.

They probably got asked the question in the first place because either the driver or passenger were visibly intoxicated or perhaps they noticed something odd in the backseat of the car after flashing their light inside of it.

No, sorry. That is not right. I think you are confusing suspicion with the legal term "probable cause" which is what is legally required to search your car without your permission.

[wade moore]

I love it when you two argue legalize.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I should add that the reporter who spoke with police wrote: "Police say Maas seemed nervous so they asked to check his car." Acting nervous is not probable cause.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I love it when you two argue legalize.

It's especially enlightening in the FA thread.

[DeToxRox]

NO! Who's going to do PBP for Lions games this year?

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

No, sorry. That is not right. I think you are confusing suspicion with the legal term "probable cause" which is what is legally required to search your car without your permission.

The line between reasonable suspicion and probable cause is very, very fine. Under Illinois v. Gates, probable cause is defined as "substantial chance" and does not even have to be more than 1/2.

Note that the story does not note the behavior of the driver of the car before it was pulled over. Nor does the story establish how the driver or passenger appeared (other than being "nervous") after being pulled over. I sincerely doubt that there was not "some" indication that either driver/passenger were impaired or were in the commission of violating a law.

The point is, that probable cause is not very difficult to establish. If the police pull you over and simply see that your eyes are bloodshot, they have probable cause to search the car for drug use (even if you are simply tired or have had a long day).

Thanks for making me pull open my crim law book for the first time in two months.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

The line between reasonable suspicion and probable cause is very, very fine. Under Illinois v. Gates, probable cause is defined as "substantial chance" and does not even have to be more than 1/2.

Note that the story does not note the behavior of the driver of the car before it was pulled over. Nor does the story establish how the driver or passenger appeared (other than being "nervous") after being pulled over. I sincerely doubt that there was not "some" indication that either driver/passenger were impaired or were in the commission of violating a law.

The point is, that probable cause is not very difficult to establish. If the police pull you over and simply see that your eyes are bloodshot, they have probable cause to search the car for drug use (even if you are simply tired or have had a long day).

Thanks for making me pull open my crim law book for the first time in two months.

The reporter talked to police and they're direct quote was he was "acting nervous." It was a roadside safety check. Clearly, this was not a case of erratic driving or a commission of violating the law, so in this particular instance I don't believe there is any probable cause from what I have heard so far. The police most likely would have stated if anything else suspicious was going on and they didn't.

Now to your broader point. Yes, there is a fine line between probable cause and suspicion. And bloodshot eyes "might" qualify depending on your jurisdiction, especially if coupled with other circumstances. However, none of this weakens my main point. Which is if you have something in your car, you NEVER say yes to a search when asked. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by consenting to the search. Nothing. People mistakenly believe that it makes them appear innocent and will help them, but it doesn't.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

It's especially enlightening in the FA thread.

My guess is that Bill Maas will soon be a free agent, so this is on-topic.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

NO! Who's going to do PBP for Lions games this year?

Ron Pitts?

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Now to your broader point. Yes, there is a fine line between probable cause and suspicion. And bloodshot eyes "might" qualify depending on your jurisdiction, especially if coupled with other circumstances. However, none of this weakens my main point. Which is if you have something in your car, you NEVER say yes to a search when asked. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by consenting to the search. Nothing. People mistakenly believe that it makes them appear innocent and will help them, but it doesn't.

So, if a police officer asks to search your car, and you politely say no, the police officer will simply say, "ok" and walk away?

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

It was a roadside safety check. Clearly, this was not a case of erratic driving or a commission of violating the law, so in this particular instance I don't believe there is any probable cause from what I have heard so far.

Ding, ding.

Also, roadside safety check is very vague. Perhaps it was a DUI Checkpoint, or Insurance checkpoint, or Seat Belt checkpoint.

There's not enough information or clarification in the above article cited to conclude that there was nothing to tip off police about something strange in the car which would satisfy probable cause.

[Clark]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

So, if a police officer asks to search your car, and you politely say no, the police officer will simply say, "ok" and walk away?

Yes, if he is following the law he should. It's a running joke among law enforcement about how stupid people are for consenting to a search.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Clark

Yes, if he is following the law he should. It's a running joke among law enforcement about how stupid people are for consenting to a search.

Which law is that?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

So, if a police officer asks to search your car, and you politely say no, the police officer will simply say, "ok" and walk away?

Sorry to say, but the answer to your question is often yes. And as I said before, regardless, there is no benefit whatsoever to saying yes. So, just say no, and then see what the cop does. And many times, they will walk away or whatever they find will be inadmissible in court -- so that's a win anyways for the driver.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Which law is that?

