Chad Kelly Suspended

[csmopar]

well. that sure didn't last long.

 

https://fox59.com/2019/05/31/colts-chad-kelly-suspended-for-first-2-games-of-2019-regular-season/

[IndyD4U]

This was expected, no? He has to make the 53 first 

[Steamboat_Shaun]

6 minutes ago, IndyD4U said:

This was expected, no? He has to make the 53 first 

 

It was definitely expected, & I suspect that him making the 53 was never realistically going to happen.

[csmopar]

Just now, Steamboat_Shaun said:

 

It was definitely expected, & I suspect that him making the 53 was never realistically going to happen.

 

7 minutes ago, IndyD4U said:

This was expected, no? He has to make the 53 first 

Actually, it MIGHT help him, at least buy him a couple extra weeks as he wouldn't count against the 53 week roster until week 3

[Smonroe]

11 minutes ago, csmopar said:

 

Actually, it MIGHT help him, at least buy him a couple extra weeks as he wouldn't count against the 53 week roster until week 3

 

So, suspended players don’t count against your 53?  Interesting.  We could then put him on the PS after week 2 and he’d be eligible to play for anyone willing to sign him.

 

 

[csmopar]

4 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

So, suspended players don’t count against your 53?  Interesting.  We could then put him on the PS after week 2 and he’d be eligible to play for anyone willing to sign him.

 

 

According to this article:

 

https://www.cincyjungle.com/2018/8/31/17797904/explaining-pup-nfi-ir-other-injury-nfl-roster-designations-cuts-53-man-roster

 

"Reserve/Suspended

Players who have been suspended by the NFL are not eligible for PUP (unless they have a pre-existing injury situation that's keeping them out of practice). Suspended players are allowed to practice during the offseason and play in preseason games.

During final roster cuts, suspended players are moved to the Reserve/Suspended list and do not count against the 53-man roster limit. They are not allowed to be around NFL team facilities while being forced to train on their own, absent from their teammates and coaches."

 

[Smonroe]

7 minutes ago, csmopar said:

According to this article:

 

https://www.cincyjungle.com/2018/8/31/17797904/explaining-pup-nfi-ir-other-injury-nfl-roster-designations-cuts-53-man-roster

 

"Reserve/Suspended

Players who have been suspended by the NFL are not eligible for PUP (unless they have a pre-existing injury situation that's keeping them out of practice). Suspended players are allowed to practice during the offseason and play in preseason games.

During final roster cuts, suspended players are moved to the Reserve/Suspended list and do not count against the 53-man roster limit. They are not allowed to be around NFL team facilities while being forced to train on their own, absent from their teammates and coaches."

 

 

Keeping him on our Reserved/Suspended list would really help him out, and, as far as I can tell, do nothing for us, right?  Assuming we don’t plan on keeping him on the active roster.  

 

It’s way to early, but just speculating.  If he does look good in the preseason, it may be to our advantage to see if we can just sign him to our PS.  So that any team who would want him would know they couldn’t use him for two weeks.  

 

 

[Coltsfan66]

It must be the "slow season" for this to get so many replies!  Lol, just joking my friends.  This was to be expected and Chad's chances were more likely tied to the Practice Squad than the final 53.  I hope he has learned from this and will become a productive person moving forward.

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, csmopar said:

 

Actually, it MIGHT help him, at least buy him a couple extra weeks as he wouldn't count against the 53 week roster until week 3

 

?????

 

Why are you talking about Kelly on the 53 man roster?   We carry two QBs.....  Luck and Brissett.   Kelly is trying to beat out Walker or the QB spot on the PS.   Unless there’s an injury,  the practice squad is where Kelly should be all season long. 

[NewColtsFan]

This suspension has always been expected.   This is not due to new bad behavior, but old bad behavior.  This doesn’t change a thing for now.  

 

Could things change somewhere down the road?   Sure.   But nobody in the Colts organization was caught off guard by this.  Fans should not over react to this. 

[MTC]

2 hours ago, IndyD4U said:

This was expected, no? He has to make the 53 first 

 

I’m surprised by the amount of fans complaining. Did they not know of his off-season incident?

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

If he got two games Tyreek Hill should be suspended the entire season.

[jimmy g]

2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

?????

