CRA

I get Cam is "hip"....but I don't get the look his people are trying to pull off. He must have a family member that is trying to get into fashion.

Carolina tagged him last year bc they were debating what to do with him bc they viewed him as so risky.....he then missed the whole season. That is showing work. You aren't gonna get Carolina to give you a list of all the reasons they believed that.....just like you didn't get a list of why 89 was such a headache. But it takes some creative thinking to believe those are made up and unfounded....and that only a team spokesman bluntly telling you would make it legit

You don't dump Hardy and keep everything the same. Add some legit secondary talent and this D can be better than the 2013 defense.... Plus Hardy's "style" made him likable....but he disappeared just as much as Peppers did and everyone LOVED to bash Pep for it. But Hardy wore face paint, was funny, and was a character....which is fun. If Hardy is a important as some suggest our D would have been much worse in 2014. Especially late in the year. Is Hardy a good player? Yep. But all that matters is having a good team and we can do that without him

Yes, Peppers is gone. Now Hardy will be. Life. We don't need him. Some people want him....want isn't need. What I am saying is how did our front look at the end without him? Yes we are better with him but him being gone wasn't something we didn't already deal with. Focus at the end of last year wasn't the DE spot....it was our O and secondary. So Hardy despite being good isn't a huge blow bc we HAVE other talent up front. When you have a collectively good front one guy doesn't make or break u....and breaking the bank on isn't needed

Team sport. And Pep was the best DE when he left. Jenkins was the best DT. How did the front look at the end of last season? Looked fine to me. Issue seemed to be secondary. So why are people acting like Hardy makes or breaks it?

People acting like he is Reggie White... Hardy isn't even one of our top 3 lineman in francise history and we survived them not being with us.

For being part of the trio of poor decision makers who all had some hand to various degrees that put them in the spotlight for something very bad NFL code of conduct is worded so that they can punish you for being an dummy who makes them look bad. Don't have to agree with it....but it is worded like that so they can punish guys who end up being controversial in the media

Gotcha. Also I responding to that post with the built up foundation that it wasn't you who posted it but CP continuing the back and forth. I failed to read who posted it You are right though

Not really. It was reported and even discussed here that it was quesrionanle if Hardy is the type player you trust with a huge deal. So that thinking along with cap implications always existed (even before his legal issue).

Hardy settled. That is what a reasonble person believes. You can claim he didn't. You can claim we didn't land on the moon too.....I can't actually prove it to you either But with Voth reporting Hardy is done. I'll leave the posting in this thread to you

Bills have one of the best fronts in all the NFL...and that was before Rex arrived Hardy would be a poor investment there

They handled Rice wrong and it all snow balled. If the Rice/Peterson things never happened.....they most likely would have let Hardy's case play out and he he plays all season. Rice's case clearly from the start wasn't your standard 2 people making some poor decisions with some light line crossing you often see in domestic disputes But NFL went down the road they went and the media frenzy was what it was.....so now Hardy gets punished. Media and public plays there part in how the NFL acts

Settlements in domestic violence cases aren't uncommon

You do realize civil settlements are legal and routine?

Both are his employers....but I'm not sure why bother answering your questions when you dodge direct ones. and in regards to your Hardy should be shot type response....that is nonsense. Thinking Hardy will get around a 2 game suspension can't be linked to that type stance/bias unless you are just being irrational. I don't think Hardy is worth any risk at this point and I thought he was a risky player before the tag last year. All legit reports are our FO basically has thought similar....

I'm sure Richardson and the other owners will make sure they aren't stuck paying players millions on some obscure list again this offseason..... People are so fixated on the players.....all of who had various degrees of putting themselves in the position to be on it "being punished"....when it was the teams who got screwed. I could easily argue how Rivera was punished more than Hardy. That pick chunk of his cap being removed was a huge handicap for him as a HC.

It is definately a weird thing...not sure dusting that off really did anyone a favor.

But it was all wierd. Court didn't demand immediate something. NFL appealed. I know the list allows certain communication that Peterson and his agent need to have that they couldn't if the appeal places AP in a suspensed status I just haven't read anyone credible report otherwise in regards to consent.

If he wasn't on the list what would his current status be? There are lots of quirky rules.

Why is that your determining factor?

Did you just try to compare...eh...nevermind. Even I won't tangle with that logic

NFL players have to consent and agree to be placed on it. They can resist if they want. Hardy believed that was his best option. I'm just stating fact about the list He likely agreed to it bc it secured him a paid vacation instead of facing you know.....punsihment of losing game day checks.

You have to be able to start with that simple question though to really talk about Hardy at this point. Sure it gets much more complicated than a simple question....but people at this point are acting like the NFL has no right to discipline employees unless they have the backing of a court

NFL can fine or suspend you and your name never even be brought up in a court of law. People seem to try to blur the outcome of a court scenario must some how dictate if he has or hasn't done something that his employer deems punishable. They aren't the same

I'll try this one more time.... Can your employer discipline you....if you have not legally been convicted of something? Or charged with a legal crime? Yes or no. Simple question