Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Pounceys being sued is obvious money grab

I've answered the question here and on Twitter: "What do you think of the Pouncey news?"

To this point, my reply has been the same. Nothing.

At this point, there appears to be nothing to it as far as the Pouncey twins are concerned.

To the uninformed, a man went on social media claiming to have been attacked in Miami by the Pouncey twins and bouncers at a club where the twins were celebrating their 25th birthdays.

Yes his face was swollen. Yes, he was crying on video.

But that's all we have to this point.

There is still no proof that either Pouncey twin engaged in an assault. The only claims we have seen regarding the incident come from the victim.

That same "victim" announced today that he plans on suing the Pouncey brothers. Geez, that didn't take long.

According to the victim's statement today on a Miami television statement the incident began with the Pouncey brothers taunting him, then, "Somebody grabbed me and ?I got hit. Somebody lifted me up and dragged me out of the club. I was being beat up, I was getting kicked and punched. A bottle hit me."

The initial investigation has shown that the Pouncey brothers were not involved in the assault. And I'm sure the guy was minding his own business and the brothers picked him out of the crowd to start taunting. And then, they pointed to the bouncers and had a hole stomped in him.

Yep, it all sounds very plausible. . . Not.

Some might rip the Pounceys for throwing themselves a party. Some might trash them for being out past 4 a.m. - which is when this alleged incident took place.

But the fact of the matter is, there are an awful lot of holes in this guy's story. And him saying he's bringing a lawsuit into play before any charges have even been filed only makes that more so the case.


40 comments:

Anonymous said...

cut this trouble maker and sign Velasco

Also heard Steelers made an offer on J Finley. where u at on that Dale?

Dale Lolley said...

I have heard nothing to substantiate that.

Anonymous said...

If I'm not mistaken, today was the last chance the Steelers had to sign Worilds long term.

Dale Lolley said...

That is not the case with transition players. Opposing teams can still offer transition players until July 22.

Anonymous said...

I don't know if I paint this story quite as rose-colored as you do Dale.

To me, it comes down to whether now was the correct time to sign Pouncey long-term at the money he got.

I say no. And have said so since the beginning of the off-season.

To me, it's a mistake to make that type of commitment, at premier-center money, to a guy coming off ACL surgery and exhibiting some South-Florida party traits that have gotten him into hot water in the past.

There was NO reason to lock him up now and no one has given me one good reason why.

To me, the organization panicked at not getting the Worilds deal done and jumped to get someone (anyone) signed long term.

We'll see if this long-term deal is any better than their other O-line commitments in the Tomlin era (Simmons, Mahan, Starks and Kemoeatu - none made it half way through their deals).

Anonymous said...

I have nothing negative to say about Max Starks as a player

BUT it is hilarious how the Steelers mishandled his contract situation throughout his career

Anonymous said...

Dale, I think we both may be mistaken. July 15th was the deadline for f-tagged players to sign a long term contract. If I'm reading it correctly, July 22nd is the deadline for t-tagged players to sign with another team. But since Worilds signed his tender already, that date is meaningless. Maybe I'm missing it, but it reads to me unlike f-tagged players, t-tagged players have until the 10th week of the season to sign long term with their club. Article 10, sect 14a. Tho, with the Steelers, week 10 may as well be week 1.

adamg said...

You think the Steelers should have signed Worilds long term instead of Pouncey? Wow.
Pouncey got hurt in the AFCCG and tried to play through a bum ankle for a couple years before finally having surgery, then was put out for the season by friendly fire last year.

Worilds has had some good stats in the few games he's played, but talk about injury prone. Even now he got hurt in OTAs. He also benefitted from supply and demand with his t-tagged contract this year. Had the Steelers not gotten themselves into a depth problem at OLB, Worilds would have been allowed to walk. There's no way the guy is worth the 10M he's getting.

FTR, the Pounceys plan to countersue the alleged victims to clear their names should said victims continue with their lawsuit. Clearly this is a money grab and probably a set up, just like the claim against Bettis a few years back.

Anonymous said...

"OK. Missed Manning. But the next QB was Rivers. Rivers! Sorry. That completely ruins anything they have to say." - Dale

Ok so everyone knows Brady had a down season last year. What's wrong with PFF ranking Rivers who clearly had a better season ahead of him?

You guys they're not going to rank players based on popular belief.

PFF rankings don't mean they think Rivers is a better QB. It means from what they watched he played better that season.

They might even tell you that they still think Brady is the better QB. Just that he didn't have the better season. Is that so complicated, really???

Anonymous said...

As much as I love reading about the virtues of PFF, maybe you could venture off and start your own dedication blog. Call it BFF of PFF.

Anonymous said...

On a totally unrelated post, no less. So glad PFF exists. Now all of the fanboys with nothing better to do can obsess over stats and rankings and feel better about themselves when citing these stats and rankings on blogs and message boards. Congrats PFF lover, you win at Internet!

Anonymous said...

Hmm... what source to trust more PFF or yinzer fans who think all Steelers players are amazing....

Think I'll go with PFF.