The United States Constitution's prohibition against unlawful search and seizure and the case law that interprets it.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Also, roadside safety check is very vague. Perhaps it was a DUI Checkpoint, or Insurance checkpoint, or Seat Belt checkpoint.

Yes, you're point being . . . . ? None of these provide probable cause for searching a car because someone is acting nervous. Not wearing a seatbelt, and not having insurance are not probable cause for a vehicle search.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

The United States Constitution's prohibition against unlawful search and seizure and the case law that interprets it.

Yep... In crim law our prof even made it clear that you always have the right to say no to a search if the police officer asks if s/he can. If something is in clear view, or you're already violating a law (aforementioned lack of seat belt or not having insurance), then they'll search regardless of consent if they feel its worth the time/effort.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

... or you're already violating a law (aforementioned lack of seat belt or not having insurance), then they'll search regardless of consent if they feel its worth the time/effort.

Yep.

US v Goddard
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...&no=0210962OPN

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Yes and no. In most instances, a search incident to an arrest is allowed -- of the person (one reason is to search for weapons), not necessarily a home or a car. You would still need to get a warrant for the search if the offense did not provide probable cause for a search (like a seatbelt violation). Moreover, the law breaking requires an arrest to even get to the stage that a search is allowable. No seat belts or insurance are misdemeanors, usually without jail time. While under the U.S. Constitution, I believe warrantless arrests for such minor misdemeanors are allowed, they may not be allowed in many jurisdicitions (states) that have chosen to impose more restrictive safeguards through statutes (or state constitutions) limiting warrantless arrests for minor offenses.

So, I submit once again, that to think a cop can go ahead and search your car because you weren't wearing a seatbelt or had insurance is a highly dubious proposition.

And again, regardless, there is still no benefit to consenting to the search.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

And again, regardless, there is still no benefit to consenting to the search.

This is where I'm with Vinatieri. If you know you have something illegal, there is just no benefit to saying "yes". I have absolutely no legal background, and I know that. Even if say 90% of the time the evidence is allowed, you've got that 10%. If you say "yes", that's 100% chance that evidence is allowed. (ok, well, probablly like 99% knowing about some defense attorneys)

[albionmoonlight]

Simple Rule: There is never any benefit to consenting to a search if you know that you have contraban in the area to be searched.

They might very well end up finding the stuff anyway, but there is no reason to make it easier on them.

[st.cronin]

I actually had my car searched once, by the Virginia State Police. I got a little nervous because I had bought the car used, and who knows what might be buried in the trunk - I had visions of a kilo of coke suddenly appearing.

I had gotten pulled over for having a brake light out, I think.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I actually had my car searched once, by the Virginia State Police. I got a little nervous because I had bought the car used, and who knows what might be buried in the trunk - I had visions of a kilo of coke suddenly appearing.

I had gotten pulled over for having a brake light out, I think.

Why does it seem like most stories-gone-wrong involve a car being pulled over for a tail light being out...

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

Why does it seem like most stories-gone-wrong involve a car being pulled over for a tail light being out in Virginia...

Fixed .

[JonInMiddleGA]

from http://radio-info.com

J.T. "The Brick" adds NFL play-by-play – for the Raiders TV coverage – to his day (or evening) job, hosting "Fox GameTime React" for Fox Sports Radio.

[miami_fan]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2938519

Last year, Rod Marinelli moved Cory Redding from defensive end to defensive tackle in the belief he could be one of the best defensive tackles in football.

On Monday, the Lions backed up that belief by making him the highest-paid defensive tackle in football. Redding, the team's franchise player in 2007, agreed to a seven-year, $49 million contract that included $16 million in guarantees, including $13 million in signing bonus and roster guarantees.

Redding will receive a little more than $20 million over the first three years of his contract.

Redding's agreement beat a 4 p.m. Monday deadline for franchise players. Had he not reached an agreement, Redding would have been forced to only accept a one-year deal with no chance of an extension until next season. Under those circumstances, Redding might have held out the entire training camp.

Now, he will be present for the start of camp and will work with Shaun Rogers in what Marinelli believes will be one of the more dominating interior defensive lines in football.

Redding's agent, Kennard McGuire, was unavailable for comment while he worked out the final paperwork to submit to the league before the deadline.

Initially, Redding wanted to hit the free-agent market and leave the team. Marinelli and the organization decided to franchise him and try to talk him into taking a long-term deal. Last Monday, both sides had a major breakthrough in negotiations when the Lions came within $400,000 a year of Redding's demands.

Talks slowed down last Friday and Saturday and the possibility of no long-term deal existed. On Monday morning, the Lions increased their offer and signed him for $7 million a year.

