It's so dumb how we didn't get Greg Hardy

[NYCfan]

Your organization is much too classy to want a guy like that on its roster.  Let him run around in Jerry World until he gets in trouble and suspended again.

[NewColtsFan]

I don't get what you're driving at with the pink thing. And yes, the Hardy thing has gained a lot less traction in the media than AP or Ray Rice. The NFL only cares if it affects their bottom dollar, and Hardy hasn't inflicted enough damage to affect the bottom dollar. Why do you think Brady almost ended with the same suspension despite not beating his wife? Don't accuse me of not paying attention

 

Sorry,  I've been away for a few days with computer trouble.   All fixed now, so I'm responding.

 

What you're missing with the pink thing, is that the NFL commits to supporting Breast Cancer Awareness month so all of the players where some pink for all games in October.     The NFL is actively courting the female fan.  

 

So, when a player who has been convicted of assaulting his former girlfriend, by, in part,  throwing her onto a bed covered in guns, then turns around and says he's glad to be back from his suspension and he wants to come out "guns blazing!"  that looks terrible for the NFL.

 

There was great outrage expressed.    It was on ESPN and every other sports website.   And when you're telling me that you don't think it was a big deal and "didn't cost the NFL any money"  that tells me you're not paying attention to what's being said and talked about out there.

 

As for Brady.....   the NFL tried -- as it often does -- to first offer a 4-game suspension.   The NFL always shots for a bigger suspension to it can later reduce it.

 

4 games become 2.     2 games becomes 1.      As for Hardy,  he only got 4 games this year because it got reduced by an arbitrator.   It was originally 10 games.   The NFL does NOT see the two events as roughly the same.

 

Hope that clarifies my view.....

[Superman]

And for his suspension to be, before it was reduced on either side, (or after) even remotely in the sphere of someone who doesn't beat his wife, but skirts around the rules, proves my point.

Brady got four games; Hardy got ten games (I mistakenly said nine earlier.) Brady got 25% of the season; Hardy got 62.5% of the season. Hardy's suspension, if the league had their way, would have been 250% greater than Brady's.

Their suspensions were never similar.

[JPFolks]

Well our pass rushing problems may be solved but I'd hold my breath on him in the long run. He seems like a scumbag to me.

I feel confident in suggesting that you can remove the "seems like" and insert "is"" from that last sentence......

[JPFolks]

Your organization is much too classy to want a guy like that on its roster.  Let him run around in Jerry World until he gets in trouble and suspended again.

Hopefully he won't murder a woman this time before he does. 

[jaybird95]

Brady got four games; Hardy got ten games (I mistakenly said nine earlier.) Brady got 25% of the season; Hardy got 62.5% of the season. Hardy's suspension, if the league had their way, would have been 250% greater than Brady's.

Their suspensions were never similar.

 

So you think that the Hardy suspension is even in remotely the same sphere? I'm saying that if the NFL truly cared, they would ban him outright.

[Superman]

So you think that the Hardy suspension is even in remotely the same sphere? I'm saying that if the NFL truly cared, they would ban him outright.

 

No, the Hardy suspension isn't remotely in the same sphere as the Brady suspension, at least not based on what the NFL intended it to be. The Hardy suspension would have been well beyond what the Brady suspension would have been.

 

That's not to say that the NFL is absolutely right with how they've handled player discipline, but they obviously considered the Hardy issue to be far more serious than the Brady issue. 

[NewColtsFan]

So you think that the Hardy suspension is even in remotely the same sphere? I'm saying that if the NFL truly cared, they would ban him outright.

 

The NFL can't just ban anyone they want.    They can't do anything they want.

 

I think Deflategate was just the latest example of that.

 

The Hardy suspension that was originally 10 games and was reduced to 4 games in another example of that.

 

The point is,   the NFL was really, really,  REALLY not happy with Greg Hardy.

[RockThatBlue]

You still are lost as to what's going on. What ever dude.

