San Jose Bills Fan Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 No, smoking weed is not like killing someone (and I;m the spinner of straw arguments?)--hard to believe I had to type that. It's even harder to believe that I had to ask that. But sometimes one has to play to the level of their competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 It's even harder to believe that I had to ask that. But sometimes one has to play to the level of their competition. It was a pointless question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 (edited) Seriously though. The difference is that you want others to believe they should have known many things that most (including law enforcement) only now know. And again you're wrong. All of my posts (before your statement accusing me of "getting a bit of a free ride here") were qualified and prefaced by phrases such as "I'm gonna guess," "it certainly begs the question," "it means to me (personally),"with no proof," "I believe," "I'm highly skeptical," and "again without knowing." In other words I was stating my opinions. The fact that I have a strong conviction about my opinions doesn't change that, nor does your false accusation that I want others to believe anything but what they want to believe. Meanwhile you "want others to believe" that the Patriots knew nothing. Edited July 5, 2013 by San Jose Bills Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 It was a pointless question. You asked Doc if Hernandez had failed a "drug policy." So you were the one who brought it up, as if you felt like failing a drug screen was equivalent to committing violent acts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 So the pats knew all this stuff back then...including the "flop house replete with guns and drugs" and ignored it Just to sign this guy? Or it was so obvious that he was involved in....something...but they chose not to "dig it up"? Come on! How is it that not one of his team mates then or now ever even hinted that he was deep in to illegal gun/drug/gang activity? Matt Light anf Welker certainly didn't know So your position is that the Pats had NO way of knowing that AH was a bad risk and that his extension with 2 years left on his rookie deal was still a good move? Okay then, I'll just leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Oy! Hence the reason you hire someone to tail him for several weeks and look into his background, for a mere pittance compared to the millions you'll be investing in him. I know a few coaches have played the we know everything card.... But it always amazed me we don't hear about bigger investments into scouting, facilities, etc... For a lot of years the bengals had no real scouting department, yet would hand out 50 million dollar deals to rookies. It certainly seems like common sense but I don't know that it exists quite at the level you think it does/should. Maybe some places, but not across the board. It seems teams are getting the good sense to cut less corners though. Just another on a long list of subjects I wish we knew more about what goes on behind the curtain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 I know a few coaches have played the we know everything card.... But it always amazed me we don't hear about bigger investments into scouting, facilities, etc... For a lot of years the bengals had no real scouting department, yet would hand out 50 million dollar deals to rookies. It certainly seems like common sense but I don't know that it exists quite at the level you think it does/should. Maybe some places, but not across the board. It seems teams are getting the good sense to cut less corners though. Just another on a long list of subjects I wish we knew more about what goes on behind the curtain. Good points and yes, the level of background security is not even across the board nor obviously is how teams interpret the information they receive. Ironically Mike Brown of the Bengals (also Bill Polian FWIW) publicly stated that the Bengals did not consider Hernandez to be draftable. A team which has harbored a large number of misfits didn't consider Hernandez to be draftable… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 (edited) See again. Like Marauder'sMicro your trying to equate a lack of criminal charges with having a clean track record. You don't truly believe they're the same thing… DO YOU? Ha, not exactly. I'm not sure what some here are getting at. Is this about whether the Pats were foolish, or is it that they shouldn't have associated their team with a thug? I think they took a risk that cost them some money. The "bad publicity" isn't going to damage them much, as long as they keep winning. They had some success with him as a player, I don't consider this a "Patriots problem", because I think there are lots of other guys that have serious problems, throughout the NFL. It's a "NFL problem". "Should they have accepted a player with so many violent incidents in his past?" That is what some here seem to be getting at, and I disagree. Not because I think he is a swell guy, but because I think violence is what fuels the NFL, and the league is filled with questionable characters, and I have no doubt that other players have been involved in some very violent incidents. I agree that shootings are extreme (the cops weren't pursuing AH), but barfights? Guns? Rapes? Drugs? Someone come forward with some ideas to standardize acceptance into the NFL. I really want to see them. Edited July 5, 2013 by Marauder'sMicro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 ^^^^^^^ I mentioned you because in a few of your posts you mentioned that Hernandez didn't have a criminal record. Sorry if I wasn't accurate in re-stating your ideas. To your most recent post, I consider violent acts to be a much bigger deal than other transgressions. In both cases can the player cost the team in terms of being suspension risks, arrest risks, etc. But generally speaking the player who commits violent acts has the ability to do much more damage on many levels than the player who breaks the law in non-violent ways. I believe that many NFL teams view violent acts quite differently than they do non-violent acts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Good points and yes, the level of background security is not even across the board nor obviously is how teams interpret the information they receive. Ironically Mike Brown of the Bengals (also Bill Polian FWIW) publicly stated that the Bengals did not consider Hernandez to be draftable. A team which has harbored a large number of misfits didn't consider Hernandez to be draftable… Gee, Mike Brown wants everyone to know that he wouldn't have drafted him. Is there any way to prove this? Maybe he is looking for a way to deflect criticism towards a much more successful franchise? Nah, who would do such a thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Gee, Mike Brown wants everyone to know that he wouldn't have drafted him. Is there any way to prove this? Maybe he is looking for a way to deflect criticism towards a much more successful franchise? Nah, who would do such a thing... Your theory has some credence for sure. I can't argue that he might have some ulterior motive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Good points and yes, the level of background security is not even across the board nor obviously is how teams interpret the information they receive. Ironically Mike Brown of the Bengals (also Bill Polian FWIW) publicly stated that the Bengals did not consider Hernandez to be draftable. A team which has harbored a large number of misfits didn't consider Hernandez to be draftable… Yet 20 teams that would've passed on many of his risky choices disagreed on this