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!

     

Greg Hardy suspended 10 games


YoungPanthers89

Recommended Posts

Does that kind of woman deserve to get smacked around?

I certainly don't believe that's your intent, but this kind of response makes it sound like you think that.

 

Depends.   Is she in my house,  trying to physically injure me with whatever she can find and use as a makeshift weapon?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say he should have "Ray Riced" Nicole Holder, I said that he may have been better off if he had (from an NFL penalty standpoint, which is what anyone with any sense of reading comprehension should know that we are talking about). Anyway, for Rice to get two games and Hardy to get 10 games from the NFL, after reviewing all of the legalities of each situation is out of line, and that shouldn't be. That was the whole point I was making. So continue to take it out of context and try and assassinate my character all you like, I know what I said, and I know what has been said. Perhaps others need to step away from the keyboard, look themselves in the mirror and take an ethical accounting of their own value system.

Sure Hardy "embarrassed" the organization as you call it. The Panthers did suffer from a PR standpoint, though arguably very little in comparison to what we suffered on the field because of Hardy's absence while Hardy was getting handsomely paid. Now, to add injury to insult, we must suffer even more, arguably more because of Goodell than Hardy, and lose our comp pick as things stand today. This is the true travesty of the situation: The Panthers obviously suffer the most. And some of you seemingly don't give a poo about it, making it more about punishing Hardy under nebulous circumstances than getting it right from a legal perspective, much less a moral one (which is still up for debate whether you like it or not).

May have been better off is still the same. I think you have an axe to grind here. Hardy tweeted you back and heated arguments with jeremy when he told all of us hardy would not be resigned by us. You chose a side and dug your heels in. Again this is not the american judicial system, is his suspension unfair? Probably. But that wording you are trying to backpedal on isn't the way to go out stating your opinion on the suspension. Very poor choice of words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The team got screwed. The NFL is shameless in their promotion of said player and circumstance. They so called wanted to punish Hardy with ten games instead of nine or eight or eleven just so they can shamelessly promote Hardy vs Panthers for Thanksgiving.

It was never about DV it was all about the shield and this proves it. If we had a FO and owner with guts we could have come out with the future of our D line looking very bright. Now it's in question. Not enough at DE one of the three most important positions on the field. Cheers to mediocrity!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why isn't CMPD or the prosecution getting any flack??

They didn't arrest a guy he beat a woman threaten her life and had automatic weapons out in his apartment until 10 hours later?

You don't know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't think you understand what we are talking about. I realize you are saying things with a smart ass attitude because you think it makes you sound smart, but instead you should try to focus on the subject you are debating about.

Because you are still missing the mark by a wide margin. Thanks for trying though. You need to try some reading comprehension and come back and play again, because right now I don't know if it's ADD or you are just deliberately obtuse, but your attempt to debate this is laughable.

I understand perfectly.

I understand you have a boogey-man that lives under your bed named Roger Goodell. And that you think that he behaves differently than other CEOs of major corporations in his actions defending the public image of the corporation he runs (p.s. he doesn't).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard, man. Some of us believe in grace, second chances and redemption depending upon the circumstances. I don't know that it is right to discount the severity of the offense, and the history of the perpetrator. I think that you must look at things on a case by case basis. Zero tolerance may appear good in theory and on paper, as long as everyone knows the rules beforehand, but there are always going to be situations where it seems like common sense should prevail.

Isn't confession the first step of the process of forgiveness, redemption, and second chances?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand perfectly.

I understand you have a boogey-man that lives under your bed named Roger Goodell. And that you think that he behaves differently than other CEOs of major corporations in his actions defending the public image of the corporation he runs (p.s. he doesn't).

Again, I don't know what you are debating with me here. I think the suspension is excessive, but I understand it based off the NFL needing to save face. You and I are in complete agreement on that and that isn't what I'm debating.

I'm saying it is shameless that the NFL tries to save face by acting like they actually care about domestic violence or women, and then turn around and make sure that Hardy's first game back from his suspension is a nationally televised game against his former team because it makes it more profitable.

So the very issue you admittedly say they are trying to protect their image from (domestic violence) is the issue they are exploiting because it will make them money.

That's what I have a problem with and that's what you have failed to address in every response you've made to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I don't know what you are debating with me here. I think the suspension is excessive, but I understand it based off the NFL needing to save face. You and I are in complete agreement on that and that isn't what I'm debating.

I'm saying it is shameless that the NFL tries to save face by acting like they actually care about domestic violence or women, and then turn around and make sure that Hardy's first game back from his suspension is a nationally televised game against his former team because it makes it more profitable.

So the very issue you admittedly say they are trying to protect their image from (domestic violence) is the issue they are exploiting because it will make them money.

That's what I have a problem with and that's what you have failed to address in every response you've made to this.

OK I apologize for repeatedly missing your point.

But, now that you've explained it to me, I find your supposition with regard to the scheduling to be a little bit too black-helicopterish for the rational mind.

Why in the world would they care about a "Greg Hardy returns against the Panthers" TV extravaganza when most football fans barely know who Greg Hardy even is? And most football fans outside of Panther fandom CERTAINLY couldn't care less about the Carolina Panthers?

But you know what does get people to watch? The Cowboys, of course, because *all* NFL fans either love or hate them intensely.

Know who else provokes a similar love-hate intensity and draws viewers?

No, not Greg Hardy... try again.

Right! You got it.

CAM. NEWTON.

Actual rational reasons ALWAYS trump conspiracy theory. Occam's Razor, dude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't want to wade through the 20+ pages, bu there's no way he gets the full 10 games and the NFL knows it. Strictly a PR move on their part to try and look like they are taking a stand against the DV. He'll get it reduced to 2 games because that's what the punishment should have been when this all started. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May have been better off is still the same. I think you have an axe to grind here. Hardy tweeted you back and heated arguments with jeremy when he told all of us hardy would not be resigned by us. You chose a side and dug your heels in. Again this is not the american judicial system, is his suspension unfair? Probably. But that wording you are trying to backpedal on isn't the way to go out stating your opinion on the suspension. Very poor choice of words.

Sure, context doesn't mean a thing. It's the same difference, right? Anyway...for argument's sake let me admit that I could have worded things differently. Nail me to the cross for using a "poor choice of words"! But you know what I find more telling is how you and others sat back and didn't say a thing when I was attacked personally, being that you are so righteous and all. I have been on this board for years, and people generally know what I stand for, but yet and still didn't say a word. That's more telling to me than anything.

Now as far as some tweet, I don't know why you keep referencing that. Even before I received a tweet, I had the same position.

Moreover, you are taking the whole thing with Jeremy out of context (which seems to be a favorite means of manipulation and misinformation for some of you). I am not going to totally revisit that, but suffice it to say that anyone in their right mind wouldn't have bet that Hardy would be back, and like i said then, that wasnt even the real story. Whether Hardy was coming back was not the point, the point was more about upsetting people unnecessarily. But even that was not specifically what Jeremy and I got into a little tiff over. He thought that I had insulted him which I apologized for, but I also thought that he had insulted me. It wasn't really about Greg Hardy. Get your facts straight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...