2013 NFL Offseason/Coaches Fired/Draft discussions-

[molson]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Lets talk about how in the past year, there's been a player who murdered 1-3 people, another who tried to kill someone, another who got drunk and let his friend burn to death in his car, and a guy who killed his girlfriend and then himself. Not to mention Seau killing himself.

OK. Are any of these the NFL's fault, or their problem now, and if so, what should they do about it? If it's really a problem with the NFL it probably has to be a collective league-based approach. Maybe every time an active player is charged with a felony, his team forfeits a 1st round pick (maybe murder should be more than that), and for every misdemeanor charge, a 3rd round pick. The picks are automatically forfeited upon the charge, and then the player is banned for at least the duration of the criminal proceedings, and then banned for life upon any felony conviction. It gives the teams a stake in this. Otherwise, they really don't have much to lose. Even if one of their players commits murder, what's the big deal really for the team? They lose a player and have some salary cap implications. It's the image of the league that's really at stake. I'm not a huge fan of tying league discipline directly to the state courts, but at least it's a non-discretionary, black and white, end-result based standard. Of course, the NFL would probably have to end the salary cap and drug testing to get the union to agree to something like that.

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

The past 6 pages or app involves easily the dumbest argument this board has ever seen.

Lets talk about how the SUV used in the double murder drive by was rented by Aaron Hernandez and not about this hypothetical precognition bullshit. If there was an easy way to tell if someone would murder 3 people, there would be a whole lot less people murdered.

Lets talk about how in the past year, there's been a player who murdered 1-3 people, another who tried to kill someone, another who got drunk and let his friend burn to death in his car, and a guy who killed his girlfriend and then himself. Not to mention Seau killing himself.

I guess ya just gotta live with these things. After all, nobody saw any of those things coming.

They were all top class guys until........

[chadritt]

Theres a difference between "we knew he was an ass with problems" and "We're not surprised at all that he's been charged with murder". Seriously, thats all anyones trying to convince you.

[Suicane75]

Of course there is a difference. But at some point you have to wonder exactly how much, looking the other way, is going on, and I think it's getting clearer and clearer.

[chadritt]

Again, having worked with a murderer and knowing people who'd known him for 20+ years I would say there are other possibilities you seem far too dismissive of.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

But at some point you have to wonder exactly how much, looking the other way, is going on, and I think it's getting clearer and clearer.

If he was on the Eagles I don't think it would have even registered as an issue with you.

After that revelation it was all pretty clear. I think it's just team preference/team dislike thing. You think Hernandez should have been cut pre-murder but you didn't have an issue with a CONVICTED FELON on your team for years. Didn't even register as something you cared about. I think you just got annoyed that were a bunch of posts in a row praising the Patriots response. I don't think it was that worthy of praise either, they did the obvious thing when a guy is charged with murder. You just went a little overboard.

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by molson

If he was on the Eagles it wouldn't even register as an issue with you.

This wouldn't really have registered as an issue with me if I hadn't read the posts patting the Pats on the back for cutting him. I gave up on giving a shit about the NFL in that regard a long time ago.

But hey, if you wanna think this about some hate i have for the Patriots, then go ahead.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Lets talk about how the SUV used in the double murder drive by was rented by Aaron Hernandez and not about this hypothetical precognition bullshit. If there was an easy way to tell if someone would murder 3 people, there would be a whole lot less people murdered.

Exactly. Considering the police couldn't locate that vehicle for over a year until this case happened, I'm pretty sure you can't expect the Patriots to know everything that was going on. (It also highlights possibly the dumbest part of the whole thing - why would you pick a guy up on Fayston St. in the Dot a.k.a. a street that has a body dropped at least once a week, then drive him an hour south to within a mile of your house before executing him? That's how not to cover up a murder 101.)

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by molson

I think you just got annoyed that were a bunch of posts in a row praising the Patriots response.

I did. But not out of any silly loyalty or disliked of a franchise. I'm not that guy. I'm so not.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

This wouldn't really have registered as an issue with me if I hadn't read the posts patting the Pats on the back for cutting him. .

That's my point. It was people patting the Pats on the back that inspired you to have this brand new passionate view that had never registered with you before, even with your own team. Suddenly you're the NFL morals police and think teams should cut players who are judged by some vague criteria as being "bad guys". I don't think you felt that way yesterday. You admitted as much. Now it's your whole thing.