 

Why are you talking about Kelly on the 53 man roster?   We carry two QBs.....  Luck and Brissett.   Kelly is trying to beat out Walker or the QB spot on the PS.   Unless there’s an injury,  the practice squad is where Kelly should be all season long. 

Unless he plays well enough that Brisset is traded at the Trade Deadline....

[JPFolks]

1 hour ago, Chloe6124 said:

If he got two games Tyreek Hill should be suspended the entire season.

In my view Hill should be out of the league entirely, but that is a different discussion.  Frankly, Kelly should be too.  If not for his connection to NFL royalty, he would not be a Colt either but I realize my view on this is not popular here.  

[esmort]

5 minutes ago, JPFolks said:

In my view Hill should be out of the league entirely, but that is a different discussion.  Frankly, Kelly should be too.  If not for his connection to NFL royalty, he would not be a Colt either but I realize my view on this is not popular here.  

 

How do you justify banishment when there are so many players in the league still playing who have done so much worse? By that logic; If Kelly's transgressions = banishment than half the league would be on some sort of suspension/probation. 

[csmopar]

3 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

?????

 

Why are you talking about Kelly on the 53 man roster?   We carry two QBs.....  Luck and Brissett.   Kelly is trying to beat out Walker or the QB spot on the PS.   Unless there’s an injury,  the practice squad is where Kelly should be all season long. 

I’m not. I’m merely saying that it “could” actually benefit not only him but us depending on how he performs in TC and the preseason. Gives him an extra two weeks to impress but also gives the Colts two weeks should he win that number 3 spot of keeping him from being able to be snatched up off PS. Not that it would happen. 

 

That said, I think he’ll be lucky to make even the PS. 

[csmopar]

37 minutes ago, JPFolks said:

In my view Hill should be out of the league entirely, but that is a different discussion.  Frankly, Kelly should be too.  If not for his connection to NFL royalty, he would not be a Colt either but I realize my view on this is not popular here.  

I’m not fully up to speed on what Kelly did but it sounds like he simply trespassed. If that’s the full story then compared to what Hill did, that’s nothing. Hill (allegedly) beat up not only his girlfriend but his Toddler as well, causing a broke arm

[JPFolks]

4 hours ago, esmort said:

 

How do you justify banishment when there are so many players in the league still playing who have done so much worse? By that logic; If Kelly's transgressions = banishment than half the league would be on some sort of suspension/probation. 

So you are claiming that 1/2 of the league are ACTUAL criminals, guilty of breaking the law? That crosses the line into a whole new thing.  You might want to walk that crap back a bit.   

[JPFolks]

4 hours ago, csmopar said:

I’m not fully up to speed on what Kelly did but it sounds like he simply trespassed. If that’s the full story then compared to what Hill did, that’s nothing. Hill (allegedly) beat up not only his girlfriend but his Toddler as well, causing a broke arm

He has a long storied history of 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th chances.  

[cbear]

At first I thought he did something new.  But since not, this really shouldn't change anyone's opinion of him imo.  I still want to know what about him makes him worth so many chances.  

[esmort]

1 hour ago, JPFolks said:

So you are claiming that 1/2 of the league are ACTUAL criminals, guilty of breaking the law? That crosses the line into a whole new thing.  You might want to walk that crap back a bit.   

 

I have nothing to walk back because you are missing the point.  IF the penalty for Kelly's relatively minor arrests/convictions (some of which happened prior to entering the NFL) is permanent banishment from the league, than 1/2 the league doesn't have to be "ACTUAL criminals" to receive suspensions; because you are going to be handing out multi-game and season long suspensions for minor infractions due to where the bar is now set.

 

You will be giving out 1 game suspensions for speeding tickets.  Marijuana use/possession & PEDS will become a 1st offense season ban (I would wager at least 1/2 the league uses marijuana/PEDS even if they haven't been caught).  Pat McAfee's swim in the canal would have been a season long ban.

 

The point is however much you may not like him and regardless of how many chances he has had you can't impose such a harsh punishment for what in the scheme of things are relatively minor transgressions without it affecting every punishment the NFL hands out.