The Redding deal tops the five-year, $33.24 million contract given to Vikings defensive tackle Kevin Williams.

The 6-foot-4, 290-pound Redding was taken in the third round of the 2003 draft and started nine games as a defensive end as a rookie. In the past three years, he had 48 starts. Last year, he had career highs in tackles (47) and sacks (eight).

Senior writer John Clayton covers the NFL for ESPN.com.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Never even made a pro bowl yet.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Never even made a pro bowl yet.

Yet.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Never even made a pro bowl yet.

he should be ultra motivated now

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Yet.

I usually like to plunk down my 49 million on "already" rather than "yet."

[molson]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

Why does it seem like most stories-gone-wrong involve a car being pulled over for a tail light being out...

Because cops usually have good instincts. If they see someone they think is no good, they'll follow him around, looking for a reason to pull him over. The driver will see him, and won't speed, run a stop sign, etc, but the tail light is something they can't control.

(And criminals drive crappy cars).

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

I usually like to plunk down my 49 million on "already" rather than "yet."

Yes, but you, my friend, are not Matt Millen or William Clay Ford, Sr...

You also don't have a coach who has some strange fetish for defensive tackles.

In the Lions' world view:
Wide Receivers are to offense as defensive tackles are to defense.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Ah, it all makes sense now.

[JPhillips]

16 million in guarantees isn't bad over seven years. It really doesn't sound like a bad deal given his stats.

[stevew]

Steelers fans can relax. Essentially it's a 5 year deal starting this year, with 15m in guarantees, and 33m total. Basically ends up being a 4 yr/30m extension.

LATROBE, Pa. — The Steelers announced they have signed veteran safety Troy Polamalu to a four-year contract extension. Financial terms of the deal, which keeps him with the team through 2011, were not disclosed.

Polamalu (5-10, 207), who is widely considered the NFL's premiere strong safety, has been named to the past three Pro Bowls, including two straight starts, and was a first-team All-Pro selection in 2005 and second-team All-Pro honoree in 2004.

"Troy Polamalu is a very special football player who has been a key ingredient to our success over the past few seasons," said Steelers President Art Rooney II. "We are excited to know he will be a Steeler for many seasons to come."

Despite battling shoulder and knee injuries for much of 2006, Polamalu finished third on the team last season with 82 tackles after posting a career-best 100 tackles during the 2005 campaign. The Steelers first-round draft pick (16th overall) in the 2003 NFL Draft, Polamalu received the Joe Greene Award, following his rookie season for being the team's top rookie.

For his career, Polamalu has 308 tackles (231 solo), 10 sacks and 10 interceptions.

[MikeVic]

Good. Now how's the Faneca situation coming?

[stevew]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

Good. Now how's the Faneca situation coming?

Fuck faneca. His whiny ass will be somewhere else next year.

[rkmsuf]

Bears | Financial details on Tillman deal
Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:22:02 -0700

Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports the contract signed by Chicago Bears CB Charles Tillman is worth $41.5 million over six years with $18.5 million guaranteed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------



Haha. Suck it, Asante Samuel.

[spleen1015]

Tarick Glenn only needs one ring, I guess. He retired.

At least this will eliminate 2-3 false starts per game for the Colts.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm guessing Larry Johnson isn't going to be too happy with this latest development. I wonder if the Chiefs put in a secret phone call to make this happen..........


http://www.kansascity.com/sports/story/204520.html

Holmes tells Chiefs he wants to come to camp
By ADAM TEICHER
The Kansas City Star

Priest Holmes hurt his neck during an October 2005 game and hasn’t played or practiced since.Running back Priest Holmes could be returning to play for the Chiefs.

Holmes, who hasn’t played or practiced with the Chiefs in more than a year and a half, told president/general manager Carl Peterson he wanted to rejoin the Chiefs at training camp.

The Chiefs appear to be agreeable to the idea, so it’s possible Holmes could be with the Chiefs on Thursday when they leave for training camp in River Falls, Wis.

Holmes received a neck injury during an October 2005 game against the Chargers in San Diego and hasn’t played or practiced since. But he was one of the league’s premier running backs during the early years of the decade.

He led the NFL in rushing in 2001 and two years later set the NFL record for rushing touchdowns, a mark that has since been broken.

Holmes in October will turn 34, an advanced age for a running back. His age, combined with his recent inactivity, could limit his abilities.

But with the possibility of a Larry Johnson holdout, Holmes’ return could give the Chiefs some leverage and certainly more options at the position.

[MikeVic]

Doesn't it seem odd that he's introduced as Priest Holmes first, and then the next sentence specifies him as "Running back Proest Holmes?"