Pouncey is overrated and Colbert has been in over his head since Cowher left. Dump him.

Anonymous said...

Isn't it possible to think Pouncey is overrated AND that PFF sucks big hairy rocks? Still, given the choice between Yinzer homers and Limey charlatans, I guess I'd take the homers. While no less useless, they're at least free.

Dale Lolley said...

This is my last comment on PFF. Does it have some value? Sure. Are their views of players the be-all, end-all? Absolutely not.

Anybody that thinks Rivers had a better year than Brady last season needs their head examined. Flip-flop the rosters and the Chargers finish 13-3 last season and the Patriots don't make the playoffs.

Mark said...

I don't read PFF, so I have to ask about their methodology.

When they ranked Rivers and Brady, how did they correct for half of Rivers games being in San Diego weather, while Brady had half his games in New England weather? What adjustment for dome QBs (like Brees) vs. outdoor QBs?

Dale Lolley said...

Nope. None of that.

Anonymous said...

PFF Rankings are statistics based on actual events, yes it's someone watching film, but it's still X happened so Y results. So just like completion percentage they do not take into account weather or the silly "what if" a player played on another team or switched teams. By all statistical measure, Tom Brady had a down year and Philip Rivers had an up year. Rivers completed 69.3% of his passes, produces 4550 yards in 544 drop backs, was sacked only 30 times, committed only 13 turnovers and led the 2nd most prolific offense in the league (2.46 points per possession). Tom Brady completed 60.5% of his passes, produced 4361 yards in 628 drop backs, was sacked 40 times, committed 14 turnovers and led an offense that produced 2.16 points per possession (9th or 10th in the league).

PFF never said Rivers was better than Brady, but Rivers DID have a better season. PFF never said if Brady was on the Chargers he would or would not put up better or worse numbers. That's very hypothetical mumbo-jumbo. All PFF is saying that based on the 544 drop backs Rivers had vs. the 628 drop backs Brady had, Rivers did a better job in their estimation of film study.

How hard is that to comprehend?

adamg said...

Just curious but does PFF have copies of all the playbooks so they know who was supposed to do what on each and every play during their, apparently voluminous, film study? If not, I call hokum on their analysis and can't believe anyone takes them seriously. I do give PFF props for self-promoting themselves as a serious blog, though.

Anonymous said...

it is not hard to comprehend, it is just practically useless information. Coaches and front offices don't use it. I think the metrics in baseball are so good, they want that type of analysis applied to football. Unfortuneately, it is like putting a square peg in a round hole. Football is too complicated and there are too many variables on every play and there is way more strategy in football as well. Take the huge game Josh Gordon had on Ike. Most of that happened in the second half after the Steelers had a huge lead. Ike played off and let him catch a lot of passes. That was the game plan. Conversely, when offenses have big leads they typically run the ball a lot on first and second down. The defense expects is and plays for it and typically slows down the run game. That gameplan affects things.

Dale Lolley said...

Ding, ding, ding, ding. We have a couple of winners on those last two posts.

Anonymous said...

I guess there's no way to determine if a player is doing there job or not. Too many variables.

Funny how Dale somehow magically determines Cameron Heyward is one of the "top" 3-4 DE's in the league. How did he do that exactly? Not watching games? Or is he just regurgitating "inside info" from our coaching staff?

You guys are talking in circles. You want to rip PFF, but then admit watching games is still better at determining good or bad play than any other method out there (certainly better than limited stats like tackles or sacks).

Are there flaws? Yes, but it's better than the old days when people would spew how much better player X was vs. player Y because of 10 sacks or 100 tackles.

You can live in the past all you want, but film analysis by sources "other than teams" is getting better all the time. And situational allowances are right around the corner (to allow for Ike to just let Gordon supposedly catch all those catches).

Most of what PFF puts out there is pretty accurate in my opinion. It's not yet as good as WAR or some of the "Wins Above Average" type of stuff baseball does, but it's getting better every year.

There are still some gaps in positional value and whether JJ Watt's +100 PFF rating equals more wins than Philip Rivers' +50 rating (it probably doesn't).

But when it comes to rating non-quarterbacks, it's one of the first to attempt what they are trying and I think it is very valuable information.

To ignore it would be very ignorant and close minded.

Dale Lolley said...

I'm not saying it's not valuable. I'm just saying it shouldn't be used as the be-all, end-all fact. Period. Now please, go back to PFF - where you apparently work or something - and quit hijacking my blog.

Mike said...

Away from the PFF conversation, I wanted to put a bow on the absurdity of the Pouncey suit. As much as old stick in the mud fans might want to deny them, a newly minted millionaire should be allowed to have a party with friends at an exclusive night club.

The leeches that attempt to take advantage of these situations should be treated with the disrespect that they are due. The "hot water" that was referenced in an earlier post does not seem rooted in reality and instead is an emotional response to the "Free Hernandez" lids from last year (before the full scope of the story had been discovered by any of us). A rule of thumb: if you are thinking a 6-time SB championship "organization panicked", then acknowledge that you simply don't have anywhere near enough information or insight to render an opinion of any value.

