Andrew Quarless arrested in South Beach

[Deleted member 6794]

However, a player who's suspended on opening day is not on the 53 man roster. On the other hand, he is under a contract that otherwise adheres to the rules that apply to his veteran status. It's not clear to me whether the "53 man roster" criteria applies literally or if it's just shorthand that covers the most common situations.

The rule literally applies in other cases. For example, if a team cuts a vested vet the day before opening day and another team signs him the day after opening day, that season's salary with the new team is not automatically guaranteed.

My question goes to the point of the timing of a keep-or-release decision.

Between now and opening day, there is zero financial advantage for the Packers to release either Guion or Quarless. Guion already got his workout bonus, as you noted, which amounted to a team option payment given the structure of the contract. Neither of these guys are guaranteed anything between now and opening day.

So, what happens if these players are in fact suspended before opening day? Do the Packers have to make a decision to keep or release by that date in consideration of the season salary being guaranteed? Or can they keep them around during the suspension period without committing to vet guarantee payments for the balance of the season once they come off suspension, thereby extending the decision period?

This is deep in the weed and doesn't really matter until final cut downs, but it is a timing consideration down the road if it comes to that.

Here´s Article 30, Section 1 of the CBA:

Any player who has completed the season in which his fourth year or more of credited service under the Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle Retirement Plan has been earned shall be eligible for Termination Pay under this Article if: (1) He is released after his Club’s first regular season game; and (2) He has made the Active/Inactive List of his Club on or after the date of his Club’s first regular season game.

The way I understand it is that a suspended player becomes eligible for termination pay (guaranteed base salary for vested veterans) the first time he´s either active for a game or one of the inactives on game day.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

This is a good way to look at how off-field issues have a bearing on a player's future with the team. The nature of the issue also plays an important role. Guion's issue is problematic, but not career-breaking, IMO. Quarless is a bit more egregious, firing a weapon to get the attention of a few women is at best stupid, at worst dangerous. In both cases, there are good arguments for a return to the team after 1) a suspension and 2) a serious admission of regret and being sincere in saying it won't happen again. I don't condone these actions in any way. But let's not let the tail wag the dog. For the most part, GB players are 1) talented and 2) mostly good citizens off the field. At any rate, it's not a simple yes/no decision as to whether or not the team cuts someone.

Spousal or child abuse is a legitimate exception. Almost all of these cases turn out to be as reported, or in the case of Ray Rice, worse. I personally wouldn't like to see such a bully (and I'm being kind) on the roster. Everyone is entitled due process in court. In the court of public opinion however, a much different and subjective stanbard applies. In these cases, it may be easier to make that yes/no decision. And even that is subject to the degree of talent for the player in question. Ray Rice was easy to discard. Adrian Peterson, not so much. That's not fair, but it is realistic. Again, I'm talking about the "jury" that sits outside the legal system - fans, owners, women and child right's advocates, for example.

I'm sorry but I've been around guns enough to know that you never take them for granted and what Quarless did was VERY dangerous. At best what he did was dangerous, at worst it's life threatening.

He fired one round into the air...that bullet has to come down somewhere and he's in a very heavily populated area. While it's unlikely that a falling bullet would kill someone, it WOULD cause serious harm. The guy is an idiot who endangered innocent people because he was upset. In my mind, that's a simple yes/no decision.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Here´s Article 30, Section 1 of the CBA:

Any player who has completed the season in which his fourth year or more of credited service under the Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle Retirement Plan has been earned shall be eligible for Termination Pay under this Article if: (1) He is released after his Club’s first regular season game; and (2) He has made the Active/Inactive List of his Club on or after the date of his Club’s first regular season game.

The way I understand it is that a suspended player becomes eligible for termination pay (guaranteed base salary for vested veterans) the first time he´s either active for a game or one of the inactives on game day.

As we go deeper in the weeds....

The passage you cited begs the question, "who qualifies as inactive?"

