Jump to content

NY Jets Forum

Talk about Robert Saleh, Joe Douglas & the NFL in our NY Jets message board.


114,384 topics in this forum

    • 16 replies
    • 587 views
    • 20 replies
    • 668 views
    • 35 replies
    • 739 views
    • 54 replies
    • 2,158 views
    • 0 replies
    • 167 views
    • 0 replies
    • 103 views
    • 0 replies
    • 133 views
    • 0 replies
    • 135 views
    • 27 replies
    • 657 views
    • 20 replies
    • 812 views
    • 0 replies
    • 77 views
    • 10 replies
    • 484 views
    • 0 replies
    • 230 views
    • 1 reply
    • 215 views
    • 0 replies
    • 146 views
    • 33 replies
    • 1,089 views
    • 17 replies
    • 440 views
    • 6 replies
    • 281 views
    • 16 replies
    • 684 views
    • 0 replies
    • 180 views
  1. casey printers

    • 17 replies
    • 629 views
    • 0 replies
    • 210 views
    • 4 replies
    • 435 views
    • 0 replies
    • 252 views
    • 31 replies
    • 1,289 views
  2. Ratliff

    • 6 replies
    • 469 views
  3. Cimini's PM sesion

    • 8 replies
    • 519 views
    • 0 replies
    • 80 views
    • 0 replies
    • 108 views
    • 0 replies
    • 220 views
    • 0 replies
    • 175 views
    • 106 replies
    • 2,502 views
    • 3 replies
    • 289 views
    • 2 replies
    • 233 views
    • 20 replies
    • 792 views
  • Posts

    • No, because the coach thought that the backup had earned the opportunity to challenge Zach, and he thought it would be good for Zach. It was not a negative on Zach's playing ability.
    • Your employer has no legal obligation to 'do anything' about your criminal behavior if it is on your own time and not part of the work you do for them.  Nobody is defending Echols' behavior, but you are completely misguided if you think the Jets have any more responsibility for this than Burger King would if one of their cashiers did it on their own time.  You are conflating deep pockets with increased responsibility, which is the hallowed ground of every ambulance chaser out there but, as other have said, just isn't a thing.   I don't recall hearing of the Raiders being liable for Ruggs....or the Patriots for Hernandez...and so on.  By your 'logic', the Dolphins would be responsible for child-support for Tyreek Hill's babies.  Everyone but you and the victim's attorney can see how much nonsense this is.  If it weren't the legal system would blow up with lawsuits overnight. If you want to blame the Jets for football things, go right ahead.  But this sounds like something you are trying to wish into existence.
    • You mean because he had not proven himself worthy? 
  • Available Subscriptions

×
×
  • Create New...