Has Voth changed his opinion of Hardy's future?

[TheNewStandard]

Greg Hardy's likely just going to be allowed to walk via free agency and he'll probably get a pretty good payday wherever he goes.

That's something that happens on an annual basis. Ted Ginn, Mike Mitchell, Captain Munnerlyn and others have been allowed to find deals elsewhere in recent years. Others will this year too.

Now take Steve Smith, on the other hand, who was proactively cut.

If Steve Smith being let go didn't divide the team, what makes you think letting Greg Hardy get paid somewhere else will?

Ginn and Mitchell are a dime a dozen considering what we hoped to be coming into the year with one of, if not the best pass rush in the league. had Hardy been allowed to play, I could have played safety and would have been successful.

losing Jordan Senn hurt as bad as losing Ginn and we brought in Underwood who just didn't work out, unfortunately. CBrown is gonna improve over the summer and we have a ton of draft picks to address PR/KR.

Steve smith got cut because it saved us 11million for next seasons salary cap. I'll also say that he saved our DBs from turning into head cases as well.

[Mr. Scot]

The simple fact that his teammates all want him back. Or at least the leaders of the team and that's good company to be in. Its just simply dumb not to allow a player of Hardy's caliber not to come back if he takes a favorable deal. Yes he has done some childish things in the past but people do dumb things. All Im saying is there should be talk between Hardy and Dave and Dave needs to tread lightly or he could end up having players leave how he treats hardy. Even though Smith was a prick and most were ready to see him go there were mummers that he was not treated right. Now you have a guy begging to come back and a team thats backing him its a tricky situation to say the least.

 

The vast majority of players understand that it's a business.  Popular guys get let go on an annual basis from every team in the league.  The Panthers aren't unique in that, and any player looking for a team where that doesn't happen is gonna be sorely disappointed.

 

And we don't know that Hardy is 'begging to come back'.  The whole 'play for free' thing could easily just be talk.  Heck we don't even know how many teammates are actually backing Hardy.

 

Regardless, no front office in the league polls players before making roster decisions, nor should they.

[Mr. Scot]

Ginn and Mitchell are a dime a dozen considering what we hoped to be coming into the year with one of, if not the best pass rush in the league. had Hardy been allowed to play, I could have played safety and would have been successful.

losing Jordan Senn hurt as bad as losing Ginn and we brought in Underwood who just didn't work out, unfortunately. CBrown is gonna improve over the summer and we have a ton of draft picks to address PR/KR.

Steve smith got cut because it saved us 11million for next seasons salary cap. I'll also say that he saved our DBs from turning into head cases as well.

 

And yet we still managed to field one of the best defenses in the league by season's end.

 

Believe it or not, our entire fortunes next season aren't going to rise and fall on Greg Hardy.

 

[Snake]

The vast majority of players understand that it's a business.  Popular guys get let go on an annual basis from every team in the league.  The Panthers aren't unique in that, and any player looking for a team where that doesn't happen is gonna be sorely disappointed.

 

And we don't know that Hardy is 'begging to come back'.  The whole 'play for free' thing could easily just be talk.  Heck we don't even know how many teammates are actually backing Hardy.

 

Regardless, no front office in the league polls players before making roster decisions, nor should they.

 

Hardy knows just as well as the players he will have to make a deal work. When Hardy came out of collage the knock on him was the he really didn't fit in well with his coach and the players. Hardy had found a home here and it would not surprise me at all if he took a small 2 or 3 year prove it deal just so he could stay. If he chases the money then he really was not committed anyway. My point is that if he is willing to do that you cant say no and not allow him to prove it. We sat around years waiting on Davis to recover from injury and could have cut him just as easy. Im not saying break the bank on him, what Im saying is if he is truthful let him play. I guess we can agree to disagree on that but I doubt Voth with just throw this out there without weight to it.

[Mojo]

This is why people need to quit speaking with so much certainty. It's a very fluid situation so just let it play out. Could go either way. Is it more likely he's gone? Maybe, but it's not a foregone conclusion like some of these folks seem to keep reiterating.