assessment in the opposite direction. Player to player, team to team, coach to coach, year to year the information as well as the equations being used can vary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 ^^^^^^^ I mentioned you because in a few of your posts you mentioned that Hernandez didn't have a criminal record. Sorry if I wasn't accurate in re-stating your ideas. To your most recent post, I consider violent acts to be a much bigger deal than other transgressions. In both cases can the player cost the team in terms of being suspension risks, arrest risks, etc. But generally speaking the player who commits violent acts has the ability to do much more damage on many levels than the player who breaks the law in non-violent ways. I believe that many NFL teams view violent acts quite differently than they do non-violent acts. As they should, but I listed rape, and bar fights, both violent acts that players have been involved in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 He also said they had Gronkowski as undraftable because of his medical history though. And they did draft tight end Jermaine Gresham in the first round so there's the possibility he was being truthful also. (continuation of post 1519 regarding Mike Brown's comments) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 He also said they had Gronkowski as undraftable because of his medical history though. And they did draft tight end Jermaine Gresham in the first round so there's the possibility he was being truthful also. I don't really care what Mike Brown said. It's not where my point lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Yet 20 teams that would've passed on many of his risky choices disagreed on this assessment in the opposite direction. Player to player, team to team, coach to coach, year to year the information as well as the equations being used can vary. Here's an interesting aspect of the "12 teams issue." The report was that 12 teams had blackballed Hernandez. The obvious next question is how many teams were asked and how many teams responded to the question? In other words, there's a possibility that it was more than 12 teams. Possibly many more than 12 teams? Am I wrong? I don't really care what Mike Brown said. It's not where my point lies. You responded to my post about Mike Brown so I replied to you. I thought your point held some water. As they should, but I listed rape, and bar fights, both violent acts that players have been involved in. Well here's a question (that I don't expect anyone to take the time to research). Who is the highest-drafted player who was reported to have been involved in a violent incident while in college? Just a rhetorical thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 (edited) ^^^^^^^ I mentioned you because in a few of your posts you mentioned that Hernandez didn't have a criminal record. Sorry if I wasn't accurate in re-stating your ideas. To your most recent post, I consider violent acts to be a much bigger deal than other transgressions. In both cases can the player cost the team in terms of being suspension risks, arrest risks, etc. But generally speaking the player who commits violent acts has the ability to do much more damage on many levels than the player who breaks the law in non-violent ways. I believe that many NFL teams view violent acts quite differently than they do non-violent acts. Ill agree but even violent acts run a huge spectrum. A drunk fight for a 18 year old is different then a forceful rape just as marijuana is far different than dealing drugs or using crack. Disregarding the pats and ah with this statement but thinking outloud on character research in general.... It's a tough process. Guys get a lot of real transgressions buried, and also are targets of false accusations. I don't envy the guys having to weigh what's presented and make a call on whether to extend a guy with flags, or possibly let him walk or trade him for what might be diminished value... The buddy nix - marshawn situation as a bills fan has always held a special interest in watching how it was handled and fan reaction. Perception of each team and the player. Here's an interesting aspect of the "12 teams issue." The report was that 12 teams had blackballed Hernandez. The obvious next question is how many teams were asked and how many teams responded to the question? In other words, there's a possibility that it was more than 12 teams. Possibly many more than 12 teams? Yup. Just like it might be less in reality- as someone pointed out its easy to say it after the fact without any verifiable back up. Or might have included teams simply not having him on their boards based on need or fit to scheme. Heck, the real irony being mike brown currently employs Reggie Nelson who is the other guy witnesses ID'ed as a possible shooter in the gainesville incident. Truly the number is interesting for banter but doesn't mean a ton really Well here's a question (that I don't expect anyone to take the time to research). Who is the highest-drafted player who was reported to have been involved in a violent incident while in college? Just a rhetorical thought. Depends how violent you include, and how conclusive the end result was. I'm going with "very high" including top 5 depending on how low the bar falls. One that always rubbed me wrong... your well aware how checkered the past of a fellow TE, jerramy Stevens, had and he still was a first rounder (interestingly enough also by a team that should've been most intimately aware of his record including extremely violent fights and rape allegations). Also, since mentioned in the middle section, Reggie Nelson was also a first rounder. As was Percy harvin who also came from that Florida roster with a violent history. Edited July 5, 2013 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRW Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Depends how violent you include, and how conclusive the end result was. I'm going with "very high" including top 5 depending on how low the bar falls. Lawrence Phillips was the #6 overall pick when he came out. That's the first name that sprang to mind, though there may be other cases that involve a higher pick but didn't make headlines for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 I know a few coaches have played the we know everything card.... But it always amazed me we don't hear about bigger investments into scouting, facilities, etc... For a lot of years the bengals had no real scouting department, yet would hand out 50 million dollar deals to rookies. It certainly seems like common sense but I don't know that it exists quite at the level you think it does/should. Maybe some places, but not across the board. It seems teams are getting the good sense to cut less corners though. Just another on a long list of subjects I wish we knew more about what goes on behind the curtain. The 50M dollar deals didn't have anything to do due-diligence!! The Bengals were a horrible team in the 90s and early 2000s and often picked in the Top 5/10 and hence were forced to pay them big money due to lack of a Rookie Salary cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 The NFL is filled with PED using, painkiller using, recreational drug using, alcohol drinking, gang associating, violent crime committing, douchebag acting, 'roid raging, bar fighting, hyper-aggressive, bullying, not so bright guys. I would bet there is at least one (probably more) player that fits that exact description on every team. This one murdered someone (allegedly), so they released him. Why limit it to the NFL? If you work in a company with 100 people, you've got the same things going on. Welcome to the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts