Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Peterson to play sunday...maybe Hardy next


Jmac

Recommended Posts

I wouldn't mind this either even though I don't think he should even be suspended. But if we suspend him would the Lions game count?

Count the Lions game!

Idc if he's not "suspended". DEACTIVATING him for 6 games is just as good.

I agree that Hardy shouldn't be suspended, but who controls this society again? The MEDIA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is out of all the recent hoopla, Hardy is the only one claiming innocence yet he's the only one who's technically been tried and convicted albeit a bench trial.    

 

Basically: murky waters are murky.  

 

The only thing that gets me is in his transcript--it deals with what the building attendant/others were describing with the cops.   It seems like he was annoyed of his coked up ex and called the cops on her.  Her freaking out got him to snap and he did something stupid.  There's just too much detail in the accusation and to what the other people there heard/saw: 

 

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/05/14/4910424/transcripts-greg-hardy-911-calls.html#.VBcQQUutgds

 

I know many are quick to claim the judge for the bench trial was strongly biased and he will win his trial by jury, but that's really not a given and it's a lot of assuming.  The fact that the NC system is like this shouldn't force us into this limbo as a team.  We need to make a decision either way or the case will be hovering over the franchise for the season and all of the details will come to the forefront.  Hardy doesn't look good regardless of the situation.  

 

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP
    • When we drafted Luke, we already had Cam, Smith, Olsen, Stewart, Deangleo, Gross, Kalil, CJ, Hardy, Beason, TD, Gamble (and maybe more I'm forgetting), we had a lot of great pieces in place. Going pure BPA for a player with Luke's potential when the LB you already have is different when you already have all those pieces in place.  Our OL right now is probably in a better shape than that team and our RBs and TE have potential compared to proven vets back then, but after that, the 2012 roster was in a far better shape than we are right now. We need a #1 WR, DEs, LBs, DBs, C, and depending who you ask a QB.  Going BPA at pick #5 when that player is a DT and your current best player on either side of the ball is a DT, seems irresponsible. If he's the only player they like that high left, then you trade back and go with position of more need at a slot that makes sense for the player while adding other picks.  If you trade back and he falls because other teams don't need/want a DT, then you consider him at that point because of the value.    
    • This sounds like the same back and forth when we drafted a LB when we already had a LB or as mentioned prior back to back DLs. I want the BPA, if it is another DT so be it. (No not a kicker/punter for those people that think they are funny))
×
×
  • Create New...