Ray McDonald released

[MTC]

Why did they wait this long to release him?

[chad72]

Bottom line, the benefits of keeping him on and off the field were outweighed by the cons of keeping him on the roster. If he was that good and that valuable to SF, they would have kept him.

[Gavin]

Bottom line, the benefits of keeping him on and off the field were outweighed by the cons of keeping him on the roster. If he was that good and that valuable to SF, they would have kept him.

Nothing Tank Carradine or Quentin Dial cant replace I think

[Superman]

Why did they wait this long to release him?

 

They didn't. This is a separate incident, apparently. They stood by him through his previous issues, and now he's under investigation again. I think they feel burned. Like Baalke said, it's becoming a pattern, and they're done with it.

[rock8591]

Ray McDonald is a pililar of the D Line and you could argue that he and Justin Smith are the 2 real pillars of that defense.  Quick justification for that:  They've been missing Willis, Bowman, Dorsey and A. Smith most of the year, yet have still been salty on D.  The constants are what they are able to do with McD and J. Smith.

 

Why does that matter?  You are ascerting that something wish-washy is going on, where as it actually looks pretty clear cut.  The 49ers have held onto a pillar as long as they can, but they now have new or complete information that makes it compelling to part ways with a pillar.  You don't much need a court of law to know guilt or innocence when an NFL team - particulary once accustomed to dealing with sketchy moral characters - releases a pillar.

 

 

Just like Colin Kaepernick committed rape right?

If he did sexually assault or rape someone, you think the media would use those words?

 

e.g. "suspicion of sexual assault" and "possibly sexually assaulted"

[rock8591]

$100 that he won't be charged, and if charged, won't be found guilty.

 

$200 he never did it.

[shakedownstreet]

I'm tired of this "somebody gets released.. maybe the Colts should pick them up" cycle.

 

then you might want to avoid all football boards, or you're going to get even more tired of being tired of it. life is much easier if you look for the humor in an otherwise unfortunate scenario

 

[Gavin]

I actually think Chris Borland has been the biggest reason that the 49ers have been able to maintain that defense as well as it has been this year, He has been real good against the run and good against the pass even though he has only started 8 games

[TheGeneral69]

You have to be trolling and don't really believe this.  Have to be...

 

I'm serious. I want him on the Colts

[jskinnz]

I'm serious. I want him on the Colts

 

Thanks for letting me know to not take anything I read from you seriously.

[Superman]

I agree with this.  But this is what the grovelling to the social justice warriors has done to the NFL.  An unsubstantiated allegation of any violence towards a woman leads to this.  

 

Meanwhile Josh Brent is back in the NFL.

 

So just remember NFL players . . . if you are gonna kill or hurt an innocent person just makes sure it's a man and you'll be ok.  No one cares about them.

 

All of that said I wouldn't sign anyone new with an allegation like that against them until the courts have decided either to not press charges or they have been found not guilty at trial.  I just wouldn't let go of someone just because of an allegation.  

 

This post misses the mark, on several levels. 

 

1) Every organization has the right to determine whether they want a person who has twice been accused of violent behavior to be a part of their organization. 

 

2) You call it "unsubstantiated," which is a moving target. According to the initial report, the woman went to the police over a week ago. Over time, the investigation escalated to the point that the police executed a search warrant on McDonald's home. This isn't some anonymous accusation to the media. Whether anything improper happened is yet to be determined, but there is obviously some kind of evidence to go along with this allegation.

 

3) The Niners stood by Ray McDonald, despite the pressure from the media and public. This isn't bowing to social pressure. It's a decision they made on their own, after McDonald's name has again been connected to allegations of violence.

 

4) Josh Brent went to jail for six months, and is on probation for 10 years. He wasn't active for two years, between being deactivated by the Cowboys and being suspended for 10 games this season. Bringing him up and acting like no one cared about what he did, and he got off scot-free, is hard to reconcile. At best, it's uninformed.

 

5) McDonald isn't suspended by the league, as of right now. He will still be paid for the remaining two weeks of the season. Acting like he's been treated unfairly or unjustly, especially after the Niners stood by him through the previous allegations, is again, uninformed at best.

[Superman]

Agreed, the right to hire who you want can be described as either a moral right or a legal right.  All of the chatter seems to be about who has the morally superior position.  I would take morality out of my personnel policies, because morality can be subjective, therefore the policy will constantly be criticized by someone.