[JPFolks]

3 hours ago, esmort said:

 

I have nothing to walk back because you are missing the point.  IF the penalty for Kelly's relatively minor arrests/convictions (some of which happened prior to entering the NFL) is permanent banishment from the league, than 1/2 the league doesn't have to be "ACTUAL criminals" to receive suspensions; because you are going to be handing out multi-game and season long suspensions for minor infractions due to where the bar is now set.

 

You will be giving out 1 game suspensions for speeding tickets.  Marijuana use/possession & PEDS will become a 1st offense season ban (I would wager at least 1/2 the league uses marijuana/PEDS even if they haven't been caught).  Pat McAfee's swim in the canal would have been a season long ban.

 

The point is however much you may not like him and regardless of how many chances he has had you can't impose such a harsh punishment for what in the scheme of things are relatively minor transgressions without it affecting every punishment the NFL hands out.

That is not at all what you said. 

 

"By that logic; If Kelly's transgressions = banishment than half the league would be on some sort of suspension/probation." -esmort

 

You didn't say "Kelly's transgression" SINGULAR, you said "transgressions" implying that 1/2 of NFL players are violent, drug abusing law breakers with endless trouble in their past not even counting the latest nonsense.  It isn't like this hasn't been big news all over the league. I may be the minority opinion among homers on this message board, but not among everyone else.  His infractions have not all been minor and they've been repeating, over and over and over.  

 

"Transgressions" is inclusive of ALL his problems.   So you assigned ALL that baggage on 50% of the league's players.  Drug abuse alone, a singular offense of his, has gotten players banned.  Violence is also in his past.  He needs help, but isn't it interesting all this outpouring of love to get a privileged athlete a 5th or 6th or whatever it is, chance?  Why does he get special care when others before him in the league and in society at large have lost everything for much less?  This blind worship of him is misplaced.   All because he MIGHT be talented enough to be a back-up QB some day? I don't care if he could replace Luck.  He shouldn't even be in the league. 

 

You took the trouble to use a semi-colon, so I am not buying your revision as if you didn't write "transgressions" on purpose.  Nice try to shift it to something else.  Even if you look at them one at a time, your comment is still troubling.  

 

For the record: 

 

50% of the league are not drug abusers. 

50% of the league have not committed an illegal act of violence off the football field. 

50% of the league have not ended up in someone's home illegally.  

50% of the league have not done ANY of the things he's done. 

 

The overwhelming MAJORITY have not done ANY of those things... EVER.  If they HAD then half of them would have already suffered at least one suspension.  

 

Do you STILL really think 50% of them are the same as this guy?  I say he is a special case of a habitual offender outside of the law.  Sure, he's in the league.  But I have to wonder if his last name is the only reason.  It's a fair question and I am not the only one asking it, just 

 

If anyone is curious, you can see here clearly how few players, by % have ever been suspended for ANYTHING.  We can add Kelly to this esteemed list. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suspensions_in_the_National_Football_League

[Lucky Colts Fan]

1 hour ago, JPFolks said:

SINGULAR

ALL

ALL

MIGHT

ANY

MAJORITY

ANY

EVER

HAD

STILL

ANYTHING

 

Geez, calm down, stop yelling...  

[HarryTheCat]

What would happen if he spends 2019 on the PS, but then makes a team's 53-man roster in 2020? Does he still have to sit out the first two games or does that penalty go away at the end of the 2019 season?

[Smonroe]

1 hour ago, HarryTheCat said:

What would happen if he spends 2019 on the PS, but then makes a team's 53-man roster in 2020? Does he still have to sit out the first two games or does that penalty go away at the end of the 2019 season?

 

No, I think it’s his first two games, whenever.  We’d do him a solid by keeping him for his first two (suspended) games and then put him on the PS.  

[JPFolks]

19 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Geez, calm down, stop yelling...  

I wasn't aware that text capitalization was audible? I guess some people are more easily triggered than others.  The more surprising thing is that you used your time to pick out the capitalized words in a long post on a message board.  I hope it was worth it? 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

29 minutes ago, JPFolks said:

I wasn't aware that text capitalization was audible? I guess some people are more easily triggered than others.  The more surprising thing is that you used your time to pick out the capitalized words in a long post on a message board.  I hope it was worth it? 

 

  Lighten up Francis.  It was obviously a joke.