Edit: Now that you have this new viewpoint, do you at least think NOW that the Eagles should cut Vick? He's got to be up there with Dez Bryant as the #1 current murder risk in the NFL. He's a douche, committed felonies, hangs out with the wrong crowd, all of the Hernandez stuff and a felony conviction on top of it. I don't remember the context but I posted here a couple of weeks ago that I didn't generally care too much about off-field behavior of athletes (which was the general consensus of the board, I'm not sure where you were to chime in with your pro-morals stance), but that Michael Vick coming to my team would be the exception. I wouldn't be able to root for him. You don't have a problem with him on your team, but are captain super morals when it comes to what the Patriots should have done pre-murder with Hernandez.

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by molson

That's my point. It was people patting the Pats on the back that inspired you to have this brand new passionate view that had never registered with you before, even with your own team. Suddenly you're the NFL morals police and I think teams should cut players who are judged by some vague criteria as being "bad guys".

It didn't register with me when the Chiefs player killed his girlfriend either. It didn't register with me when the Cowboys dude killed his friend drunk driving. It didn't register with me lots of times because I don't care about the NFL. It registered with me here because it did, I actually took a minute to think about it and it struck me as insanely juvenile to not think they didn't know who this guy was. If Mike Vick gets arrested tomorrow for fighting dogs I'd have the same response towards the Eagles.

And there's nothing vague about my criteria. I'm not saying to leave it up to me, or leave it up to you, or leave it up to the media, I'm saying that teams have these people on their rosters, know the potential is there, and look the other way. Then they express their condolences after the fact.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

It registered with me here because it did, I actually took a minute to think about it and it struck me as insanely juvenile to not think they didn't know who this guy was.

Nobody has argued that the Patriots didn't know he was a character risk. That was my first post on this topic, that they only got him in the first place because he had those issues in college. All they said that they did the right thing by cutting him immediately. Which really pissed you off for some reason. And to justify that initial anger, you've developed this whole theory, today, about how NFL teams should cut players who are "bad guys" before they commit crimes.

Originally Posted by Suicane75

And there's nothing vague about my criteria. I'm not saying to leave it up to me, or leave it up to you, or leave it up to the media, I'm saying that teams have these people on their rosters, know the potential is there, and look the other way. Then they express their condolences after the fact.

That's the definition of vague criteria. "these people", "know the potential is there", "look the other way." "they should have known". By your standard the Falcons should have cut Michael Vick, they "should have known who he was." And yet you're OK with him on your team AFTER he committed the acts, and after everyone knows what he's all about and what kind of people he hangs out with. It'd mind-boggling.

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by molson

Edit: Now that you have this new viewpoint, do you at least think NOW that the Eagles should cut Vick? He's got to be up there with Dez Bryant as the #1 current murder risk in the NFL. He's a douche, committed felonies, hangs out with the wrong crowd, all of the Hernandez stuff and a felony conviction on top of it. I don't remember the context but I posted here a couple of weeks ago that I didn't generally care too much about off-field behavior of athletes (which was the general consensus of the board, I'm not sure where you were to chime in with your pro-morals stance), but that Michael Vick coming to my team would be the exception. I wouldn't be able to root for him. You don't have a problem with him on your team, but are captain super morals when it comes to what the Patriots should have done pre-murder with Hernandez.

I actually think Bryant and Vick are bad examples because both their teams have invested a lot in making sure they don't go down that road, or back down that road.

And I don't presume to know who the murder/wife beater/severe anger issue/ risks are, but I sure as hell presume the teams themselves know.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Does Fighting Irish not count because it's more of an ethnic slur?

No, it's because Notre Dame says the nickname arose because the third president of Notre Dame was a chaplain to the Irish Brigade at Gettysburg. It was an Irish guy naming his own ethnic group. Or it was (more likely) because the press started referring it to them because they had a lot of Irish folks on the teams, and the Irish people at the university liked it and adopted it.

The Redskins weren't named by Native Americans, they were owned & named by white dudes who wanted to name the team for a stereotype of another group.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

And I don't presume to know who the murder/wife beater/severe anger issue/ risks are, but I sure as hell presume the teams themselves know.

