Mr. Scot

Beat me to it For those complaining, I'd say this has a lot more to do with Hardy's lack of judgment and his general attitude during his 'paid vacation' than it does his trial.

It's a really stupid theory being advanced by Patriots defenders, The Ravens noticed it in the game before as well but it didn't become a story till after the Colts game.

Dammit Shark! Okay, I'm takin' a break. The imagery in this thread is just...

From what I remember of him a few years back, I had nicknamed him "Free Shot".

Thanks for the image, Jangler (dammit)

Would you want this bunch around your wife?

I want more out of this offseason than just 'better than Bell'.

I'm not a big fan of Doug Free as a left tackle.

Heck, all that matters these days is being famous. How and why is unimportant. Anything for those 15 minutes. Even if you look like an utter fool, it's okay as long as you're a famous fool.

Big question would be for violent crime or non-violent. (but given that this is a personal issue, I don't necessarily expect you to share that)

Not after my girlfriend found out

Don't look at me. I only clicked in to find out what a 'slore' was

You left out the part about us switching to a 3-4.

Chris Spielman said it best years ago. All they're really asking of players is just don't get arrested. Is that really such a difficult request?

And the team will investigate those things thoroughly, with more info and access than any of us have, and make their decision accordingly. If they choose to draft him, or pass on him, it'll be based on that analysis. My guess: They'll pass, and people will b--ch about it.

Know the feeling.

Going off both Zod and Voth, that seems to be the feeling. Why? I'd speculate that it's based on two things 1) history of poor judgment and 2) how he behaved after he was put on the exempt list. I don't have inside info, so this is all speculation.

I like Jangler's answer better (despite it being wrong).

Because you don't make the team better when you're suspended. If the team feels the risk of his being suspended again is too great (which, by all indications, they do) then they won't want him back.

Okay, I'm gonna sound like an old man when I say this (which technically I am) but what's a 'slore'? (I'm guessing its some variation on '*****')

And I'm talking about why.

I don't know if he's a villain. Frankly I don't care. What I'm talking about is the risk the team takes in picking a guy with known character issues. It's about being smart with your investment.

After watching us sit through a season where we paid a guy 13 million to sit at home and do nothing, plus the drama surrounding guys like Ray Rice, Josh Gordon and Adrian Peterson, you still question why we would avoid character problems? With the Rice story in particular, knowing how much of an image problem that was for the league and how hard they're gonna be looking at incidents like that, plus the fact that guys can now be made 'exempt' without allowing the legal process to play out, taking a chance on guys like that is a bigger risk than ever. All the talent in the world doesn't mean jack s--t if they're not on the field.

One problem: The scenario you're basing your argument on doesn't actually happen. If we're looking at two players in a given draft spot, they're going to be equally rated on talent. The team isn't gonna look at a guy with a third round grade as an option in the second round just because he has high character. Character could be used to separate two guys graded with equal talent, but they're not gonna raise a guy's draft grade. It's also a straw man because it's not like any given draft spot has only two guys to choose from. Even in the seventh round there are still plenty of choices available with no major character concerns attached.

Which I have no problem with. You think we're the only team that looks at character issues?