[Coltsfan66]

27 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

  Lighten up Francis.  It was obviously a joke.

The" " emoticon was a dead give away, lol!  

 

 

[Cynjin]

23 hours ago, JPFolks said:

That is not at all what you said. 

 

"By that logic; If Kelly's transgressions = banishment than half the league would be on some sort of suspension/probation." -esmort

 

You didn't say "Kelly's transgression" SINGULAR, you said "transgressions" implying that 1/2 of NFL players are violent, drug abusing law breakers with endless trouble in their past not even counting the latest nonsense.  It isn't like this hasn't been big news all over the league. I may be the minority opinion among homers on this message board, but not among everyone else.  His infractions have not all been minor and they've been repeating, over and over and over.  

 

"Transgressions" is inclusive of ALL his problems.   So you assigned ALL that baggage on 50% of the league's players.  Drug abuse alone, a singular offense of his, has gotten players banned.  Violence is also in his past.  He needs help, but isn't it interesting all this outpouring of love to get a privileged athlete a 5th or 6th or whatever it is, chance?  Why does he get special care when others before him in the league and in society at large have lost everything for much less?  This blind worship of him is misplaced.   All because he MIGHT be talented enough to be a back-up QB some day? I don't care if he could replace Luck.  He shouldn't even be in the league. 

 

You took the trouble to use a semi-colon, so I am not buying your revision as if you didn't write "transgressions" on purpose.  Nice try to shift it to something else.  Even if you look at them one at a time, your comment is still troubling.  

 

For the record: 

 

50% of the league are not drug abusers. 

50% of the league have not committed an illegal act of violence off the football field. 

50% of the league have not ended up in someone's home illegally.  

50% of the league have not done ANY of the things he's done. 

 

The overwhelming MAJORITY have not done ANY of those things... EVER.  If they HAD then half of them would have already suffered at least one suspension.  

 

Do you STILL really think 50% of them are the same as this guy?  I say he is a special case of a habitual offender outside of the law.  Sure, he's in the league.  But I have to wonder if his last name is the only reason.  It's a fair question and I am not the only one asking it, just 

 

If anyone is curious, you can see here clearly how few players, by % have ever been suspended for ANYTHING.  We can add Kelly to this esteemed list. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suspensions_in_the_National_Football_League

 

Overreact much?  I don't see much blind worship of Kelly just, some people willing to give him a "second chance" and other's questioning if Kelly has done enough to warrant a "second chance".

 

As to the other bolded comments, yes, is someone has enough talent they are going to be given more chances than someone with less talent.  I don't know what world you live in, but this occurs in every profession.

 

Also, people do have the capacity to change, so if Kelly has stopped being a knucklehead and has truly changed then I personally am okay with it.

 

Finally, I would not be at all surprised if at least 50% of the NFL players smoked marijuana.

[JPFolks]

52 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

Overreact much?  I don't see much blind worship of Kelly just, some people willing to give him a "second chance" and other's questioning if Kelly has done enough to warrant a "second chance".

 

As to the other bolded comments, yes, is someone has enough talent they are going to be given more chances than someone with less talent.  I don't know what world you live in, but this occurs in every profession.

 

Also, people do have the capacity to change, so if Kelly has stopped being a knucklehead and has truly changed then I personally am okay with it.

 

Finally, I would not be at all surprised if at least 50% of the NFL players smoked marijuana.

So 50% of players are violating the NFL drug policy and you base this on what facts? What you are saying means that half the players should be suspended under their mutually agreed on deal with the NFL?  That's a bold statement.  Can you offer evidence? 

 

This is not a second chance for this guy.  It's one of a very long list of criminal behavior which includes violence, drug abuse and being in someone's home illegally, among other issues.  You are shilling for him because of his talent? Really? It isn't his "talent" that got him on this roster.  Reich admitted openly (to his credit) that his last name DID play a part.  

 

Meanwhile, you accuse half the players in the league of criminal behavior in violation of league policy which their union agreed to.  First, I am unaware of evidence that his only "drug" offense was a use of marijuana? Can you link to that fact? 