Oddly, I could not find a definition of "inactive" in the CBA, or any provision in the document stating who does and does not qualify for the "Active List" or the "Inactive List". There are a couple of clues in Article 25 of the CBA:

"Beginning with the 2011 regular season, the Active List limit shall be increased from forty-five players per club to forty-six players per Club." This is what I think of as the "game day active list" though nowhere is it defined as such.

Further, "In any League Year, a Club’s Active and Inactive Lists shall not exceed 53 players."

A suspended player who is replaced on the 53 man roster is not "Inactive" according to that provision, so unless there is some other provision specifically addressing suspension exceptions, which I could not find, the passage you cited would not apply in that case.

Now, whether the team could designate a suspended player as "Inactive" while leaving open a 53-man roster spot for him is also not addressed in the CBA that I could see.

I still don't believe I have an answer to the question. I've also reached the point where my interest in the topic is now exhausted.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

As we go deeper in the weeds....

The passage you cited begs the question, "who qualifies as inactive?"

Oddly, I could not find a definition of "inactive" in the CBA, or any provision in the document stating who does and does not qualify for the "Active List" or the "Inactive List". There are a couple of clues in Article 25 of the CBA:

"Beginning with the 2011 regular season, the Active List limit shall be increased from forty-five players per club to forty-six players per Club." This is what I think of as the "game day active list" though nowhere is it defined as such.

Further, "In any League Year, a Club’s Active and Inactive Lists shall not exceed 53 players."

A suspended player who is replaced on the 53 man roster is not "Inactive" according to that provision, so unless there is some other provision specifically addressing suspension exceptions, which I could not find, the passage you cited would not apply in that case.

Now, whether the team could designate a suspended player as "Inactive" while leaving open a 53-man roster spot for him is also not addressed in the CBA that I could see.

I still don't believe I have an answer to the question. I've also reached the point where my interest in the topic is now exhausted.

I think it's pretty clear that the inactive list refers to the seven players on the 53 man roster not being active on game day. As far as I know a suspended player can't be on a team's roster.

 

[Mondio]

I'm sorry but I've been around guns enough to know that you never take them for granted and what Quarless did was VERY dangerous. At best what he did was dangerous, at worst it's life threatening.

He fired one round into the air...that bullet has to come down somewhere and he's in a very heavily populated area. While it's unlikely that a falling bullet would kill someone, it WOULD cause serious harm. The guy is an idiot who endangered innocent people because he was upset. In my mind, that's a simple yes/no decision.

Very true, i'm much more forgiving of Guion than Quarless at this point. I wouldn't care if they cut quarless really, in fact I think they should.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I think it's pretty clear that the inactive list refers to the seven players on the 53 man roster not being active on game day. As far as I know a suspended player can't be on a team's roster.

That would seem to make sense, but the CBA doesn't say that because it does not delineate who can and cannot be on the "Inactive List". If that is the case, the passage you quoted does not grant vested vet termination benefits to players suspended in week one. I'm still not confident that's the answer, but the CBA isn't helping any.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I'm sorry but I've been around guns enough to know that you never take them for granted and what Quarless did was VERY dangerous. At best what he did was dangerous, at worst it's life threatening.

He fired one round into the air...that bullet has to come down somewhere and he's in a very heavily populated area. While it's unlikely that a falling bullet would kill someone, it WOULD cause serious harm. The guy is an idiot who endangered innocent people because he was upset. In my mind, that's a simple yes/no decision.

Here's a question for gun enthusiasts. Given this is Florida, and assuming the facts of the case as presented in the press (which is not necessarily the whole story), if after Quarless discharged his weapon, had one of the young ladies pulled her duly licensed pearl-handled derringer from her garter holster and put one between Quarless' eyes, would she have been in the right? It seems she might be within the law. Either way, he's lucky the ladies either were not packing or Erik Walden's ex wasn't in that car.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

On the day he returned to the practice field, Andrew Quarless on Monday entered a plea and was sentenced to a year of probation and ordered to pay a $1,000 fine for firing a gun in a late-night incident in Miami.

With the court case now over, the NFL is expected to do its own investigation which could result in a possible suspension of the tight end.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...ed-in-gun-incident-b99625847z1-359077991.html