Death to Google Ads! Texans Talk Tip Jar! 🍺😎👍
Thanks for your support!

Brett Hartmanns back with vengeance

Pretty sure the Texans will now have zero intentions of ever letting this guy get a shot here again.
 
Too bad we didn't go with the entire field rolling in and out like the Cards. I never played on this new field turf stuff, but I don't think anything can beat natural grass. I played on astroturf and it sucked. I had to mummify myself to prevent from burns
 
GP said:
Pretty sure the Texans will now have zero intentions of ever letting this guy get a shot here again.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that was their intent before he filed this lawsuit. He knew his career in the NFL was over, so he filed. He has nothing to lose.
 
From the kicker audition thread:

Don't bet on a settlement. With the Lanier law firm and a potential NFL career of 15 years their demand will be high. Judge Ken Wise will be fair but he isn't going to favor the plaintiff. The Texans are going to bring 10 years of surveys showing the NFL players as a whole think Reliant is one of the better places to play. They will also bring 10 years worth of data showing Reliant's injury rate is no greater than other stadiums. Comments by Belichick won't even get in at trial - note Welker never said the field caused his injury. Plus any settlement would essentially mean they have to change the entire system at a cost of several million. Also going to have a hard time finding a sympathetic jury.
 
GP said:
Class act organizations don't generally like to employ people who do that sort of thing.

Patterns.
Click to expand...

How do you figure that? I think he has a valid claim. Let's say your employer uses a rental car service that supplies you a rental car. Due to a defect in the car, you were injured. Are you saying it would be wrong for you to sue the rental car company if they knew about the defect and that your employer would hold it against you?

Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk 2
 
infantrycak said:
From the kicker audition thread:

Don't bet on a settlement. With the Lanier law firm and a potential NFL career of 15 years their demand will be high. Judge Ken Wise will be fair but he isn't going to favor the plaintiff. The Texans are going to bring 10 years of surveys showing the NFL players as a whole think Reliant is one of the better places to play. They will also bring 10 years worth of data showing Reliant's injury rate is no greater than other stadiums. Comments by Belichick won't even get in at trial - note Welker never said the field caused his injury. Plus any settlement would essentially mean they have to change the entire system at a cost of several million. Also going to have a hard time finding a sympathetic jury.
Click to expand...



Mark has to pay his bills too
 
foo82 said:
How do you figure that? I think he has a valid claim. Let's say your employer uses a rental car service that supplies you a rental car. Due to a defect in the car, you were injured. Are you saying it would be wrong for you to sue the rental car company if they knew about the defect and that your employer would hold it against you?

Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

I think I look at it like this: Why isn't Wes Welker suing for damages? Ben Tate when he was tackled in a preseason game and lost an entire rookie season? Andre Johnson who missed most of season? Or any other player for that matter?

When a guy sticks his neck out like that, and he's got suspensions galore as well, it means the guy is a headache. It's a combination of things.

I once thought that the Texans might give him a second chance in camp in 2013, but this, IMO, would be the burning of that bridge.
 
GP said:
I think I look at it like this: Why isn't Wes Welker suing for damages? Ben Tate when he was tackled in a preseason game and lost an entire rookie season? Andre Johnson who missed most of season? Or any other player for that matter?
Click to expand...

Well, one reason might be that Welker, Tate, and Andre all recovered from their injuries, and they lost zero salary while they were in the process of that recovery. That is to say there's absolutely no way they could show damages.

I think this is a longshot lawsuit. I'm actually one of the folks here who's never complained about the field, and believe that most of those that do are talking about something they know next to nothing about (or parroting those folks), but Welker and Tate's circumstances are completely different than what Hartmann is claiming.
 
Today on 790 ND Kalu former Texan said he hoped Hartman loses & lawsuit makes players look bad. Chester Pitts another former Texan said turf is much better than years before.
 
ChampionTexan said:
Well, one reason might be that Welker, Tate, and Andre all recovered from their injuries, and they lost zero salary while they were in the process of that recovery. That is to say there's absolutely no way they could show damages.

I think this is a longshot lawsuit. I'm actually one of the folks here who's never complained about the field, and believe that most of those that do are talking about something they know next to nothing about (or parroting those folks), but Welker and Tate's circumstances are completely different than what Hartmann is claiming.
Click to expand...

Whoa, hold on a sec.

So you're telling me Hartmann can never kick or punt again? I'm missing where that's the case. POTENTIALLY career-threatening is what I've heard.

He's doing this based on the potential for loss of money. Now, this also begs the question: What else could a player sue for, in terms of an outside force that would cause their career to end forever?

Can't I sue a player for making a hit on me that ended my career? Or maybe I'll sue the helmet company for not making a good enough helmet? Maybe I'll sue the trainers and the weight lifting coaches for not making my muscles and ligaments the proper consistency to help me avoid blowing out an ACL or a quad? Where does it end?