 

Additionally, are they also violent off the field like Kelly? Are they unlawfully found in other people's homes like Kelly? Do 50% of them do all of Kelly's nonsense, or are they just violating Federal law and the NFL league policy as you claim?  This guy isn't a first time offender.  He is a serial criminal and drug addict. That is factual.  He's gone well past strike three but he has the right connection, so he's here.  That is how the world actually works.  Connections matter.  Talent does not.  Plenty of top notch talent do not play in the league.  If their last name's were Kelly, they would certainly get a longer look.  People can change, sure.  So how many more arrests or crimes or bad behaviors does he get?  The answer is however many his last name will get him.  He's well past what a normal unconnected person, with or without talent, would get.  

 

You're worried about my post (enough to rebut it) which is based on 1 specific player and his specific factual problems while you make a statement impugning 50% of the league as criminals with no proof. And I'm the problem here?  

[jvan1973]

36 minutes ago, JPFolks said:

So 50% of players are violating the NFL drug policy and you base this on what facts? What you are saying means that half the players should be suspended under their mutually agreed on deal with the NFL?  That's a bold statement.  Can you offer evidence? 

 

This is not a second chance for this guy.  It's one of a very long list of criminal behavior which includes violence, drug abuse and being in someone's home illegally, among other issues.  You are shilling for him because of his talent? Really? It isn't his "talent" that got him on this roster.  Reich admitted openly (to his credit) that his last name DID play a part.  

 

Meanwhile, you accuse half the players in the league of criminal behavior in violation of league policy which their union agreed to.  First, I am unaware of evidence that his only "drug" offense was a use of marijuana? Can you link to that fact? 

 

Additionally, are they also violent off the field like Kelly? Are they unlawfully found in other people's homes like Kelly? Do 50% of them do all of Kelly's nonsense, or are they just violating Federal law and the NFL league policy as you claim?  This guy isn't a first time offender.  He is a serial criminal and drug addict. That is factual.  He's gone well past strike three but he has the right connection, so he's here.  That is how the world actually works.  Connections matter.  Talent does not.  Plenty of top notch talent do not play in the league.  If their last name's were Kelly, they would certainly get a longer look.  People can change, sure.  So how many more arrests or crimes or bad behaviors does he get?  The answer is however many his last name will get him.  He's well past what a normal unconnected person, with or without talent, would get.  

 

You're worried about my post (enough to rebut it) which is based on 1 specific player and his specific factual problems while you make a statement impugning 50% of the league as criminals with no proof. And I'm the problem here?  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2018/04/11/martellus-bennett-89-percent-nfl-players-smoke-pot/508746002/

[Cynjin]

1 hour ago, JPFolks said:

So 50% of players are violating the NFL drug policy and you base this on what facts? What you are saying means that half the players should be suspended under their mutually agreed on deal with the NFL?  That's a bold statement.  Can you offer evidence? 

 

This is not a second chance for this guy.  It's one of a very long list of criminal behavior which includes violence, drug abuse and being in someone's home illegally, among other issues.  You are shilling for him because of his talent? Really? It isn't his "talent" that got him on this roster.  Reich admitted openly (to his credit) that his last name DID play a part.  

 

Meanwhile, you accuse half the players in the league of criminal behavior in violation of league policy which their union agreed to.  First, I am unaware of evidence that his only "drug" offense was a use of marijuana? Can you link to that fact? 

 

Additionally, are they also violent off the field like Kelly? Are they unlawfully found in other people's homes like Kelly? Do 50% of them do all of Kelly's nonsense, or are they just violating Federal law and the NFL league policy as you claim?  This guy isn't a first time offender.  He is a serial criminal and drug addict. That is factual.  He's gone well past strike three but he has the right connection, so he's here.  That is how the world actually works.  Connections matter.  Talent does not.  Plenty of top notch talent do not play in the league.  If their last name's were Kelly, they would certainly get a longer look.  People can change, sure.  So how many more arrests or crimes or bad behaviors does he get?  The answer is however many his last name will get him.  He's well past what a normal unconnected person, with or without talent, would get.  

 

You're worried about my post (enough to rebut it) which is based on 1 specific player and his specific factual problems while you make a statement impugning 50% of the league as criminals with no proof. And I'm the problem here?  

 

To your:

 

First paragraph, reports that I have read.  A search will show multiple articles all reporting over 50% use.

