OT- I give you Greg Hardy: Team Leader

[kalibane]

http://deadspin.com/this-is-why-nfl-sta ... 1739117634

[NorthHawk]

I saw that earlier.
He almost lost it with a ST coach during a game, too so it seems it might just be a matter of time before he's suspended again.
He doesn't yet get it and it will at some point cost him.

[Venice_Hawk]

Loser

[RiverDog]

I couldn't think of a more appropriate "Face of the Franchise" for Jerry Jones' Cowboys.

[Distant Relative]

Nice job Jerry. Al would have been proud of you.

[Hawktawk]

If this Ahole can play ball Ray Rice deserves an apology. I guess 30 year old RBs dont have the value of a rush end. So it goes.....

[HumanCockroach]

They sure didn't waste any time jettisoning Randle because of his open case, but Hardy is a leader? Something seems inconsistent to me here.

[RiverDog]

They sure didn't waste any time jettisoning Randle because of his open case, but Hardy is a leader? Something seems inconsistent to me here.

Jerry Jones: Size 8 foot, size 12 mouth. It fits with plenty of room to spare.

[kalibane]

Notice how they got tired of Randle's act right after Darren McFadden took firm hold of the starting RB position.

[Hawktawk]

Notice how they got tired of Randle's act right after Darren McFadden took firm hold of the starting RB position.

Exactly
Like I said running backs dont have the cachet of a great pass rusher. If Randle were all world instead of a journeyman he would be accommodated as well.

Its all completely phony the hand wringing over out of control bad boys. If they can produce it doesn't matter they will be welcomed back with open arms. And the team will issue a press release talking about how the team doesn't condone violence but the player is contrite and moving on with his career and deserves a chance. Its a joke. Goodell has completely lost control of the issue and unlike the Ray Rice tape he cant say he didnt see the photos.

[RiverDog]

Exactly
Like I said running backs dont have the cachet of a great pass rusher. If Randle were all world instead of a journeyman he would be accommodated as well.

That's true, but it is not limited to the Cowboys. We set aside some stated principles when we drafted Frank Clark... but before anyone accuses me of it, I am by no means comparing what Clark did to what Hardy is accused of doing. You can take what Clark did and times it by a factor of 10 and you'd come close to gauging Hardy's acts.

The act is the same, the difference is only a matter of degree.

[Seahawks4Ever]

All of the trouble Dallas has had with RB's and Cricket still can't get on the field LOL. What a LOSER.

[Hawktawk]

[quote="RiverDog"]
That's true, but it is not limited to the Cowboys. We set aside some stated principles when we drafted Frank Clark... but before anyone accuses me of it, I am by no means comparing what Clark did to what Hardy is accused of doing. You can take what Clark did and times it by a factor of 10 and you'd come close to gauging Hardy's acts.

The act is the same, the difference is only a matter of degree.[/quote

Im not sure there is much similarity at all after studying the police reports etc with Clark. Alcohol was a factor in both incidents but there is nothing alleged that is even remotely similar to what Hardy did.
Of course as a fan I fall into the mentality of wanting to believe the best about Clark because hes our guy. I think its pretty common.
The thing that disgusts me about Hardy is he is completely arrogant and refuses to accept any sort of accountability and Dallas is completely enabling him.This guy looks like he could be an OJ someday.
I believe of all these highly publicized cases Rice was maybe the one guy who really did get it, showed sincere contrition and got some help for his issues and he has suffered the greatest punishment IMO

[RiverDog]

Im not sure there is much similarity at all after studying the police reports etc with Clark. Alcohol was a factor in both incidents but there is nothing alleged that is even remotely similar to what Hardy did.
Of course as a fan I fall into the mentality of wanting to believe the best about Clark because hes our guy. I think its pretty common.
The thing that disgusts me about Hardy is he is completely arrogant and refuses to accept any sort of accountability and Dallas is completely enabling him.This guy looks like he could be an OJ someday.
I believe of all these highly publicized cases Rice was maybe the one guy who really did get it, showed sincere contrition and got some help for his issues and he has suffered the greatest punishment IMO

The similarities include the fact that they both involved domestic violence, that neither crime or alleged crime made it to court, that both teams acquired the players after the incident and knowing full well what the circumstances were, and that both GM's made controversial statements regarding the player/incident.

The differences include the severity of the wounds inflicted, the threat to kill, the threat of weapons, and the way one player was characterized by his owner/GM.