[bigdog10]

Big moment for Jerry here if it is the team leaders advocating for his return.

Jerry will have a chance to choose the shield by letting him go or back his franchise by trying to keep him. At least that will be the perceptions of some in this fan base and maybe some in that building at mint and morehead.

[top dawg]

This is why people need to quit speaking with so much certainty. It's a very fluid situation so just let it play out. Could go either way. Is it more likely he's gone? Maybe, but it's not a foregone conclusion like some of these folks seem to keep reiterating.

 

Which is what I have been saying basically all along.  I started to believe the hype a little after Igo reported it here, but after Jason Cole reported that it wasn't so sure as others in the Charlotte area would have us believe, I won't be fooled again.

 

Nobody knows poo about Hardy's final status as a Panther this offseason until it's reported by Hardy, his agent and/or the Panthers.

[WOW!!]

We let one walk before who was squeaky clean before....

We definately can do it with one we can't trust given that fact.

Noooooooooo!!

He walked out the door with them begging him to stay..

You must have forgotten they offered Pep the richest defensive player deal at that time and he threw back in their faces..

[WOW!!]

This is why people need to quit speaking with so much certainty. It's a very fluid situation so just let it play out. Could go either way. Is it more likely he's gone? Maybe, but it's not a foregone conclusion like some of these folks seem to keep reiterating.

This^^^^^

[Woodie]

There is a lot of hearing what you want to hear going on in this thread.  I don't think many arguing really understand what Jeremy is saying.  He's not saying what is right or wrong, or what should happen, or even what his personal opinion is.  He's simply saying that based on the way the winds are blowing in the NFL what you can expect. 

 

Most of you are arguing your beliefs of what is right and what should happen.  The problem is that despite many on here wanting to believe that the NFL won't suspend Hardy, or that if they do are fairly certain it won't be for six games are using only their own rationale and personal judgment to make that claim.  Unfortunately, the NFL does not have the same burden of proof as the courts.  And the players union made a major blunder by giving Goodell the authority to hand out punishments as he sees fit.  That's why it's rare for the courts to side with a player in a court battle. 

 

Here is what we know:

 

1) Hardy was accused of a reprehensible crime.  Yes it was a misdemeanor, but that doesn't minimize its impact.  Just the accusation alone gave the league and team a black eye...at least in their eyes.

 

2) Even though his conviction was set aside due to the laws in NC when appealing, GH was convicted at one point...and setting aside the conviction is a legal standard, not a NFL standard.  In their eyes, he was convicted, and then the case was dropped.  Not because the DA came to the conclusion it was an unwarranted accusation, but because their star witness disappeared...and they have strongly stated it's because they believe she made a deal with Hardy.  Hardy was never exonerated in this case, it was just dropped.  If he was innocent, it was never proven in a court of law, so in the leagues eyes, he is stuck with the stigma of the uncertainty of his guilt.  Which is to say they still feel they have a black eye.

 

3) Regardless of his guilt or innocence, it is unquestioned that he put himself in a bad situation that has ultimately made the league look bad.  He knowingly associated with people who were doing drugs and the time of the incident is also a negative to the NFL.

 

4) And despite what some want to think, in the eyes of the law, the commissioners list is not a suspension.  He was paid, and made the choice to go on the list rather than let things play out.  I think many have missed the point that he was not just put on the list, but agreed to it rather than take a chance on being suspended if things didn't go his way.  Some may see it as being strong armed, but the law sees it as his decision, not something forced on him...although the league will be the ones to decide if and when he can come off the list. 

 

5)  What this boils down to for the NFL is perception, not guilt or innocence.  To them, he made the league look bad, and nothing has happened to lessen that feeling.  Ideally, Holder would have shown up at court, and he would have been found not guilty.  That would have given the league an out.  But as it stands, they are still trying to manage the image, and do not want to come across as soft on DV. 