[southwest1]

All I've said is that Hardy makes enough money for the NFL that someone is going to pick him up, and who cares if he is a " off of the field? That is absolutely no reflection on the franchise he plays for, it's not the Dallas Hardy's. If anyone truly cared for what he did off of the field, he would not be playing. And for his suspension to be, before it was reduced on either side, (or after) even remotely in the sphere of someone who doesn't beat his wife, but skirts around the rules, proves my point. Professional athletes aren't the pope, there is ZERO reason for people to give a rats butt what he does off of the field unless it affects the team in a negative. The Panthers thought so, the Cowboys didn't.

Pure God given talent must be weighed against an athlete's ability not to fracture a locker room, display regret over what he did [which explains why he's not on the Panthers squad anymore], & not be a distraction to his new franchise meaning if you address the problem immediately it tends to subside & lose it's intensity over time. However, if Mr. Hardy trivializes what transpired & his role in it, then his teammates will be bombarded with constant questions about his legal issues regarding his former fiancee which will affect the team's focus & make it more difficult to win games as a collective unit.

 

A reduction in his original suspension down to 4 games doesn't validate anything about his ability to earn a nice living. If Dallas was dumb enough to sign him, that Jerry Jones own snafu that will either unravel in his face or cost his club a deep Playoffs run jb95 because Hardy is no Lawrence Taylor clone that can carry any squad to a SB. I never said sainthood was mandated to play in the NFL. But, I don't think it's too much to ask that a representative of the NFL not beat & strangle your soon to be wife, pay her off to avoid a trial by jury longterm prison sentence, & then not even acknowledge any remorse over what you did playing on a new team. Yes, it's a risk vs rewards game for any owner sure, but real leaders don't act like they were suspended over a minor weed possession citation by law enforcement. Football franchises need corporate sponsors in order to flourish & wife beaters who pay off victims doesn't evoke lucrative endorsements deals to me & any owner that takes Hardy on damages their own corporate brand as an organization. So your sainthood point of view is irrelevant. 

[southwest1]

Sorry,  I've been away for a few days with computer trouble.   All fixed now, so I'm responding.

 

What you're missing with the pink thing, is that the NFL commits to supporting Breast Cancer Awareness month so all of the players where some pink for all games in October.     The NFL is actively courting the female fan.  

 

So, when a player who has been convicted of assaulting his former girlfriend, by, in part,  throwing her onto a bed covered in guns, then turns around and says he's glad to be back from his suspension and he wants to come out "guns blazing!"  that looks terrible for the NFL.

 

There was great outrage expressed.    It was on ESPN and every other sports website.   And when you're telling me that you don't think it was a big deal and "didn't cost the NFL any money"  that tells me you're not paying attention to what's being said and talked about out there.

 

As for Brady.....   the NFL tried -- as it often does -- to first offer a 4-game suspension.   The NFL always shots for a bigger suspension to it can later reduce it.

 

4 games become 2.     2 games becomes 1.      As for Hardy,  he only got 4 games this year because it got reduced by an arbitrator.   It was originally 10 games.   The NFL does NOT see the two events as roughly the same.

 

Hope that clarifies my view.....

What you bolded in your post is a tremendous point NCF. Goodell & his bosses the owners want to expand the shield & make more money as a global company. Obviously, women are going to be too receptive to the idea of buying jerseys from players who beat former girlfriends, think that large sums of money can make any controversy disappear forever, or have their own children believe that violence is the best way to resolve disputes, disagreements, & differences of opinion prior to entering the workforce & society as responsible adults. An excellent reply NCF! 

 

Just check out this ad which illustrates your point beautifully namely who is be targeted as a consumer audience for the NFL....

 

 

or this one...

 

https://youtu.be/ZAuNowQLA_s

[southwest1]

Obviously, I meant to say that women wouldn't be receptive to men who abuse or mistreat women in my previous entry. I need to proof read before I click send. OOps!  