Hernandez was a decent risk to get caught with marijuana, to get mixed up in trouble because of his friends, of getting in disputes with teammates. There's lots of guys who carry those kinds of risks. The risk of murder though, was pretty minuscule. Not as foreseeable. There's only been a handful of murders in NFL history. And the two that come to mind were domestic disputes, not "hanging out with the wrong crowd" kind of murders.

So I guess maybe you're saying if an NFL team is willing to take on the first kind of risk, that they "can't be surprised" if there's a murder. I'm not sure what a team's "surprise" level has to do with anything or why that matters, but the stats would indicate that any NFL player murder is pretty surprising.

[sabotai]

Kirby Puckett

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by molson

Nobody has argued that the Patriots didn't know he was a character risk. That was my first post on this topic, that they only got him in the first place because he had those issues in college. All they said that they did the right thing by cutting him immediately. Which really pissed you off for some reason. And to justify that initial anger, you've developed this whole theory, today, about how NFL teams should cut players who are "bad guys" before they commit crimes.

No, my "theory" prompted my anger. I find it disingenuous and naive to applaud a team for not fixing a problem until the problem has killed someone.

Originally Posted by molson

That's the definition of vague criteria. "these people", "know the potential is there", "look the other way." "they should have known". By your standard the Falcons should have cut Michael Vick, they "should have known who he was." And yet you're OK with him on your team AFTER he committed the acts, and after everyone knows what he's all about and what kind of people he hangs out with. It'd mind-boggling.

1) It's only vague in the sense that I don't know a single NFL player, I can't judge. I do know plenty of people though, and I know the good ones from the bad. I know the ones, who when they're around me, I wont leave $20 sitting on the table, or trust a word they say, or count on them for anything. I assume that an entire NFL teams front office has people capable of figuring out who those guys are and not rewarding them.

2) I think it's silly to think nobody in Atlanta knew what Vick was doing. So yes, they should have cut him sooner.

3) Bryant & Vick both are both under such team inflicted scrutiny that I don't think they're particular risks, no. But neither I nor you know. But if it came out tomorrow that either one of them did something, I would assume that teams knew it was possible and skirted the issue and hold them to the same blame I'm holding the Patriots. If either of them got cut tomorrow because their team thought it was possible they could do something, I would applaud them both. I don't care that Mike Vick is an Eagle, stop saying "my team" like it's an indictment on my opinion on Aaron Hernadez, whom I didn't care was a Patriot up until two days ago.

And with that I'm done, and I really mean it this time. Seems like most got tired of my opinion 12 hours and 4 pages ago.

See you next time an NFL player kills someone and nobody saw it coming.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

3) Bryant & Vick both are both under such team inflicted scrutiny that I don't think they're particular risks, no.

So why arent you on here screaming the Pats should have had handlers for him ?

Do you only get a handler if you are already a convicted criminal but if you are a "bad guy" you get cut? Seems like backwards logic.

[Butter]

How is this argument still going?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

How is this argument still going?

slow day at the office for me

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Lathum

So why arent you on here screaming the Pats should have had handlers for him ?

Do you only get a handler if you are already a convicted criminal but if you are a "bad guy" you get cut? Seems like backwards logic.

Don't try logic. Suicane can see a bad apple from a mile off and predict the future. Why can't everyone else?

[Lathum]

I'm amazed there hasn't been one minority report reference

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I'm amazed there hasn't been one minority report reference

*cough*

Originally Posted by Alan T

[Lathum]

All I see is a red X

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Lathum

All I see is a red X

I'm guessing your company doesn't like its workers browsing imdb then

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Lathum

All I see is a red X

Ditto, and I work from home. Link failure!

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Lathum

All I see is a red X

Potential murderer! get him!

[Lathum]

we need a ruling from Suicane on this

[Desnudo]

Tim Tebow’s Former Teammate Charged With Murder | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Tim Tebow’s Former Teammate Charged With Murder | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Tebow hangs out with criminals! Cut him immediately!

[molson]

Would it really be THAT shocking if Bellichick finally lost it and knifed a reporter to death after one too many Hernandez/Tebow questions this fall? How much evidence do we need to see that this is a danger? The man is not all there. Might be better to install Tebow as head coach for now.