Before someone can be labeled a rapist or a thug, we should at least require an arrest to have been made. 0-3 by my count between Ben and MP.

adamg said...

Supposedly the twins announced their birthday party on social media. If so, it would've been easy for a couple people to cook up a scheme to crash the party, cause a little ruckus, then accuse the Pouncey's assault or whatever.

Deservedly or not, the twins also have bit of a bad rep (Martin case and "free Hernandez" hats). It likely wasn't much of leap for someone to believe a "public incident" and subsequent lawsuit would result in a big payout. I doubt they expected the twins to threaten to countersue.

BlackNGold said...

Pretty good article about PFF and their grades

http://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2014/6/14/5808148/how-intelligent-are-pro-football-focus-grades-NFL-Philadelphia-eagles

Anonymous said...

That's not how PFF works BlackNGold. It's a player grading system, you can't look at it as a team thing or it won't make sense. It's not supposed to translate to wins based on player grades like that idiot writing that article is trying to make it sound like they're doing.

let's say 10 defenders do very well on a play and each get a grade of 1. Then there's one corner in man-coverage who gives up a touchdown and gets a, let's say -1 grade. That's a +9 team grade for that play even tho a touchdown was given up.

That might not make much sense but hopefully there's some sense to it.

It's kinda how I always looked at Chris Kemoeatu, no matter how well the other 4 lineman played, he always found a way to mess everything up.

Anonymous said...

https://www.profootballfocus.com/about/grading/

Scroll down to.. 4) The “Rules” of Grading

Hopefully that will calm some of you down.

DEL jzc said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dale Lolley said...

I love it when people come to my FREE blog and complain. You're welcome not to come back. I certainly won't miss you. Nor will anyone else.
Exactly what are you bringing to the conversation other than hijacking my blog with PFF tripe?

Dale Lolley said...

I've got no problem with someone disagreeing with me. No big deal. I do take issue with somebody constantly trying to rant about something that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic(s) at hand.
Obviously, the poster in question was working for a certain web site and trying to drive traffic there. Troll.

Greg Cunningham said...

show yourself troll. Love this blog

DEL jzc said...

I don't work for PFF at all. Didn't even get involved in the conversation until a LOT of other chatter on PFF.

I don't even have a membership.

A troll implies I don't come to this website for other reasons. I do. I always read Dale's blog. There's limited but sometimes useful information here, it's just very biased and pro-Steelers. He has to keep it that way to continue to gain access to inside information.

If you can't see through the one-sided analysis or think Dale's views are neutral, then I would suggest getting information from other sources to broaden your horizons.

DEL jzc said...

And I will add this. I didn't bring back up PFF in this thread (9th comment). That wasn't me.

However, I did get back involved when Dale said "Anyone that thinks Rivers had a better season than Brady has to get their head examined". I don't even think Dale looked at the numbers before saying that. In any unbiased analysis, Rivers had a MUCH BETTER SEASON than Brady. And it's really not even close. His stats were noticeably better and he led a much more prolific and balanced offense. I'm the one that made the detailed comments about how Rivers was in fact better than Brday (only to hear squat from Dale on that post).

That is called a discussion to disagree even after Dale implied I need to get my head examined (way to take the high road).

If you want to intelligently debate Heyward, that's fine too. I agree he's on the rise, but he is not better than Watt, Wilkenson or Campbell. And might be as good as Jordan, Richardson and Casey if he continues his path. And the old guys Justin Smith and Jason Hatcher continue to be relevant 3-4 DE's as well.

Dale Lolley said...

I absolutely do not have to slant things any way to gain access.
Completely and utterly not true. I also rip the team when I feel it is needed.
This thread has nothing to do with that subject. Hence, you are attempting to hijack the thread for some purpose. Troll

Patrick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Patrick said...

everyone come over later, me and kyle are going to smoke a piece pipe and play bongos while calmly discussing PFF, the Steelers chances this year and Mike Tomlin's future

say 8 ish?

Tom said...

DEL jzc just stop already you clearly have ulterior motives to drum up interest in PFF. You're writing style and formatting matches the anonymous commentor from above who was blatantly pimping PFF. If Dale's opinion strikes you so vehemently, then please enjoy another blog (maybe PFF will have room for one more in the circlejerk?) Trolololol

Now can we please talk about Steelers football?!
Dale, how healthy is Worilds? Full participant next week?

Dale Lolley said...

Yes, Tom. They were simply being precautionary with Worilds in the offseason. They weren't going to push him, especially since they wanted to take a good long look at the young linebackers on the roster.

SportsFanGalaxy said...

Steelers signed Maurkice Pouncey to a five-year, $44 million extension through 2019. He is very good, but seems to be always injured. He is worth for the salary.

deljzc said...

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/07/25/pounceys-sued-by-three-people-after-alleged-incident-at-nightclub/

Well, the suit now has three participants all willing to testify against the Pouncey's now. Not quite he said, she said and more they said vs. we said. A lot will come down to security footage (if it exists).

Not sure this is as minor or baseless as Dale indicated and certainly not over enough to insure no potential for NFL discipline at some point in the future.