[NewColtsFan]

You haven't followed the thread. Maybe you're not paying attention.

 

Since you're new, I'm going to do you a solid and see what you do with it.....   strictly up to you....

 

Superman is not just a Community Moderator here,  but it's my view that he is widely seen by most here as perhaps the smartest poster here.    And I'd suspect that those who don't think he's THE smartest,  probably think of him as one of the smartest.

 

You are free to go after him when you disagree.   You wouldn't be the first.     But most who go after Superman do so armed only with opinions.

 

He, on the other hand, responds with things like facts and logic and reason and common sense, with only a small amount of opinion.

 

Typically those exchanges end with the person who comes after Superman dropping the issue and waving the flag of surrender....   you know....       

 

So, a belated welcome to the website....    hope you enjoy it...   it's a great group of people.....    just offering a little "lay of the land".....

 

You're free to do with it what you think is right.....

 

Have fun!              

[SteelCityColt]

This topic is still going? 

 

[Jason_]

So you think that the Hardy suspension is even in remotely the same sphere? I'm saying that if the NFL truly cared, they would ban him outright.

 

The NFLPA prevents that from being a possibility. As NCF said, the NFL cannot simply ban any player they want. 

[jaybird95]

The NFL can't just ban anyone they want. They can't do anything they want.

I think Deflategate was just the latest example of that.

The Hardy suspension that was originally 10 games and was reduced to 4 games in another example of that.

The point is, the NFL was really, really, REALLY not happy with Greg Hardy.

I should clarify. I'm not in reference to the league, I'm in reference to the teams that make up the league, and ban isn't quite the right word.

[jaybird95]

Pure God given talent must be weighed against an athlete's ability not to fracture a locker room, display regret over what he did [which explains why he's not on the Panthers squad anymore], & not be a distraction to his new franchise meaning if you address the problem immediately it tends to subside & lose it's intensity over time. However, if Mr. Hardy trivializes what transpired & his role in it, then his teammates will be bombarded with constant questions about his legal issues regarding his former fiancee which will affect the team's focus & make it more difficult to win games as a collective unit.

A reduction in his original suspension down to 4 games doesn't validate anything about his ability to earn a nice living. If Dallas was dumb enough to sign him, that Jerry Jones own snafu that will either unravel in his face or cost his club a deep Playoffs run jb95 because Hardy is no Lawrence Taylor clone that can carry any squad to a SB. I never said sainthood was mandated to play in the NFL. But, I don't think it's too much to ask that a representative of the NFL not beat & strangle your soon to be wife, pay her off to avoid a trial by jury longterm prison sentence, & then not even acknowledge any remorse over what you did playing on a new team. Yes, it's a risk vs rewards game for any owner sure, but real leaders don't act like they were suspended over a minor weed possession citation by law enforcement. Football franchises need corporate sponsors in order to flourish & wife beaters who pay off victims doesn't evoke lucrative endorsements deals to me & any owner that takes Hardy on damages their own corporate brand as an organization. So your sainthood point of view is irrelevant.

Honestly I pretty much tldr this, most of this has already been said. Apparently the cowboys didn't think it damaged their brand, and the cowboys are one of the most successful franchises of all time.

[jaybird95]

Since you're new, I'm going to do you a solid and see what you do with it..... strictly up to you....

Superman is not just a Community Moderator here, but it's my view that he is widely seen by most here as perhaps the smartest poster here. And I'd suspect that those who don't think he's THE smartest, probably think of him as one of the smartest.

You are free to go after him when you disagree. You wouldn't be the first. But most who go after Superman do so armed only with opinions.

He, on the other hand, responds with things like facts and logic and reason and common sense, with only a small amount of opinion.

Typically those exchanges end with the person who comes after Superman dropping the issue and waving the flag of surrender.... you know....

So, a belated welcome to the website.... hope you enjoy it... it's a great group of people..... just offering a little "lay of the land".....