[EmeraldBullet]

Not meaning to be insensitive, but those photos didn't look that bad compared to what I have seen. I still believe that Hardy got under punished, and I know everyone gets bruised differently so its really hard to say how bad it really was (plus the locations of the bruises were really bad.) I def am in agreement that hardy basically got off the hook. It's sad that talent in a particular skill basically exempts you from facing true justice.

[Hawktawk]

[quote="RiverDog"

The similarities include the fact that they both involved domestic violence, that neither crime or alleged crime made it to court, that both teams acquired the players after the incident and knowing full well what the circumstances were, and that both GM's made controversial statements regarding the player/incident.

The differences include the severity of the wounds inflicted, the threat to kill, the threat of weapons, and the way one player was characterized by his owner/GM.[/quote]

The Hardy case definitely made it to court where Hardy was found GUILTY in a court of law. He was granted an appeal and paid off the woman in the meantime. She disappeared before the trial and Hardy walked. Im not sure Clark was convicted of anything and unlike the Hardy case there was a tremendous amount of conflict in the versions of events based on the witness.There is indisputable evidence what Hardy did. Theres a lot of difference in the two situations.

[RiverDog]

The Hardy case definitely made it to court where Hardy was found GUILTY in a court of law. He was granted an appeal and paid off the woman in the meantime. She disappeared before the trial and Hardy walked. Im not sure Clark was convicted of anything and unlike the Hardy case there was a tremendous amount of conflict in the versions of events based on the witness.There is indisputable evidence what Hardy did. Theres a lot of difference in the two situations.

You're right about the Hardy case making it to trial whereas Clark's didn't. My bad.

I agree that there are several significant differences between the two cases, the largest of which is the severity of it, but you can't deny that there are a number of similarities as well. The fact is that the better a player is, the more willing a team is to risk negative publicity, and it isn't limited to the Cowboys. Although Hardy and the Cowboys have gone to an extreme, all teams treat their more valuable players differently with regard to their off field expectations than they do the ones that are on the bubble. The guy on the bubble will not get the benefit of the doubt as he's not worth the risk.

[HumanCockroach]

Sorry RD the two cases are really not similar other than in both cases there was a fight, beyond that the similarities petty much end. In Clark's case the "victim" the victims mother, and the prosecutor all defend Clark and the punishment levied, in Hardys case, he was found guilty in a court of law, had several assault rifles, threatened to kill the lady, fabricated a story to the police with accomplishes, had done so numerous times in the past, and shows zero remorse about the actions, and bribed the victim to "disappear" to avoid jail time.

Not calling Clark a saint by any stretch, but saying it is in anyway similar seems a gigantic stretch.

[RiverDog]

Sorry RD the two cases are really not similar other than in both cases there was a fight, beyond that the similarities petty much end. In Clark's case the "victim" the victims mother, and the prosecutor all defend Clark and the punishment levied, in Hardys case, he was found guilty in a court of law, had several assault rifles, threatened to kill the lady, fabricated a story to the police with accomplishes, had done so numerous times in the past, and shows zero remorse about the actions, and bribed the victim to "disappear" to avoid jail time.

Not calling Clark a saint by any stretch, but saying it is in anyway similar seems a gigantic stretch.

They both involve domestic violence. They both involved their teams taking a lot of heat for bringing them into their fold. Both of their GM's made ill advised comments about the situation.

Is any of that not true?

[c_hawkbob]

Shades of gray vs black and white.

Degree of egregiousness can be everything. If your GPS clocks your teenage son at 6 MPH over on the freeway you gonna come down on him as hard as if it cloks him at 85 in a school zone?

[RiverDog]

Shades of gray vs black and white.

Degree of egregiousness can be everything. If your GPS clocks your teenage son at 6 MPH over on the freeway you gonna come down on him as hard as if it cloks him at 85 in a school zone?

Of course not. How did you get the impression that I thought that Clark should have been dealt with the same as Hardy should have been?

You are missing my point entirely. My point isn't that the two situations are exactly the same or that they should be treated as such. My point is that if a player is good enough, teams will rationalize off field issues as we did with Frank Clark and the Cowboys did with Hardy.

[c_hawkbob]

My point is that if a player is good enough, teams will rationalize off field issues ...

No one, at all, is arguing that.

... as we did with Frank Clark and the Cowboys did with Hardy

This is where you're getting your argument and I think you know that. Your putting both teenagers in my example in the same boat on the grounds that the infraction in both instances is speeding, and then you're acting like you don't understand anyone's objection.