It's going to be a fun training camp, stabbing or no stabbing.

[Fidatelo]

I'm pretty sure if my employer tried to let me go for hanging out with people they didn't like I'd have a lawsuit all up in their asses by lunch.

Even with all the presented evidence I'm still a little shocked that it's so cool for the Pats to just release him. If I got arrested tomorrow I sure hope I wouldn't get fired before I had my day in court.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

If I got arrested tomorrow I sure hope I wouldn't get fired before I had my day in court.

Depends upon your job and/or your contract.

[JPhillips]

I teach at a Catholic college. I'm sure if I was arrested for murder that I wouldn't be employed much longer.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I'm pretty sure if my employer tried to let me go for hanging out with people they didn't like I'd have a lawsuit all up in their asses by lunch.

Even with all the presented evidence I'm still a little shocked that it's so cool for the Pats to just release him. If I got arrested tomorrow I sure hope I wouldn't get fired before I had my day in court.

I think the difference here is that a) NFL teams can cut you for no reason at all anyway and b) that should he get cleared he´ll get all the guaranteed money owed to him.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I'm pretty sure if my employer tried to let me go for hanging out with people they didn't like I'd have a lawsuit all up in their asses by lunch.

Rules may differ in Canada, but unless the firing is pretext for discrimination against a protected class, that case would be a loser.

Even with all the presented evidence I'm still a little shocked that it's so cool for the Pats to just release him. If I got arrested tomorrow I sure hope I wouldn't get fired before I had my day in court.

Again, may differ in Canada, but most in the US don't have employment contracts, so if anything the firing would be because the individual couldn't perform his or her obligations. (In jail, not at work.) Pretty confident that the action taken by my company and most others would be swift, with a token offer of emotional support and an invitation to reapply if things work out.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by digamma

Rules may differ in Canada, but unless the firing is pretext for discrimination against a protected class, that case would be a loser.

I don't know the laws very well, but I'm pretty sure you can't let an employee go up here without just cause (essentially documented issues at work or eradication of the position). I can't see 'hangs out with people we don't like' fitting into the just cause provision, but I could be totally wrong.

Originally Posted by digamma

Again, may differ in Canada, but most in the US don't have employment contracts, so if anything the firing would be because the individual couldn't perform his or her obligations. (In jail, not at work.) Pretty confident that the action taken by my company and most others would be swift, with a token offer of emotional support and an invitation to reapply if things work out.

This is possibly very true from a legal respect and quite possibly how lots of companies might react I suppose. And I certainly wouldn't expect any employer to be paying someone while held on bail or something. But I guess if some co-worker of mine got arrested I'd probably assume they would be suspended without pay until such time that they are cleared to resume work or found guilty of a crime. Maybe I'm just naive.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I can't see 'hangs out with people we don't like' fitting into the just cause provision, but I could be totally wrong.

That's a cause for termination that I don't think even employers in the U.S. would ever use, because it just gets too close to an area that might be the basis of a racial discrimination lawsuit. Which might result in a quick settlement for the fired guy. It's true that most American employees can be fired for any reason, but we're also really litigious, so it kind of balances out. Employers would certainly greatly prefer to build up a trail of incompetence before cutting anyone loose.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by molson

That's a cause for termination that I don't think even employers in the U.S. would ever use, because it just gets too close to an area that might be the basis of a racial discrimination lawsuit. Which might result in a quick settlement for the fired guy. It's true that most American employees can be fired for any reason, but we're also really litigious, so it kind of balances out. Employers would certainly greatly prefer to build up a trail of incompetence before cutting anyone loose.

He's a football player, they didn't have to give him a monster contract, they could have let him walk or traded him.

Normal, everyday schmos like me? I'm guessing if my employer didn't like who I was hanging out with, they could dump my happy ass and come up with a reason to do it that would prevent me from suing. Unless they were actually stupid enough to tell me to hang out with other people and gave me a foothold with which to sue, I'd have a pretty damned complicated time winning any such lawsuit.

[molson]

Originally Posted by TroyF

He's a football player, they didn't have to give him a monster contract, they could have let him walk or traded him.

Normal, everyday schmos like me? I'm guessing if my employer didn't like who I was hanging out with, they could dump my happy ass and come up with a reason to do it that would prevent me from suing. Unless they were actually stupid enough to tell me to hang out with other people and gave me a foothold with which to sue, I'd have a pretty damned complicated time winning any such lawsuit.