 

Second paragraph, I didn't say this was his actual second chance.  That's why I put second chance in quotes, it is the concept of giving someone a "second chance".  I am not shilling for anyone, just acknowledging that people can change and that players that have more talent will get more leeway, a concept that you seem to be unable to acknowledge.  Another concept you may not have heard of that it helps to know someone in order to get a job.  I, myself have been given the chance to interview for jobs just because I knew someone with influence, it happens all the time, in every industry.

 

Third paragraph, I didn't accuse anyone of criminal behavior.  I said that I would not be surprised if over 50% of NFL players smoked marijuana.  I based that off of the articles I have read from people that should know more than I do on it's use among NFL players.

 

Forth paragraph, like I previously posted, if he has stopped his knucklehead behavior, then I am all for people changing their lives for the better.  You're wrong though, talent does matter, so do connections, but without the talent the connection would not matter.

 

Fifth paragraph, I am not worried about your post or anyone else's post.  I just believe that you are overreacting to Kelly's signing.  If he has changed his behavior, then maybe he catches on with another team or stays a back up, good for him.  If he hasn't changed his behavior, then he will be gone, which is too bad for him.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

On 6/1/2019 at 10:27 AM, JPFolks said:

For the record: 

 

50% of the league are not drug abusers. 

50% of the league have not committed an illegal act of violence off the football field. 

50% of the league have not ended up in someone's home illegally.  

50% of the league have not done ANY of the things he's done. 

 

The overwhelming MAJORITY have not done ANY of those things... EVER.  If they HAD then half of them would have already suffered at least one suspension.

 

You mean they haven't been CAUGHT and suspended for doing any of those things.  Kelly seems to be one of the guys that can't get away with anything.  

 

There are probably A LOT of guys in the NFL that did all of those things (and more) in their first year in college and there's just no evidence of any of it.  

 

And them's the FACTS.  

[esmort]

On 6/1/2019 at 10:27 AM, JPFolks said:

That is not at all what you said. 

 

"By that logic; If Kelly's transgressions = banishment than half the league would be on some sort of suspension/probation." -esmort

 

You didn't say "Kelly's transgression" SINGULAR, you said "transgressions" implying that 1/2 of NFL players are violent, drug abusing law breakers with endless trouble in their past not even counting the latest nonsense.  It isn't like this hasn't been big news all over the league. I may be the minority opinion among homers on this message board, but not among everyone else.  His infractions have not all been minor and they've been repeating, over and over and over.  

 

"Transgressions" is inclusive of ALL his problems.   So you assigned ALL that baggage on 50% of the league's players.  Drug abuse alone, a singular offense of his, has gotten players banned.  Violence is also in his past.  He needs help, but isn't it interesting all this outpouring of love to get a privileged athlete a 5th or 6th or whatever it is, chance?  Why does he get special care when others before him in the league and in society at large have lost everything for much less?  This blind worship of him is misplaced.   All because he MIGHT be talented enough to be a back-up QB some day? I don't care if he could replace Luck.  He shouldn't even be in the league. 

 

You took the trouble to use a semi-colon, so I am not buying your revision as if you didn't write "transgressions" on purpose.  Nice try to shift it to something else.  Even if you look at them one at a time, your comment is still troubling.  

 

For the record: 

 

50% of the league are not drug abusers. 

50% of the league have not committed an illegal act of violence off the football field. 

50% of the league have not ended up in someone's home illegally.  

50% of the league have not done ANY of the things he's done. 

 

The overwhelming MAJORITY have not done ANY of those things... EVER.  If they HAD then half of them would have already suffered at least one suspension.  

 

Do you STILL really think 50% of them are the same as this guy?  I say he is a special case of a habitual offender outside of the law.  Sure, he's in the league.  But I have to wonder if his last name is the only reason.  It's a fair question and I am not the only one asking it, just 

 

If anyone is curious, you can see here clearly how few players, by % have ever been suspended for ANYTHING.  We can add Kelly to this esteemed list. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suspensions_in_the_National_Football_League

 

All that writing and you still somehow managed to miss the point

 

I don't know if I can make it any more simple.  No where did I say (or imply) 50% of the league did something equal to what Kelly had done or are "the same as this guy".  I thought the original point was pretty straight forward, but let's try it a different way.  IF you set the "punishment bar" at banishment for what Kelly is being punished for than 50% of the league would be getting punished in some way for something (meaning even things much less severe than what Kelly has done), because by setting the bar that high even minor offenses would receive stiff penalties (whether that be some sort of probation, 1 game suspension, or a season/s suspensions (Kelly got banishment: so Kelly =/= to 50% of the league)).  So players who did only small things by comparison would pay the price (a punishment, but not likely banishment) because you set a bad precedent by over-punishing Kelly.