I'm not trying to get in a fight or anything, just carrying on the discussion. The Hardy and Clark cases are more dissimilar than similar.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

What am I missing about Riverdog's post? He included a caveat in his statement that he's not equating Frank Clark to Greg Hardy; that's clear, yet Hawktawk and HC are writing in length as to tell him why they are not equal. Riverdog has already said they are not.

Then the statement from c_bob about freeway speeding vs. dangerous speeding in a school zone. I've no doubt River wouldn't come done as hard on his son for the former compared to the latter, and I'm sure he would make sure his son knows the severity of one versus the other. Nothing about what River said suggests he doesn't get the difference between Clark and Hardy. And let's see: "Degree of egregiousness can be everything" - c_hawkbob; "The act is the same, the difference is only a matter of degree." - Riverdog. Another instance of restating something to Riverdog about what he's already said. None of the responses in this thread have done a single thing to refute any of his points effectively.

All he's getting at is this: While we are quick to bash the Cowboys and, specifically, Jerry Jones, for supporting a POS like Greg hardy, our own Seahawks have, in fact, done the exact same thing with Frank Clark. Hawktawk, HC, and c_hawkbob, you are fully aware of the NFL's hard-line stance on domestic violence, and Frank Clark was involved in a domestic violence dispute. Was it less severe than Hardy? Yes, it was. Were the circumstances of the investigation less sketchy? Absolutely. But given the NFL's policy on DV, the Seahawks knowingly drafted a man arrested on domestic violence charges and supported that decision because they believe they need Frank Clark on the team. The Cowboys are doing the exact same thing because of what Greg Hardy brings to their defense. Regardless of severity, both FO's are doing the exact same thing, but Jerry Jones and the Cowboys look much worse for it because of the severity.

[RiverDog]

This is where you're getting your argument and I think you know that. Your putting both teenagers in my example in the same boat on the grounds that the infraction in both instances is speeding, and then you're acting like you don't understand anyone's objection.

I'm not trying to get in a fight or anything, just carrying on the discussion. The Hardy and Clark cases are more dissimilar than similar.

Not trying to get into a fight, either. And I'll agree to your point that there are more dissimilarities than there are similarities between the two cases.

I don't necessarily want to go back to the Clark case, but with that 6 MPH over the speed limit comment, I get the sense that it's fading from your memory. Do you remember when John Schneider said that striking a woman would be a "deal breaker"? Do you recall how the Seahawks claimed that they did an exhaustive investigation into the incident then we find out that they did not talk to any of the witnesses, the prosecuting attorney, or the arresting officer? Do you recall how this wasn't Clark's first brush with the law, that two years earlier, he was convicted of a felony home invasion?

I am by no means defending Hardy or the Cowboys. Hardy ought to have been kicked out of the league and the Cowboys should be profoundly ashamed of themselves for embracing him. But the Seahawks are hardly as pure as the wind driven snow. We, too, have rationalized some very serious off field issues in the name of winning football games, and we would be flaming hypocrites if we didn't recognize that fact.

[c_hawkbob]

I was merely taking up HC's assertion that the two cases (Clark and Hardy) are not all that similar except from a very technical standpoint.

Did you think I did so in an attacking manner? I thought tread pretty lightly ...

[RiverDog]

I was merely taking up HC's assertion that the two cases (Clark and Hardy) are not all that similar except from a very technical standpoint.

Did you think I did so in an attacking manner? I thought tread pretty lightly ...

Agreed here. I took nothing CBob said personally, and I trust that he didn't take anything I said that way, either.

[RiverDog]

All he's getting at is this: While we are quick to bash the Cowboys and, specifically, Jerry Jones, for supporting a POS like Greg hardy, our own Seahawks have, in fact, done the exact same thing with Frank Clark. Hawktawk, HC, and c_hawkbob, you are fully aware of the NFL's hard-line stance oon domestic violence, and Frank Clark was involved in a domestic violence dispute. Was it less severe than Hardy? Yes, it was. Were the circumstances of the investigation less sketchy? Absolutely. But given the NFL's policy on DV, the Seahawks knowingly drafted a man arrested on domestic violence charges and supported that decision because they believe they need Frank Clark on the team. The Cowboys are doing the exact same thing because of what Greg Hardy brings to their defense. Regardless of severity, both FO's are doing the exact same thing, but Jerry Jones and the Cowboys look much worse for it because of the severity.

Thanks, Mack.

That's exactly the point I was trying to make. You did a good job of summarizing it.