You're free to do with it what you think is right.....

Have fun!

Yeah I get that. Tbh I don't really care what someone's internet reputation is. All I've gotten at is that

1. Hardy is a good player

2. Other teams didn't believe his off the field issues warrant not being on a football team.

3. I don't care what he does off of the field. I don't look at sports figures as a moral barometer. That doesn't make him a good guy. But he is a winner. You want to win in sports. I don't care what the team does with the community or how "virtuous" its players are. It's a game. They're not fighting a war for right or wrong. It's a game. Winning is everything on a professional level. I'd rather have Patriots controversy than be the Lions.

[Jason_]

Yeah I get that. Tbh I don't really care what someone's internet reputation is. All I've gotten at is that

1. Hardy is a good player

2. Other teams didn't believe his off the field issues warrant not being on a football team.

3. I don't care what he does off of the field. I don't look at sports figures as a moral barometer. That doesn't make him a good guy. But he is a winner. You want to win in sports. I don't care what the team does with the community or how "virtuous" its players are. It's a game. They're not fighting a war for right or wrong. It's a game. Winning is everything on a professional level. I'd rather have Patriots controversy than be the Lions.

 

Not everyone has a "win at all costs" mentality.  Personally, I'm glad that is not Irsay's mentality. 

[Jason_]

I should clarify. I'm not in reference to the league, I'm in reference to the teams that make up the league, and ban isn't quite the right word.

 

If ban isn't the right word, then what is?  Before you answer, it doesn't matter.  Any punishment (ban, suspension, fine, etc) handed down by the NFL or even by the team is going to be fought by the NFLPA if they feel the punishment was egregious. 

 

Honestly I pretty much tldr this, most of this has already been said. Apparently the cowboys didn't think it damaged their brand, and the cowboys are one of the most successful franchises of all time.

 

Good for the Cowboys.  Don't know about anyone else, but I don't care what the Cowboys do.  Jerry Jones has a history of...questionable decisions.

[Superman]

I should clarify. I'm not in reference to the league, I'm in reference to the teams that make up the league, and ban isn't quite the right word.

 

You're right that if a player is good enough, he'll continue to get chances. At the point that teams feel like his baggage outweighs his contributions, he'll be out of the league. Whether that's because he isn't good enough anymore, or because his issues are just too drastic, or a combination of both (Ray Rice), eventually some guys don't have jobs anymore. 

 

That's a significant societal issue. But with 32 owners, all with different viewpoints, philosophies and tolerance levels for off field stuff, it's hard to nail down exactly what the breaking point is. And that makes blanket statements like 'if the NFL really cared...' kind of meaningless, IMO. 

[Superman]

Since you're new, I'm going to do you a solid and see what you do with it.....   strictly up to you....

 

Superman is not just a Community Moderator here,  but it's my view that he is widely seen by most here as perhaps the smartest poster here.    And I'd suspect that those who don't think he's THE smartest,  probably think of him as one of the smartest.

 

You are free to go after him when you disagree.   You wouldn't be the first.     But most who go after Superman do so armed only with opinions.

 

He, on the other hand, responds with things like facts and logic and reason and common sense, with only a small amount of opinion.

 

Typically those exchanges end with the person who comes after Superman dropping the issue and waving the flag of surrender....   you know....       

 

So, a belated welcome to the website....    hope you enjoy it...   it's a great group of people.....    just offering a little "lay of the land".....

 

You're free to do with it what you think is right.....

 

Have fun!              

 

You're too kind. I'm really just a poser with a good Google machine... ;)

[jaybird95]

Not everyone has a "win at all costs" mentality.  Personally, I'm glad that is not Irsay's mentality. 

 

Well then I guess that's where we disagree. Successful owners do what's successful for their team. Players like Michael Irvin and Bob Hayes don't exactly have great track records off of the field, but the Cowboys sure do have a lot of trophies.