 

The problem with all these arguments people are making is that you cannot apply your own logic and sense of fairness to this situation.  The NFL has so mismanaged the entire DV situation that they would rather be seen as coming down too hard rather than that they don't take it seriously enough.

 

And truth is that because of the crappy CBA the players agreed to, the NFL really does have the authority to suspend players for anything they deem harmful to the image of the league.  A conviction is not necessary.  In order to overturn a suspension, the player would have to prove some sort of impropriety by the league, which is very difficult.  They might find a loophole, but the NFL does a good job of closing those up pretty quickly.  And the courts are not going to overturn an NFL decision based on what is fair, but on specific facts...mostly ones that would show that the NFL made a decision that fell out of the realm of the CBA.

[Mr. Scot]

There is a lot of hearing what you want to hear going on in this thread.  I don't think many arguing really understand what Jeremy is saying.  He's not saying what is right or wrong, or what should happen, or even what his personal opinion is.  He's simply saying that based on the way the winds are blowing in the NFL what you can expect. 

 

Most of you are arguing your beliefs of what is right and what should happen.  The problem is that despite many on here wanting to believe that the NFL won't suspend Hardy, or that if they do are fairly certain it won't be for six games are using only their own rationale and personal judgment to make that claim.  Unfortunately, the NFL does not have the same burden of proof as the courts.  And the players union made a major blunder by giving Goodell the authority to hand out punishments as he sees fit.  That's why it's rare for the courts to side with a player in a court battle. 

 

Here is what we know:

 

1) Hardy was accused of a reprehensible crime.  Yes it was a misdemeanor, but that doesn't minimize its impact.  Just the accusation alone gave the league and team a black eye...at least in their eyes.

 

2) Even though his conviction was set aside due to the laws in NC when appealing, GH was convicted at one point...and setting aside the conviction is a legal standard, not a NFL standard.  In their eyes, he was convicted, and then the case was dropped.  Not because the DA came to the conclusion it was an unwarranted accusation, but because their star witness disappeared...and they have strongly stated it's because they believe she made a deal with Hardy.  Hardy was never exonerated in this case, it was just dropped.  If he was innocent, it was never proven in a court of law, so in the leagues eyes, he is stuck with the stigma of the uncertainty of his guilt.  Which is to say they still feel they have a black eye.

 

3) Regardless of his guilt or innocence, it is unquestioned that he put himself in a bad situation that has ultimately made the league look bad.  He knowingly associated with people who were doing drugs and the time of the incident is also a negative to the NFL.

 

4) And despite what some want to think, in the eyes of the law, the commissioners list is not a suspension.  He was paid, and made the choice to go on the list rather than let things play out.  I think many have missed the point that he was not just put on the list, but agreed to it rather than take a chance on being suspended if things didn't go his way.  Some may see it as being strong armed, but the law sees it as his decision, not something forced on him...although the league will be the ones to decide if and when he can come off the list. 

 

5)  What this boils down to for the NFL is perception, not guilt or innocence.  To them, he made the league look bad, and nothing has happened to lessen that feeling.  Ideally, Holder would have shown up at court, and he would have been found not guilty.  That would have given the league an out.  But as it stands, they are still trying to manage the image, and do not want to come across as soft on DV. 

 

The problem with all these arguments people are making is that you cannot apply your own logic and sense of fairness to this situation.  The NFL has so mismanaged the entire DV situation that they would rather be seen as coming down too hard rather than that they don't take it seriously enough.

 

And truth is that because of the crappy CBA the players agreed to, the NFL really does have the authority to suspend players for anything they deem harmful to the image of the league.  A conviction is not necessary.  In order to overturn a suspension, the player would have to prove some sort of impropriety by the league, which is very difficult.  They might find a loophole, but the NFL does a good job of closing those up pretty quickly.  And the courts are not going to overturn an NFL decision based on what is fair, but on specific facts...mostly ones that would show that the NFL made a decision that fell out of the realm of the CBA.

 

Pretty solid writeup.