Bratty ass punk is what this looks like to me. I think maybe him and Royce White are roomies or something. It's just silly, IMO. When people do things like this, it just looks so so sad to me. There are legitimate situation of negligence in life, is this really one of those? I don't think so.
 
From the ESPN.com story:

...blaming "unsafe turf" for a possibly career-ending knee injury.
Click to expand...

POSSIBLY career-ending knee injury, just like I said in my previous post.

He's suing on the potential for him to never play football again.

Good luck with that, Brett.
 
GP said:
From the ESPN.com story:



POSSIBLY career-ending knee injury, just like I said in my previous post.

He's suing on the potential for him to never play football again.

Good luck with that, Brett.
Click to expand...
If you listen to the podcast in the link I posted, Hartmann & his lawyer mention that they don't know Hartmann's future status. They haven't even set a dollar amount. The lawyer said that would depend on if Hartmann can play again or not. Also, they might be satisfied with a change to the turf so that future injuries can be prevented.

With Reliant already moving to field turf for all non-NFL games, it sounds like they are preparing for the suit.
 
GP said:
Whoa, hold on a sec.

So you're telling me Hartmann can never kick or punt again? I'm missing where that's the case. POTENTIALLY career-threatening is what I've heard.

He's doing this based on the potential for loss of money. Now, this also begs the question: What else could a player sue for, in terms of an outside force that would cause their career to end forever?

Can't I sue a player for making a hit on me that ended my career? Or maybe I'll sue the helmet company for not making a good enough helmet? Maybe I'll sue the trainers and the weight lifting coaches for not making my muscles and ligaments the proper consistency to help me avoid blowing out an ACL or a quad? Where does it end?

Bratty ass punk is what this looks like to me. I think maybe him and Royce White are roomies or something. It's just silly, IMO. When people do things like this, it just looks so so sad to me. There are legitimate situation of negligence in life, is this really one of those? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's what my post was telling you - that Hartmann can never kick or punt again.:kitten:
 
2012Champs said:
Does the rodeo prevent us from having field turf?
Click to expand...

No. The rodeo prevents us from having permanent grass. They insisted on the roof so the grass can't be grown continually in the stadium. The tray system was conceived to allow grass to be rotated for growing and replacement when there were other games before Texans games.

Hartman has a HUGE damage proof issue here. He can claim he can't play to try to recover for his sketchy suspended NFL career but if he does then he truly is cutting off any NFL career. He won't be able to try out or sign with anyone.
 
ChampionTexan said:
Yep, that's what my post was telling you - that Hartmann can never kick or punt again.:kitten:
Click to expand...

You were saying it was not the same because Tate and Welker recovered.

How do we know Hartmann won't recover too? And why wold it matter if he doesn't recover? He would have lost salary due to his suspensions he earned for himself, right?

We should sue HIM for being a dumbass and getting suspended for 11 games, meaning we would have a better punter right now had he not messed up. The Texans should sue him for that, too. He has cost us.

Civil lawsuits are SERIOUS FUN!
 
Practically speaking, Hartmann can never work in the NFL again. I contend that he came to understand that reality and is now trying to capitalize on the circumstances. He suffered a season ending injury, which is tough when you are trying to get a job that only 32 people in the world can have. What really kills his chances, however, is the suspension. If a team were to give him a chance, they'd have to be willing to give him a spot on the roster and let him serve the 8 game suspension. He cannot serve the suspension while he is not on an active roster. That effectively ends his career.

Personally, I think the NFL needs to examine that scenario, because it truly does kill a kicker or punter's career. A team might give a linebacker or running back a chance as the 53rd guy on the roster, but no team is going to hold two punters for half a season and then cut the guy keeping the seat warm.

Hartmann knows all this. He knew before he filed this that he'd never play NFL football again.
 
eriadoc said:
Practically speaking, Hartmann can never work in the NFL again. I contend that he came to understand that reality and is now trying to capitalize on the circumstances. He suffered a season ending injury, which is tough when you are trying to get a job that only 32 people in the world can have. What really kills his chances, however, is the suspension. If a team were to give him a chance, they'd have to be willing to give him a spot on the roster and let him serve the 8 game suspension. He cannot serve the suspension while he is not on an active roster. That effectively ends his career.

Personally, I think the NFL needs to examine that scenario, because it truly does kill a kicker or punter's career. A team might give a linebacker or running back a chance as the 53rd guy on the roster, but no team is going to hold two punters for half a season and then cut the guy keeping the seat warm.

Hartmann knows all this. He knew before he filed this that he'd never play NFL football again.
Click to expand...
According to Hartmann's lawyer (in the podcast above), Hartmann is eligible to kick in the NFL immediately - if he were healthy. He has served his suspension time already.
 