[c_hawkbob]

Agreed here. I took nothing CBob said personally, and I trust that he didn't take anything I said that way, either.

Not at all, just "fleshing out" the subject, on both sides.

[HumanCockroach]

My point either was missed or I'm simply not doing a good job explaining it. Either way, IMHO comparing the two cases seem like an enormous stretch to me. Kind of like comparing a guy who gets in a fight when he is twenty something ( perhaps even one he doesn't start) at a bar, beats a guy up and faces an assault charge for giving a black eye versus a guy who stalks an ex's boyfriend, grabs a couple buddies, waits outside his home and then beats him ,nearly kills him and puts him in a coma. They're both assault so they are similar, just degrees are different.

Technically they are similar, but the degrees between the two, IMHO are vast, and make the two instances not really equitable. No one knows what happened with Clark, the proof in Hardy s case isn't questioned, it's a matter of public record, with no contrition on Hardy's side what so ever, Clark on the other hand went to counseling, paid for his crime, was supported by the victim, the victims mother and the DA and showed contrition for the role he played in it. I could rehash the whole thing and add more disparities, but I think we have rehashed that enough that it shouldn't be all that difficult to see that there is more dis similarities than common occurrences.

[RiverDog]

My point either was missed or I'm simply not doing a good job explaining it. Either way, IMHO comparing the two cases seem like an enormous stretch to me. Kind of like comparing a guy who gets in a fight when he is twenty something ( perhaps even one he doesn't start) at a bar, beats a guy up and faces an assault charge for giving a black eye versus a guy who stalks an ex's boyfriend, grabs a couple buddies, waits outside his home and then beats him ,nearly kills him and puts him in a coma. They're both assault so they are similar, just degrees are different.

Technically they are similar, but the degrees between the two, IMHO are vast, and make the two instances not really equitable. No one knows what happened with Clark, the proof in Hardy s case isn't questioned, it's a matter of public record, with no contrition on Hardy's side what so ever, Clark on the other hand went to counseling, paid for his crime, was supported by the victim, the victims mother and the DA and showed contrition for the role he played in it. I could rehash the whole thing and add more disparities, but I think we have rehashed that enough that it shouldn't be all that difficult to see that there is more dis similarities than common occurrences.

You're completely missing the point. It's like you're not even reading what I am writing, so there's no sense me wasting my time re-writing a response and trying to find those magic words to flip your switch and make that light bulb come on.

You, CBob, and Hawktalk all need to go back and read, or re-read, Mack's last paragraph in his post. If you guys can't understand my point after reading that, then there's no sense us going on any further as we're not getting anywhere. We're just repeating the same statements over and over again.

[NorthHawk]

Both sides in this discussion have good points, but like HC said Clark has tried to improve himself after the incident while Hardy on the other hand bought off the victim before the trial.
I think that makes a huge difference even though both acts are vile.

[kalibane]

All he's getting at is this: While we are quick to bash the Cowboys and, specifically, Jerry Jones, for supporting a POS like Greg hardy, our own Seahawks have, in fact, done the exact same thing with Frank Clark. Hawktawk, HC, and c_hawkbob, you are fully aware of the NFL's hard-line stance on domestic violence, and Frank Clark was involved in a domestic violence dispute. Was it less severe than Hardy? Yes, it was. Were the circumstances of the investigation less sketchy? Absolutely. But given the NFL's policy on DV, the Seahawks knowingly drafted a man arrested on domestic violence charges and supported that decision because they believe they need Frank Clark on the team. The Cowboys are doing the exact same thing because of what Greg Hardy brings to their defense. Regardless of severity, both FO's are doing the exact same thing, but Jerry Jones and the Cowboys look much worse for it because of the severity.

1. We can all agree Frank Clark's incident was distasteful but it's not like the Greg Hardy incident or say the Lawrence Phillips incident. Right or wrong there is a "heat of the moment" argument to be made for Frank Clark. That's not there for Hardy. He basically just beat a woman... and kept beating her until she escaped.

2. Saying people here were supportive of drafting Frank Clark is a massive overstatement. I urge you to go back and read the draft day threads and you will see just how many of us were against drafting him and disappointed in the front office. We voiced our concern then and right now there is no particularly reason we should be talking about it. There is a reason we should be talking about Greg Hardy.

3. If Frank Clark had an incident like Greg Hardy (or just another incident) I fully believe that Carroll and Schneider would release him immediately. Jerry Jones calls the guy a team leader and wants to sign him to an extension.