 

I mentioned in another thread how all of the high profile personal conduct cases that have been discussed over the years have been rooted in social issues, Rice (dv), Incognito (bullying), Vick (animal rights)...etc.

 

I just don't understand why a CEO of a company would tolerate nonaffiliated organizations using his/her private company as a springboard for advocating their cause. So many see it the opposite, that it is the responsibility of corporations to champion social issues, defined my whoever's version of morality is expressed louder, and they need to be boycotted or shaken down if they don't.  I just think it is odd for any company to go along with that approach.

 

Maybe company's don't realize that's exactly what they're doing.

 

What I would do, intead of firing my employee to send the message they want me to send, I would sit down with the group, understand what message they want me to send, then charge them a fee for them to use my company's visibility as their messenger.  That may seem harsh, but its better than the alternative, which is doing what they want me to do out of fear of being shaken down. 

 

Its just a matter of charging groups a fee to use my company's visibilty as a messnger instead of opening it up to being shaken down by vocal opinion, essentially opening up my company to being used as a free vehicle for their message.  That's fair.

 

To the bolded, what's moral or ethical isn't dependent on whether someone is going to be critical of you. You do it because you believe it's the right thing to do, whether people realize it or not, whether people like it or not. The Niners are actually a great example of this. They stood up to public pressure earlier, doing what they thought was right, not what everyone else wanted them to do. And that's apparently what they are doing now. They didn't release McDonald because they were pressured to do so. They released him because they thought it was the right thing to do.

 

And the rest of your platform is patently absurd, both in theory and in practice. Good luck with that.

[DougDew]

To the bolded, what's moral or ethical isn't dependent on whether someone is going to be critical of you. You do it because you believe it's the right thing to do, whether people realize it or not, whether people like it or not. The Niners are actually a great example of this. They stood up to public pressure earlier, doing what they thought was right, not what everyone else wanted them to do. And that's apparently what they are doing now. They didn't release McDonald because they were pressured to do so. They released him because they thought it was the right thing to do.

 

And the rest of your platform is patently absurd, both in theory and in practice. Good luck with that.

The NFL and SF are not making policy because of morals.  They are making policy on what they think is good for business and trying to disguise it as a policy based on morals....that's the part they think is good for business. 

 

If the NFL is speaking honestly, morally, it needs to rename its policy.  They don't have a "personal conduct" policy.  They have a "private life conduct" policy.  Personal conduct is throwing your helmet into the stands, or doing some stupid gesture during warmups, or groping a woman at an NFL sponsored charity event or hazing a teamate.  Private life conduct is a drug addiction problem, a temper loss at a casino, or yes, an assault on another person or mouthing off to a police officer. 

 

Patently absurd?  I don't expect shake down representatives to pay me money to promote their cause.  That's the last thing they'll do.  I expect them to steam out of my office triple angry with me for even having the nerve to suggest it, and for me calling out their tactics in public.  Then, I expect a huge effort on their part (and their sympathizers) to discredit anything to do with me and my company as a disincentive to anybody else who may be thinking about shielding their company in the same manner.  I wouldn't care because if I offered a good product at a fair price, customers would still come; since I know that most customers typically don't choose businesses based upon how a company punishes its employees private lives.

 

You know, not too many people going to Walmart ask the greeter if he or she was ever convicted of a felony before deciding to buy a gallon of milk there.

[RockThatBlue]

I guarantee just about every great player in the NFL has done something bad at some point. Ray Lewis killed a man. If social media was popular back then as it was now, Ray Lewis would get the Aaron Hernandez treatment.

And Ray Rice beat his wife and people wanted the Colts to sign him.

So, Dear Lord in Heaven..... Maybe it would be a good thing if the colts got a real man on their team

This just might be the worst post in this forums history.

[ProblChld32]

Given the reason in which he was released i would pass. 

[Valpo2004]

This post misses the mark, on several levels. 

 

1) Every organization has the right to determine whether they want a person who has twice been accused of violent behavior to be a part of their organization. 

 

2) You call it "unsubstantiated," which is a moving target. According to the initial report, the woman went to the police over a week ago. Over time, the investigation escalated to the point that the police executed a search warrant on McDonald's home. This isn't some anonymous accusation to the media. Whether anything improper happened is yet to be determined, but there is obviously some kind of evidence to go along with this allegation.

 

3) The Niners stood by Ray McDonald, despite the pressure from the media and public. This isn't bowing to social pressure. It's a decision they made on their own, after McDonald's name has again been connected to allegations of violence.

 

4) Josh Brent went to jail for six months, and is on probation for 10 years. He wasn't active for two years, between being deactivated by the Cowboys and being suspended for 10 games this season. Bringing him up and acting like no one cared about what he did, and he got off scot-free, is hard to reconcile. At best, it's uninformed.

 

5) McDonald isn't suspended by the league, as of right now. He will still be paid for the remaining two weeks of the season. Acting like he's been treated unfairly or unjustly, especially after the Niners stood by him through the previous allegations, is again, uninformed at best.

 

Lets see if Ray Rice or Ray McDonald are back in the NFL in 2 years.  Remembering that Josh Brent got a man killed. . . and Ray Rice hit (not killed) a woman and the woman is still living and doesn't appear to have suffered any long term physical damage.  

 

To be fair I won't even count it if Ray McDonald is in prison at the time, but say he's free, either the courts didn't file charges, he was found not guilty, or his sentence was either short or didn't include prison. (Although I find the last 2 unlikely given the nature of the charge.)

 

None of these players are low level players like say DaRick Rogers that teams cut for stepping out of line one time without even thinking about it.  All of them where considered high end players at their position.

 

Ray Rice has already been out 1 year.  Somehow I don't see him ever being back in the NFL. 

 

I think you are completely missing what's going on here entirely.  Greg Hardy, Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, and now Ray MacDonald. . . I honestly don't expect to see them back in the NFL ever.  Their cases are over legally speaking (save for MacDonald) and they have all been away from the game for well more then 6 games. . . and somehow yet they arn't back playing.  Why do you think that is?

[TheGeneral69]

Thanks for letting me know to not take anything I read from you seriously.

 

I'll keep the same idea for you.

 

Nice username by the way...

[Superman]

Lets see if Ray Rice or Ray McDonald are back in the NFL in 2 years.  Remembering that Josh Brent got a man killed. . . and Ray Rice hit (not killed) a woman and the woman is still living and doesn't appear to have suffered any long term physical damage.  

 

To be fair I won't even count it if Ray McDonald is in prison at the time, but say he's free, either the courts didn't file charges, he was found not guilty, or his sentence was either short or didn't include prison. (Although I find the last 2 unlikely given the nature of the charge.)

 

None of these players are low level players like say DaRick Rogers that teams cut for stepping out of line one time without even thinking about it.  All of them where considered high end players at their position.

 

Ray Rice has already been out 1 year.  Somehow I don't see him ever being back in the NFL. 

 

I think you are completely missing what's going on here entirely.  Greg Hardy, Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, and now Ray MacDonald. . . I honestly don't expect to see them back in the NFL ever.  Their cases are over legally speaking (save for MacDonald) and they have all been away from the game for well more then 6 games. . . and somehow yet they arn't back playing.  Why do you think that is?

 

First, why not wait and see what the actual deal is with Ray McDonald before running to his defense? If he actually assaulted this woman, your platform for umbrage shrinks dramatically, don't you think?

 

As for Ray Rice, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that he'll be back in the NFL. He'll have a team before training camp. His suspension was just lifted recently.

 

Greg Hardy's legal situation is NOT resolved. As of right now, he's still appealing a guilty finding, and is awaiting a jury trial. 

 

Adrian Peterson's path to reinstatement has been clearly defined, and if he doesn't play, it will be because he walks away defiantly.

 

The reason those guys haven't played again, so far, is because their situations are only recently resolved, or still unresolved. Not because they've been blacklisted. I'm not missing it, I think you're exaggerating what's really going on. Yes, there's been some public outrage that has exacerbated the situations, but that's really not cause to pretend like the situations aren't serious and shouldn't be dealt with by the league.

 

And again, bringing up Josh Brent is completely off the mark. The man went to jail and didn't play in the NFL for two years. None of the guys you've mentioned have come close to that kind of punitive action from the league.

[Valpo2004]

First, why not wait and see what the actual deal is with Ray McDonald before running to his defense? If he actually assaulted this woman, your platform for umbrage shrinks dramatically, don't you think?