Exascor said:
According to Hartmann's lawyer (in the podcast above), Hartmann is eligible to kick in the NFL immediately - if he were healthy. He has served his suspension time already.
Click to expand...

That's something I was wondering about.

My understanding was that he couldn't serve his suspension without being on a roster. But... that doesn't make sense. That makes guys totally unsignable in a very unfair way.

It makes much more sense that if you're unsigned and miss X number of games, those games count at least somewhat toward your suspension.

I looked for the rule on that on NFL.com but I couldn't find anything referring to it.
 
From what I've read on here, once the season gets to the 11-game mark, he's served his suspension. The 3 games for original sin, then the 8 extra he earned for other transgressions.

Once the 11 games are up, he can play. But nobody would take him at that point unless their punter got injured.

Might as well sue the turf management company while sitting out all these games and probably the entire season.

What team in off-season or camp of 2013 would want to burden itself with a heavily suspended, recovering from blown knee, lawsuit happy punter???

Like I said: Looks like him and Royce White are getting the same advice from the same life coach.
 
Well, I found this, FWIW:

Overall roster limits have been expanded from 80 to 90 players per club, the NFL announced yesterday. This will provide teams with greater roster flexibility and allow more players to be developed and evaluated.

The 90-player roster limit, which goes into effect today at 4:00 PM ET, includes players on the active, inactive, practice squad, and exempt lists, and the following reserve lists: injured, physically unable to perform, non-football illness, non-football injury, suspended (for less than one year), future, drafted-unsigned, exclusive rights, first refusal rights, unrestricted free agents with an individually negotiated right of first refusal, franchise, and transition.

The first roster reduction is to 75 players on the active list and will occur at 4:00 PM ET on the Tuesday, August 28 following preseason week 3. The final roster reduction is to 53 players on the active list and will occur at 9:00 PM ET on Friday, August 31 of preseason week 4.
Click to expand...

So the initial roster is active + all those = 90 players. Active has to be cut to 75 and then 53, but not sure how many spots that leaves for suspended players and the like. Either way, I can't find anything that says unsigned, suspended players serve out their suspensions while unemployed. It would make more sense if they could, but I just can't find anything to confirm that. I had heard that this was not the case, but also cannot confirm that. Seems like they categorize players suspended for less than a year differently, maybe?

*shrug*

EDIT - OK, also found this piece from Mike Florio, which sheds a little more light on it:

Now that free-agent receiver Chad Johnson has pleaded no contest to charges of domestic violence, Johnson is subject to discipline under the personal-conduct policy.

But a source with knowledge of the procedure explains to PFT that Johnson likely won’t be disciplined until he returns to the NFL.

That said, if a team is interested in signing him and wants to know if he is facing a suspension, a decision could be made prior to Johnson signing a contract.

If Johnson had been issued a suspension before he was cut by the Dolphins, he could have served the suspension while unemployed. Not that he’s unemployed but has yet to be officially suspended, the league apparently isn’t inclined to suspend him until he has a team.
Click to expand...

So do we know if Hartmann's eight game suspension came down after he was cut by the Texans, or before? I think the three game suspension came while he was still with the team, but wasn't sure about the latter. Also, it looks like the league uses the suspension mechanism to blackball players at times.
 
eriadoc said:
Well, I found this, FWIW:



So the initial roster is active + all those = 90 players. Active has to be cut to 75 and then 53, but not sure how many spots that leaves for suspended players and the like. Either way, I can't find anything that says unsigned, suspended players serve out their suspensions while unemployed. It would make more sense if they could, but I just can't find anything to confirm that. I had heard that this was not the case, but also cannot confirm that. Seems like they categorize players suspended for less than a year differently, maybe?

*shrug*

EDIT - OK, also found this piece from Mike Florio, which sheds a little more light on it:



So do we know if Hartmann's eight game suspension came down after he was cut by the Texans, or before? I think the three game suspension came while he was still with the team, but wasn't sure about the latter. Also, it looks like the league uses the suspension mechanism to blackball players at times.
Click to expand...

It came down after he was cut, but my understanding is that it was issued as a modification of the original suspension, not as a new 8 game suspension, so he still gets credit whether he's under contract to an NFL team or not.
 
GP said:
From what I've read on here, once the season gets to the 11-game mark, he's served his suspension. The 3 games for original sin, then the 8 extra he earned for other transgressions.

Once the 11 games are up, he can play. But nobody would take him at that point unless their punter got injured.

Might as well sue the turf management company while sitting out all these games and probably the entire season.

What team in off-season or camp of 2013 would want to burden itself with a heavily suspended, recovering from blown knee, lawsuit happy punter???

Like I said: Looks like him and Royce White are getting the same advice from the same life coach.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Hartmann screwed the pooch here. There's no way RS lets him drive into the parking lot let alone join the team. Just think, this cat had it going on. Like's been mentioned, he could split the uprights on on a kickoff plus he had a real knack for dropping his punts really deep. As in several times pinned at the goal line.