[Jason_]

 

 

Well then I guess that's where we disagree. Successful owners do what's successful for their team. Players like Michael Irvin and Bob Hayes don't exactly have great track records off of the field, but the Cowboys sure do have a lot of trophies.

 

 

And why would I care about how many trophies the Cowboys have? 

So, do you support cheating to win? Just curious..honest question.

[jaybird95]

And why would I care about how many trophies the Cowboys have? 

So, do you support cheating to win? Just curious..honest question.

 

Because it shows what happens when you have a win-at-any-means-necessary mentality. No. You play within the integrity of the game.

[Jason_]

Because it shows what happens when you have a win-at-any-means-necessary mentality. No. You play within the integrity of the game.

But I don't have a "win at any means necessary mentality". So I don't care how many trophies the Cowboys have. I care about how many the colts have....but even more importantly I care about how they were won. I'd get no enjoyment out of celebrating a trophy that was won by a bunch of scumbag players that I couldn't support. To me, that's just as important as playing within the integrity of the rules...if not moreso.

I don't expect every player to be a choir boy...far from it. But there are some who I wouldn't want anywhere close to being on the colts roster, no matter how much talent they may have.

[NewColtsFan]

Yeah I get that. Tbh I don't really care what someone's internet reputation is. All I've gotten at is that

1. Hardy is a good player

2. Other teams didn't believe his off the field issues warrant not being on a football team.

3. I don't care what he does off of the field. I don't look at sports figures as a moral barometer. That doesn't make him a good guy. But he is a winner. You want to win in sports. I don't care what the team does with the community or how "virtuous" its players are. It's a game. They're not fighting a war for right or wrong. It's a game. Winning is everything on a professional level. I'd rather have Patriots controversy than be the Lions.

 

Not every team can take a player like Greg Hardy.

 

Meaning teams like Seattle, with Pete Carroll and St. Louis with Jeff Fisher,  both have reputations of taking on players who have bad reputations off the field.   They feel they're able to manage hard to handle guys.    

 

But not every coach is comfortable doing that.    And not every owner is comfortable doing that.

 

Our owner and GM (I don't know where Pagano is on this issue?)   don't want bad guys in their community.   Jerry Jones can deal with it because in Texas,  football is KING.     They're willing to put up with a lot more than the people in Indy are.   

 

Different approaches.     What works for some won't work for others.     

[jaybird95]

But I don't have a "win at any means necessary mentality". So I don't care how many trophies the Cowboys have. I care about how many the colts have....but even more importantly I care about how they were won. I'd get no enjoyment out of celebrating a trophy that was won by a bunch of scumbag players that I couldn't support. To me, that's just as important as playing within the integrity of the rules...if not moreso.

I don't expect every player to be a choir boy...far from it. But there are some who I wouldn't want anywhere close to being on the colts roster, no matter how much talent they may have.

 

Gotcha... I derive pleasure from watching my team perform well and winning. You care about how many trophies the Colts get, as do I. So I would prefer it if they do whatever is necessary to win. I care about the team, not the players.

[DougDew]

Apparently the cowboys didn't think it damaged their brand, and the cowboys are one of the most successful franchises of all time.

 I've never seen any real evidence that emplying such a player does damage a brand, yet a lot of people say that it does. 

 

I think people like to assume that it does, because they simply don't like the guy and don't want him employed by the NFL...or somebody like him....and "damaging the brand" is just something they fabricate to provide themselves support for their position.  There's no real basis for that.

[Jason_]

Gotcha... I derive pleasure from watching my team perform well and winning. You care about how many trophies the Colts get, as do I. So I would prefer it if they do whatever is necessary to win. I care about the team, not the players.

 

Yeah, that's just a difference in philosophy.  I care about the team as well, but I only care about the team if I can support and enjoy the way the team is ran..which includes what type of players/coaches are brought in.  If the Colts began regularly signing guys like Hardy, Rice, Mike Vick, etc...I'd no longer give a crap about them and move on to a team I could fully support.