[teeray]

There is a lot of hearing what you want to hear going on in this thread. I don't think many arguing really understand what Jeremy is saying. He's not saying what is right or wrong, or what should happen, or even what his personal opinion is. He's simply saying that based on the way the winds are blowing in the NFL what you can expect.

Most of you are arguing your beliefs of what is right and what should happen. The problem is that despite many on here wanting to believe that the NFL won't suspend Hardy, or that if they do are fairly certain it won't be for six games are using only their own rationale and personal judgment to make that claim. Unfortunately, the NFL does not have the same burden of proof as the courts. And the players union made a major blunder by giving Goodell the authority to hand out punishments as he sees fit. That's why it's rare for the courts to side with a player in a court battle.

Here is what we know:

1) Hardy was accused of a reprehensible crime. Yes it was a misdemeanor, but that doesn't minimize its impact. Just the accusation alone gave the league and team a black eye...at least in their eyes.

2) Even though his conviction was set aside due to the laws in NC when appealing, GH was convicted at one point...and setting aside the conviction is a legal standard, not a NFL standard. In their eyes, he was convicted, and then the case was dropped. Not because the DA came to the conclusion it was an unwarranted accusation, but because their star witness disappeared...and they have strongly stated it's because they believe she made a deal with Hardy. Hardy was never exonerated in this case, it was just dropped. If he was innocent, it was never proven in a court of law, so in the leagues eyes, he is stuck with the stigma of the uncertainty of his guilt. Which is to say they still feel they have a black eye.

3) Regardless of his guilt or innocence, it is unquestioned that he put himself in a bad situation that has ultimately made the league look bad. He knowingly associated with people who were doing drugs and the time of the incident is also a negative to the NFL.

4) And despite what some want to think, in the eyes of the law, the commissioners list is not a suspension. He was paid, and made the choice to go on the list rather than let things play out. I think many have missed the point that he was not just put on the list, but agreed to it rather than take a chance on being suspended if things didn't go his way. Some may see it as being strong armed, but the law sees it as his decision, not something forced on him...although the league will be the ones to decide if and when he can come off the list.

5) What this boils down to for the NFL is perception, not guilt or innocence. To them, he made the league look bad, and nothing has happened to lessen that feeling. Ideally, Holder would have shown up at court, and he would have been found not guilty. That would have given the league an out. But as it stands, they are still trying to manage the image, and do not want to come across as soft on DV.

The problem with all these arguments people are making is that you cannot apply your own logic and sense of fairness to this situation. The NFL has so mismanaged the entire DV situation that they would rather be seen as coming down too hard rather than that they don't take it seriously enough.

And truth is that because of the crappy CBA the players agreed to, the NFL really does have the authority to suspend players for anything they deem harmful to the image of the league. A conviction is not necessary. In order to overturn a suspension, the player would have to prove some sort of impropriety by the league, which is very difficult. They might find a loophole, but the NFL does a good job of closing those up pretty quickly. And the courts are not going to overturn an NFL decision based on what is fair, but on specific facts...mostly ones that would show that the NFL made a decision that fell out of the realm of the CBA.

I think most of us know what Zod is saying, we just don't agree.

It isn't just us, there are some in the media saying it is extremely unlikely and others that it is inevitable.

There are a lot of factors at play here that do not have a precedent.

I have said that the Peterson case that is in the court system will tell a lot, and even then I think if Hardy gets suspended his appeal will end up in a court room as well.

There are a lot of factors that have not been challenged yet, and they will be.

Plus the NFL has to find a reason to suspend him. If it was truly as simple as saying "conduct policy" they would have done it already and wouldn't need 1st trial evidence.

You may think he wasn't suspended already because he was paid. A judge might disagree (could happen)

I worry about the precedent of players being blackmailed or accused of things by girlfriends trying to punish them by ruining their careers.

Having an allegation come out against you that is a misdemeanor charge shouldn't cost someone 22 games. That is absurd. Even if he was paid.