I almost feel sorry for the guy, but don't. He went through the orientation, sat through the classes and knew the rules. When he made the decisions he made, he knew what he was doing and the potential outcome. Then allegedly lied to the Commish. Death sentence.

I'm disappointed with the choices Brett made and hope he can turn it around. Where and when that happens idonno: but I'm pretty sure it won't be in the NFL.

I can only hope he learns from this really costly education and wish him well.
 
eriadoc said:
Well, I found this, FWIW:



So the initial roster is active + all those = 90 players. Active has to be cut to 75 and then 53, but not sure how many spots that leaves for suspended players and the like. Either way, I can't find anything that says unsigned, suspended players serve out their suspensions while unemployed. It would make more sense if they could, but I just can't find anything to confirm that. I had heard that this was not the case, but also cannot confirm that. Seems like they categorize players suspended for less than a year differently, maybe?

*shrug*

EDIT - OK, also found this piece from Mike Florio, which sheds a little more light on it:



So do we know if Hartmann's eight game suspension came down after he was cut by the Texans, or before? I think the three game suspension came while he was still with the team, but wasn't sure about the latter. Also, it looks like the league uses the suspension mechanism to blackball players at times.
Click to expand...

His additional 8 game suspension has been always referred to by the league as an "extension" rather than "addition," thus implying that the penalty is based on action(s) occurring at the time of the first infraction. So it would seem that he would be able to return to playing with a team, previously employed or not, following the completion of the concurrent 11 game suspension.
 
GP said:
From the ESPN.com story:



POSSIBLY career-ending knee injury, just like I said in my previous post.

He's suing on the potential for him to never play football again.

Good luck with that, Brett.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you on this,

This field at Reliant is sh*t, has been sh*t and will continue to be sh*t unless somebody like Hartmann wins and forces Harris county/BoB/Rodeo to make improvements.

Surely you've seen the field on the Sunday after the high school playoff/bowl games? It's dangerous, but oh I forgot, God'ell is all about player saftey. LOL
 
ChampionTexan said:
Well, one reason might be that Welker, Tate, and Andre all recovered from their injuries, and they lost zero salary while they were in the process of that recovery. That is to say there's absolutely no way they could show damages.

I think this is a longshot lawsuit. I'm actually one of the folks here who's never complained about the field, and believe that most of those that do are talking about something they know next to nothing about (or parroting those folks), but Welker and Tate's circumstances are completely different than what Hartmann is claiming.
Click to expand...

Have you ever played on the field at Reliant? If you haven't, how can you complain about something that you haven't experienced? Your argument makes no sense.

The reason some of us have complained about the field is because there's proof that the field is a problem. No, I haven't played on Reliant, either, but, there's a lot of solid evidence that the field is a mess.

As for Hartmann: He's going to lose. I'm not an attorney, but a buddy is, and I've learned a lot about how lawyers think. The field at Reliant is a mess, yes, but there's a certain amount of risk involved with Brett's profession, and he knew that when he chose to become a football player.
 
houstonspartan said:
Have you ever played on the field at Reliant? If you haven't, how can you complain about something that you haven't experienced? Your argument makes no sense.

The reason some of us have complained about the field is because there's proof that the field is a problem. No, I haven't played on Reliant, either, but, there's a lot of solid evidence that the field is a mess.

As for Hartmann: He's going to lose. I'm not an attorney, but a buddy is, and I've learned a lot about how lawyers think. The field at Reliant is a mess, yes, but there's a certain amount of risk involved with Brett's profession, and he knew that when he chose to become a football player.
Click to expand...

I haven't, and I haven't expressed any personal viewpoints regarding field quality.

I have posted results of NFL player polls that rated the field quality in the upper half of NFL's natural grass surfaces and expressed a far greater level of confidence in that evidence than the comments of those who say it looks bad on television or from their seat in Reliant.
 
houstonspartan said:
Give me a break. Players and other teams have been complaining about Reliant for years.
Click to expand...

Give me a break. They do a survey of players each year and Reliant has always been a highly ranked stadium. 10 years of 1500 players giving their opinions counts a lot more than a few naysayers.
 
houstonspartan said:
Give me a break. Players and other teams have been complaining about Reliant for years.
Click to expand...

Yep - that's some damn solid evidence. I concede! :kitten:

The closest thing I can recall to a "first-hand" account (On this board anyway) was a second-hand account by Double Barrel, who's son has played on Reliant's turf fairly recently as a member of a area college team (I want to say SHSU, but it might be SFA or another one). He passed on positive comments regarding the field.
 
I feel sorry for him, and I liked him as a player but he should have used his college education to find another profession instead of suing for something that could happen to anyone who plays football.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top