 

You appear to be stuck on the 50% number when the exact number was not central to the point. Call it a "large percentage" instead of 50% if you want, the point remains the same.

 

Also you seem to have taken issue with the word "transgressions" for some weird reason. The reason I wrote transgressions over specific incident is because I couldn't remember at the time without researching where the bar fight and the football game brawl fell in the timeline of him being drafted (i.e. would they be a consideration is his punishment).  But, if you want to include everything a player did all through college (especially those that ended as only misdemeanors (bar fight) or no charges (football game)) I think a lot of players would be in trouble.

 

In response to your related responses:

 

If you don't think at least 50% of the league is violating NFL drug policies (smoking marijuana and/or doing PEDS) you are watching a different NFL than me.

 

So what if part of the reason he got extra chances is because of who he knows or what his last name is ... welcome to how the world works ... cronyism and nepotism always have and always will play a role in every industry.

 

Also having the famous last name can be a double edged sword while he may get more chances, he is also under more of a spotlight and likely much more pressure (which may be part of his issues).

 

I don't know why you (and a couple others) are so worked up about a project on the back end of the roster.  He definitely has his issues , but is not nearly as bad as you are making it seem. He is on the shortest leash; if he takes a wrong step, under performs, or a better player comes available he's gone. In the meantime he is a camp arm (which we have to have anyway), and if he turns out to have figured things out and have the talent than we have a good cheap back up. It's a win-win for the Colts.

 

 

[lollygagger8]

[Buck Showalter]

 

14 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

You mean they haven't been CAUGHT and suspended for doing any of those things.  Kelly seems to be one of the guys that can't get away with anything.  

 

There are probably A LOT of guys in the NFL that did all of those things (and more) in their first year in college and there's just no evidence of any of it.  

 

And them's the FACTS.  

Ha... Exactly

This is why I am not a Kelly fan, & what I was largely hinting at in my posts & stance in the other Kelly thread...

I basically couldn't care less about "what" he did, it's just that you've gotta be a special kind of person to continuously get busted doing the things this guys been in trouble for, Lol...

[Myles]

I assume Ballard has a plan.    Probably figures Brissett is gone after this season.   Maybe we can get something back in a trade this season.    Either way, it would be nice to have a backup in place.   Ballard probably feels that Kelly's upside is more than other backups available.   

 

Pre draft review of him:

Strengths:

Powerful arm

Will fit passes into tight windows

Pocket presence

Flashes field vision

Ball placement

Can make all the throws required

Throws a catchable ball

Can pick up yards on the ground

Mobility

Can hurt defenses on the ground

Athletic upside

 

Weaknesses:

Huge character concerns

Lots of off-the-field issues

Prone to big mistakes in clutch, pressure situations

Short

Two torn ACLs

Inconsistent accuracy

Inconsistent field vision

Inconsistent decision-making

Will need to learn working under center

Transition from a college-style to pro-style offense

[Jason_]

On 6/2/2019 at 7:43 AM, JPFolks said:

I wasn't aware that text capitalization was audible? I guess some people are more easily triggered than others.  The more surprising thing is that you used your time to pick out the capitalized words in a long post on a message board.  I hope it was worth it? 

 

Quote

3. Don’t write in all CAPS! It’s “YELLING” and unnecessary.

 

 

It's pretty common knowledge that typing in all caps in a written message is considered "yelling".  

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

I think the Colts expected it. Nothing new here!

[JPFolks]

On 6/2/2019 at 12:25 PM, jvan1973 said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2018/04/11/martellus-bennett-89-percent-nfl-players-smoke-pot/508746002/

That is opinion.  I asked for a piece of FACT?  Did he name the names of the people he saw smoke pot? No.