We will see

[teeray]

This is why people need to quit speaking with so much certainty. It's a very fluid situation so just let it play out. Could go either way. Is it more likely he's gone? Maybe, but it's not a foregone conclusion like some of these folks seem to keep reiterating.

QFT

[Mr. Scot]

There is a lot of hearing what you want to hear going on in this thread. I don't think many arguing really understand what Jeremy is saying. He's not saying what is right or wrong, or what should happen, or even what his personal opinion is. He's simply saying that based on the way the winds are blowing in the NFL what you can expect.

Most of you are arguing your beliefs of what is right and what should happen. The problem is that despite many on here wanting to believe that the NFL won't suspend Hardy, or that if they do are fairly certain it won't be for six games are using only their own rationale and personal judgment to make that claim. Unfortunately, the NFL does not have the same burden of proof as the courts. And the players union made a major blunder by giving Goodell the authority to hand out punishments as he sees fit. That's why it's rare for the courts to side with a player in a court battle.

Here is what we know:

1) Hardy was accused of a reprehensible crime. Yes it was a misdemeanor, but that doesn't minimize its impact. Just the accusation alone gave the league and team a black eye...at least in their eyes.

2) Even though his conviction was set aside due to the laws in NC when appealing, GH was convicted at one point...and setting aside the conviction is a legal standard, not a NFL standard. In their eyes, he was convicted, and then the case was dropped. Not because the DA came to the conclusion it was an unwarranted accusation, but because their star witness disappeared...and they have strongly stated it's because they believe she made a deal with Hardy. Hardy was never exonerated in this case, it was just dropped. If he was innocent, it was never proven in a court of law, so in the leagues eyes, he is stuck with the stigma of the uncertainty of his guilt. Which is to say they still feel they have a black eye.

3) Regardless of his guilt or innocence, it is unquestioned that he put himself in a bad situation that has ultimately made the league look bad. He knowingly associated with people who were doing drugs and the time of the incident is also a negative to the NFL.

4) And despite what some want to think, in the eyes of the law, the commissioners list is not a suspension. He was paid, and made the choice to go on the list rather than let things play out. I think many have missed the point that he was not just put on the list, but agreed to it rather than take a chance on being suspended if things didn't go his way. Some may see it as being strong armed, but the law sees it as his decision, not something forced on him...although the league will be the ones to decide if and when he can come off the list.

5) What this boils down to for the NFL is perception, not guilt or innocence. To them, he made the league look bad, and nothing has happened to lessen that feeling. Ideally, Holder would have shown up at court, and he would have been found not guilty. That would have given the league an out. But as it stands, they are still trying to manage the image, and do not want to come across as soft on DV.

The problem with all these arguments people are making is that you cannot apply your own logic and sense of fairness to this situation. The NFL has so mismanaged the entire DV situation that they would rather be seen as coming down too hard rather than that they don't take it seriously enough.

And truth is that because of the crappy CBA the players agreed to, the NFL really does have the authority to suspend players for anything they deem harmful to the image of the league. A conviction is not necessary. In order to overturn a suspension, the player would have to prove some sort of impropriety by the league, which is very difficult. They might find a loophole, but the NFL does a good job of closing those up pretty quickly. And the courts are not going to overturn an NFL decision based on what is fair, but on specific facts...mostly ones that would show that the NFL made a decision that fell out of the realm of the CBA.

Lemme add a little something to this...

I think some folks on here have trouble with respect to distinguishing what's 'fair' and what's 'fact'.

Is it fair that Hardy faces increased scrutiny because the NFL royally screwed their handling of the Ray Rice story? Probably not.

But is it fact?

Oh yeah.

It's a lot like when someone gets suspended for marijuana. You'll get some folks who wanna argue it shouldn't be against the rules. And you have a right to that opinion, but it has pretty much zero bearing on what's actually going to happen.

Bottom line: You can spend a lot of effort talking about what you think should happen, but in most cases, those of us who see Hardy being gone and/or suspended are talking about what we think will happen more so than what should.