 

As for Ray Rice, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that he'll be back in the NFL. He'll have a team before training camp. His suspension was just lifted recently.

 

Greg Hardy's legal situation is NOT resolved. As of right now, he's still appealing a guilty finding, and is awaiting a jury trial. 

 

Adrian Peterson's path to reinstatement has been clearly defined, and if he doesn't play, it will be because he walks away defiantly.

 

The reason those guys haven't played again, so far, is because their situations are only recently resolved, or still unresolved. Not because they've been blacklisted. I'm not missing it, I think you're exaggerating what's really going on. Yes, there's been some public outrage that has exacerbated the situations, but that's really not cause to pretend like the situations aren't serious and shouldn't be dealt with by the league.

 

And again, bringing up Josh Brent is completely off the mark. The man went to jail and didn't play in the NFL for two years. None of the guys you've mentioned have come close to that kind of punitive action from the league.

 

Recently resolved?  They are only recently resolved because the league in one form or another attempted outside of any precedent or rule for doing so have them suspended indefinitely.  

 

Why do you think Rice won his appeal. . . because Goodell just invented the indefinite suspension out of thin air to appease the social justice warriors.  But enough damage has been done to make sure he didn't get a team.  And I disagree I don't see him signing with another team.  The media will rip any team that signs him apart.

 

Do you know how many things Goodell and the NFL did order to kowtow to the social justice warriors?  They invented the exempt list out of thin air for teams to put their players on while the legal issues are being resolved or the teams are too afraid to play a player or put him on the active roster because they fear the backlash led by the SJW's? 

 

They went and hired 3 SJW lawyers to "advise them" on what to do to players that makes the SJW's angry.  

 

It's only beginning and the NFL kowtowing to the SJW's, Goodell going on an apology tour, Doing stupid anti-violence against women (violence against men, especially when conducted by a woman still ok) ads on TV as penance.  Oh this is so only the beginning, the SJW's own the NFL now and they know it.

 

I could be wrong, I have been before and I will admit I was wrong if I see Ray Rice *play* not just get signed but actually play in a few games next year.  I say that because I believe it's possible although unlikely that a team might try to sign him thinking things have cooled down, get beat down with a severe media backlash and then release him to appease the angry mob, apologize, and begin doing their own penance. . . likely by having their owner or GM or coach visit some DV shelter, giving a bunch of money to some women's cause, etc etc.

 

Though I will be surprised if AP plays next year, because he hurt children and not women it wouldn't disprove my view on this.  The main thing that will is Ray Rice playing next year, which I would be highly surprised to see but if I did see would admit I was wrong.

[Superman]

Recently resolved?  They are only recently resolved because the league in one form or another attempted outside of any precedent or rule for doing so have them suspended indefinitely.  

 

Why do you think Rice won his appeal. . . because Goodell just invented the indefinite suspension out of thin air to appease the social justice warriors.  But enough damage has been done to make sure he didn't get a team.  And I disagree I don't see him signing with another team.  The media will rip any team that signs him apart.

 

Do you know how many things Goodell and the NFL did order to kowtow to the social justice warriors?  They invented the exempt list out of thin air for teams to put their players on while the legal issues are being resolved or the teams are too afraid to play a player or put him on the active roster because they fear the backlash led by the SJW's? 

 

They went and hired 3 SJW lawyers to "advise them" on what to do to players that makes the SJW's angry.  

 

It's only beginning and the NFL kowtowing to the SJW's, Goodell going on an apology tour, Doing stupid anti-violence against women (violence against men, especially when conducted by a woman still ok) ads on TV as penance.  Oh this is so only the beginning, the SJW's own the NFL now and they know it.

 

I could be wrong, I have been before and I will admit I was wrong if I see Ray Rice *play* not just get signed but actually play in a few games next year.  I say that because I believe it's possible although unlikely that a team might try to sign him thinking things have cooled down, get beat down with a severe media backlash and then release him to appease the angry mob, apologize, and begin doing their own penance. . . likely by having their owner or GM or coach visit some DV shelter, giving a bunch of money to some women's cause, etc etc.

 

Though I will be surprised if AP plays next year, because he hurt children and not women it wouldn't disprove my view on this.  The main thing that will is Ray Rice playing next year, which I would be highly surprised to see but if I did see would admit I was wrong.

 

Good heavens...

 

You've predicted in advance that Ray Rice won't play next year. I think you're wrong, and I think when he does play next year, you're going to move the goal posts as a way to prove that the NFL has somehow harmed him. Bottom line is that Ray Rice is the one who did what he did. He's responsible for his actions, not the NFL.

 

Also, it's really, really strange to me how bothered you are by the fact that the NFL has decided that they don't want to employ people who have committed acts of violence against women, without at least making sure that person takes some time to reconsider their behavior, attitude and actions. That you're somehow offended that the NFL would say "domestic violence against women is a no-go" is just baffling.

 

And who cares that the NFL determined suddenly that they would take drastic actions to get the offenders off the field? Why is that a bad thing? You call it kowtowing, but the reality is that the NFL had long done too little to take a stand against offenders. It's also worth noting that the NFL didn't determine that Peterson and Hardy would go on the exempt list. The teams did. Ray Rice never went on the exempt list, neither did McDonald. The two guys that were put on the exempt list were both either found guilty or pleaded guilty in cases of violence against women or against children. But by all means, let's just ignore that Greg Hardy allegedly threw his girlfriend around the house and threatened to kill her... no big deal...

 

And anti-violence campaigns are "stupid"? I don't understand why it's so hard to wrap one's mind around this simple fact, but the NFL doesn't employ women who have committed violence against men. It's really beyond the pale that you keep bringing that up; it's completely off-topic, and incredibly tone deaf. When a woman in the NFL is accused or convicted of domestic violence, and the NFL doesn't do anything, then you'll have an argument. For now, you just have a petty complaint that makes you sound misogynistic. It's not a bad thing for an organization to take a stand against domestic violence, particularly when that issue becomes front and center for that organization.

 

I think the ads are heavy-handed and melodramatic, but that's another story. 

[Valpo2004]

Good heavens...

 

You've predicted in advance that Ray Rice won't play next year. I think you're wrong, and I think when he does play next year, you're going to move the goal posts as a way to prove that the NFL has somehow harmed him. Bottom line is that Ray Rice is the one who did what he did. He's responsible for his actions, not the NFL.

 

Also, it's really, really strange to me how bothered you are by the fact that the NFL has decided that they don't want to employ people who have committed acts of violence against women, without at least making sure that person takes some time to reconsider their behavior, attitude and actions. That you're somehow offended that the NFL would say "domestic violence against women is a no-go" is just baffling.

 

And who cares that the NFL determined suddenly that they would take drastic actions to get the offenders off the field? Why is that a bad thing? You call it kowtowing, but the reality is that the NFL had long done too little to take a stand against offenders. It's also worth noting that the NFL didn't determine that Peterson and Hardy would go on the exempt list. The teams did. Ray Rice never went on the exempt list, neither did McDonald. The two guys that were put on the exempt list were both either found guilty or pleaded guilty in cases of violence against women or against children. But by all means, let's just ignore that Greg Hardy allegedly threw his girlfriend around the house and threatened to kill her... no big deal...

 

And anti-violence campaigns are "stupid"? I don't understand why it's so hard to wrap one's mind around this simple fact, but the NFL doesn't employ women who have committed violence against men. It's really beyond the pale that you keep bringing that up; it's completely off-topic, and incredibly tone deaf. When a woman in the NFL is accused or convicted of domestic violence, and the NFL doesn't do anything, then you'll have an argument. For now, you just have a petty complaint that makes you sound misogynistic. It's not a bad thing for an organization to take a stand against domestic violence, particularly when that issue becomes front and center for that organization.

 

I think the ads are heavy-handed and melodramatic, but that's another story. 

 

Actually a cardinals Cheerleader was convicted of violence against her husband.  Received no sanction.  Technically I suppose she doesn't work for the NFL but the Cardinals instead.  

 

And I don't have a problem with them taking a stand and punishing players who commit acts of violence but it's them who keep moving the goal posts.  They set this 6 game suspension up. . . but somehow have found ways to make sure these guys got suspended way more then 6 games.  

 

Seriously whats the point of setting a "new standard" when you are going to ignore it.  

 

I will be highly highly surprised if Rice plays in the NFL again and if he's done I'll admit I was wrong and I won't move the goal posts on that.  In my mind Rice, being the face of the whole domestic violence in the NFL thing, him playing in the NFL again would prove pretty conclusively that the NFL is making decisions independent of angry SJW's.