I could actually see a star athlete trying to sue a team over his termination (or some kind of breach of contract theory) if it was overtly based on his lifestyle/people he hung out with, especially if he could conjure up a few racially-charged anecdotes about the franchise. It would never happen though, no team would be that dumb, they'd just cut him like they'd cut anyone else and shut their mouth about it. Same as regular employers. You're right, it's not too hard to come up with a reason, but it's something employers do think about. Companies and public agencies still get sued all the time over terminations.

[Danny]

I've been told I hang out with an unsavory crowd. It confuses me though because I spend most of my time by myself.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by molson

I could actually see a star athlete trying to sue a team over his termination (or some kind of breach of contract theory) if it was overtly based on his lifestyle/people he hung out with, especially if he could conjure up a few racially-charged anecdotes about the franchise. It would never happen though, no team would be that dumb, they'd just cut him like they'd cut anyone else and shut their mouth about it. Same as regular employers. You're right, it's not too hard to come up with a reason, but it's something employers do think about. Companies and public agencies still get sued all the time over terminations.

I agree and I'm not jumping back here to bash the Patriots (In fact, I never really jumped on the Pats. I simply said I believed they'd do what ever other team in the league does, nothing more, nothing less)

I think most employers get in a bind over firing people for two reasons, and both of them generally apply.

1) Inconsistency
2) opening up their big mouths

These are both issues NFL teams don't have a huge problem with. If I am the leading salesman in a company and the company decides they don't want me because of my age, they figure out a reason to fire me or lay me off. If they are stupid, they tell me to my face or one of my close coworker friends it's because of age and nothing else. If they are really stupid, they put it in writing. If they are beyond idiotic, they make sure that 3 guys in the office are older than me and have far worse sales are all kept.

Then I sue their asses off. The NFL? Good luck with any of that. Professional sports are something off by themselves, at least where it concerns the athletes.

I saw someone else mention that they'd hope their company stuck by them in a time like this. This is all done on a case by case basis. There are very few jobs that will "stick" with a defendant in a high profile murder case. There are too many complications with the public and reporters ringing the phone off the hook or setting up cameras causing work to grind to a halt. Very few companies are going to sit idly by in those situations. (your best bet is a paid suspension)

Many places of employment who would fire you for far less than a murder 1 charge. DUI or DWI? I'd lose my job tomorrow. I have a friend where a domestic call out, even one not ending in conviction could cost him his job.

At the end of the day, you might think that everyone would stick by you until the trial was over, but when you are talking about a process that will take a year or more to complete and cause the company bad publicity? There aren't many places you would survive that.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by Danny

I've been told I hang out with an unsavory crowd. It confuses me though because I spend most of my time by myself.

I was thinking, a little Paprika and Garlic would solve that...

[molson]

Exchange your Hernandez jerseys for free non-murderer jerseys next weekend at Gillette!

Patriots offer free exchange of Hernandez jerseys - The Buzz - Boston.com sports news

[Logan]

First day in a long time that Aaron Hernandez hasn't been implicated in a murder. Congrats Aaron!

(that news doesn't tend to break after 6p eastern)

[Buccaneer]

.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

.

The Texans and the Rams need to step it up. They are lagging behind.

[miked]

I guess Pacman Jones double-dips with the Bengals and Titans, probably accounts for a good chunk of both.

[Julio Riddols]

I'd like to see one starting in '07 and see the difference. Seems like 90% of the Bengals arrests on this occurred before that.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

I'd like to see one starting in '07 and see the difference. Seems like 90% of the Bengals arrests on this occurred before that.

The stripes have you confused.

Jonathan Joseph, Chris Henry, AJ Nicholson, Quincy Wilson, Chris Henry (again), Ahmad Brooks, Leon Hall, Ray Maualuga, Maurice Purify, Ced Benson, Pacman Jones, Marvin White, Ced Benson (again), Jerome Simpson, Ray Maualuga (again), Robert Sands, Andre Smith and Pacman Jones (again) have all been arrested since 2007 or after. That's 18 arrests from 2007 - 2013. The Bungals continue to earn their sterling reputation even as the years go on.