 

IMO, there's very little, if any, difference in supporting those types of players being on the team and the team cheating.

[jaybird95]

 I've never seen any real evidence that emplying such a player does damage a brand, yet a lot of people say that it does. 

 

I think people like to assume that it does, because they simply don't like the guy and don't want him employed by the NFL...or somebody like him....and "damaging the brand" is just something they fabricate to provide themselves support for their position.  There's no real basis for that.

 

Agreed.

[jaybird95]

Yeah, that's just a difference in philosophy.  I care about the team as well, but I only care about the team if I can support and enjoy the way the team is ran..which includes what type of players/coaches are brought in.  If the Colts began regularly signing guys like Hardy, Rice, Mike Vick, etc...I'd no longer give a crap about them and move on to a team I could fully support.

 

IMO, there's very little, if any, difference in supporting those types of players being on the team and the team cheating.

 

Agree to disagree. Huzzah /endthread

[southwest1]

Honestly I pretty much tldr this, most of this has already been said. Apparently the cowboys didn't think it damaged their brand, and the cowboys are one of the most successful franchises of all time.

Almost 20 years ago, Dallas was a Championship winning franchise. That's Jerry Jones #1 fatal flaw. He loves to live in the past too much & ride the coattails of his franchises ancient glory days. 

 

Pittsburgh, San Francisco, & NE are supremely successful franchises over a long period of time. Dallas doesn't qualify "one of the most successful [organizations] of all time." No way. It's like saying Kiss is the best rock band of all time. They excel at marketing their brand & publicity of their product just like Jerry does, but they will never topple or surpass either Iron Maiden or the Scorpions. Not even close. 

 

I understand that we all have other matters to attend to life, but 2 paragraphs hardly qualifies as PH.D. dissertation in length. I realize you didn't make this comparison directly jb95. However, I doubt that anything I wrote was a chore to shift through. If you like the Cowboys & believe that this Hardy move was a wise decision, so be it. I just think if a man fails to show some level of meaningful regret over the alarming treatment of a woman he nearly married then there is a lack of maturity that he will never reach no matter how much time or how many chances he is given on a football field. 

 

Michael Vick & Ray Rice are 2 perfect examples of professional men in the sport of football who made horrible decisions, paid a huge price for their actions, acknowledged they needed to change their ways, received help, & turned their lives around for the better. These men I respect. Greg Hardy, on the other hand, I never will because he thinks women are their for his own pleasure or violent amusement. 

 

Sometimes, owners need to make decisions that go beyond sacks on the field & bypass athletes who think that the rules of civilized society don't really apply to them. 

[NewEra]

I'm all about giving guys a second chance. This piece of human trash is a unapologetic pile of trash. He is a ghetto thug *. No thanks.

[jaybird95]

Almost 20 years ago, Dallas was a Championship winning franchise. That's Jerry Jones #1 fatal flaw. He loves to live in the past too much & ride the coattails of his franchises ancient glory days. 

 

Pittsburgh, San Francisco, & NE are supremely successful franchises over a long period of time. Dallas doesn't qualify "one of the most successful [organizations] of all time." No way. It's like saying Kiss is the best rock band of all time. They excel at marketing their brand & publicity of their product just like Jerry does, but they will never topple or surpass either Iron Maiden or the Scorpions. Not even close. 

 

I understand that we all have other matters to attend to life, but 2 paragraphs hardly qualifies as PH.D. dissertation in length. I realize you didn't make this comparison directly jb95. However, I doubt that anything I wrote was a chore to shift through. If you like the Cowboys & believe that this Hardy move was a wise decision, so be it. I just think if a man fails to show some level of meaningful regret over the alarming treatment of a woman he nearly married then there is a lack of maturity that he will never reach no matter how much time or how many chances he is given on a football field. 

 

Michael Vick & Ray Rice are 2 perfect examples of professional men in the sport of football who made horrible decisions, paid a huge price for their actions, acknowledged they needed to change their ways, received help, & turned their lives around for the better. These men I respect. Greg Hardy, on the other hand, I never will because he thinks women are their for his own pleasure or violent amusement. 

 

Sometimes, owners need to make decisions that go beyond sacks on the field & bypass athletes who think that the rules of civilized society don't really apply to them. 

 

You really don't think that Dallas is one of the most successful franchises ever? Since the merger they've won more championships than any team but the 49ers (tied) and the Steelers. And they're tied with the Steelers for most appearances. That's success.

[southwest1]

Gotcha... I derive pleasure from watching my team perform well and winning. You care about how many trophies the Colts get, as do I. So I would prefer it if they do whatever is necessary to win. I care about the team, not the players.

Teams can win Lombardi trophies with high character teammates. We did that in 2006 as you know. I just would prefer not to blur the line between rings & treating individuals without dignity & class even when romantic disagreements transpire between partners. I'll never accept this notion that you have to make a faustian bargain with unstable powder kegs just to achieve NFL immortality. 

[southwest1]

You really don't think that Dallas is one of the most successful franchises ever? Since the merger they've won more championships than any team but the 49ers (tied) and the Steelers. And they're tied with the Steelers for most appearances. That's success.

Did I stutter? I thought I was crystal clear actually. A nearly 2 decade absence for award winning greatness hardly warrants "success" praise & accolades to me jb95. 

 

Their last trophy was won in the 20th not 21st Century with the 1995 season. It's 2015 now. If that greatness, what does pathetic look like? 

[jaybird95]

Did I stutter? I thought I was crystal clear actually. A nearly 2 decade absence for award winning greatness hardly warrants "success" praise & accolades to me jb95. 

 

Their last trophy was won in the 20th not 21st Century with the 1995 season. It's 2015 now. If that greatness, what does pathetic look like? 

 

Your vitriol is unwelcome. I can take up a crappy tone too to back up my opinions that lack facts. Our last trophy was a decade ago, not much difference. I guess we've "hardly warranted" success too. I guess San Francisco's achievements were wiped out too between the Steve Young Era and when Harbaugh arrived. Just because you haven't won a Superbowl recently doesn't mean past achievements are rendered nothing. Dude I'm sorry but you're blind if you don't think the Cowboys are a top three franchise all-time. Give me a break. One of the winningest franchises ever, with the most Superbowl appearances next to the Steelers. But they're not successful.

[Jason_]

Your vitriol is unwelcome. I can take up a crappy tone too to back up my opinions that lack facts. Our last trophy was a decade ago, not much difference. I guess we've "hardly warranted" success too. I guess San Francisco's achievements were wiped out too between the Steve Young Era and when Harbaugh arrived. Just because you haven't won a Superbowl recently doesn't mean past achievements are rendered nothing. Dude I'm sorry but you're blind if you don't think the Cowboys are a top three franchise all-time. Give me a break. One of the winningest franchises ever, with the most Superbowl appearances next to the Steelers. But they're not successful.

 

lol..how was what he said "vitriol"? 

 

Vitriol is harsh, nasty criticism.

 

Definitions of vitriol

1

n abusive or venomous language used to express blame or censure or bitter deep-seated ill will

 

subject to bitter verbal abuse

 

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/vitriol

[DougDew]

I'm all about giving guys a second chance. This piece of human trash is a unapologetic pile of trash. He is a ghetto thug *. No thanks.

What if this anti-social person was a brilliant scientist (yes they can be troubled personally too) and he was on the cusp of curing juvenile diabetes.  If you ran Eli Lilly, would you fire him because he regularly beat his wife and also beat the rap?

 

Or would you keep him employed long enough to steal his formula, then toss him out for the righteous reasons?

 

I guess its a matter of how important one thinks being an NFL football player is to society.  I think its extremely low, so I'd probably employ any player based on his skills alone.