The problems with Hardy are that you can see by his other actions that he's pretty much a piece of garbage. He has no remorse for what he did and he continues to reinforce his reputation rather than actually working to be a good citizen. While not as serious as it relates to real life, the week Greg Hardy walked into a special teams huddle (a place he had no purpose in being) and got into it with the special teams coordinator, he also no called, no showed a practice day earlier in the week and the organization did NOTHING punitive.

Equating Jerry Jones and his methodology to the Seahawks front office is missing the big picture. Jerry Jones puts up with terrible citizens just because they are productive, Greg Hardy is just one of many many examples since Jones has owned the team. The Seahawks give people second chances that is theirs to mess up. How they behave will determine their fate, not their talent or production.

P.S. I know what Riv was saying this is not a response to that... but rather Mack's follow up response

[RiverDog]

Both sides in this discussion have good points, but like HC said Clark has tried to improve himself after the incident while Hardy on the other hand bought off the victim before the trial.
I think that makes a huge difference even though both acts are vile.

North Hawk: I was OK bringing in Clark and would have been willing to accept our FO's position on the guy. His case did seem very questionable but like you said, he did say all the right things, the victim never pressed charges, even admitting that she was at least partially to blame for the incident. It didn't seem nearly as bad as some of the reports were making it out to be. I could give the kid a break.

My larger issue was how our front office handled it, with John Schneider proclaiming that striking a woman would be a "deal breaker" when clearly Clark struck his GF with more force and did more damage than what was necessary to simply defend himself, causing some very obvious physical injuries in the process. I didn't like at all the way they tried to sell their investigation to us, telling us that their investigation provided them with "an in depth understanding of the situation", and IMO were selective in who it was they spoke with, opting not to speak to any of the witnesses or the prosecuting attorney, certainly people that might have provided a better "in depth understanding" than simply talking to some counselor, someone that was more likely to tell them what they wanted to hear. It was clear to me that they really wanted Clark and were willing to sell their souls to the Devil if that's what it took to rationalize drafting him. The Seahawks wanted to have their cake and eat it, too. They wanted Clark but they also wanted to be seen as having this zero tolerance policy against domestic violence.

That's where I am drawing the comparisons, between the Cowboys' with Hardy and the Hawks with Clark, with the worse of the two similar situations without question being the Cowboys. Even though there are dramatic differences between the two incidents, the principle of rationalizing behavior in the name of improving the team's on field performance is still the same. We as Hawks fans would be flaming hypocrites if we allowed ourselves to jump on the Cowboys and Jones without at least acknowledging the fact that we were treated to some less than honest explanations from our own front office in obtaining a player that they really wanted that was embroiled in the same alleged crime.

[RiverDog]

1. We can all agree Frank Clark's incident was distasteful but it's not like the Greg Hardy incident or say the Lawrence Phillips incident. Right or wrong there is a "heat of the moment" argument to be made for Frank Clark. That's not there for Hardy. He basically just beat a woman... and kept beating her until she escaped.

2. Saying people here were supportive of drafting Frank Clark is a massive overstatement. I urge you to go back and read the draft day threads and you will see just how many of us were against drafting him and disappointed in the front office. We voiced our concern then and right now there is no particularly reason we should be talking about it. There is a reason we should be talking about Greg Hardy.

3. If Frank Clark had an incident like Greg Hardy (or just another incident) I fully believe that Carroll and Schneider would release him immediately. Jerry Jones calls the guy a team leader and wants to sign him to an extension.

The problems with Hardy are that you can see by his other actions that he's pretty much a piece of garbage. He has no remorse for what he did and he continues to reinforce his reputation rather than actually working to be a good citizen. While not as serious as it relates to real life, the week Greg Hardy walked into a special teams huddle (a place he had no purpose in being) and got into it with the special teams coordinator, he also no called, no showed a practice day earlier in the week and the organization did NOTHING punitive.

Equating Jerry Jones and his methodology to the Seahawks front office is missing the big picture. Jerry Jones puts up with terrible citizens just because they are productive, Greg Hardy is just one of many many examples since Jones has owned the team. The Seahawks give people second chances that is theirs to mess up. How they behave will determine their fate, not their talent or production.

P.S. I know what Riv was saying this is not a response to that... but rather Mack's follow up response

Kal: I'd like to ask you one question. Back in March prior to signing with the Cowboys, there was a rumor circulating that the Seahawks, along with Tampa Bay, were interested in bringing in Greg Hardy for a visit. The Seahawks admitted that they were at the very least considering signing Hardy, saying that they were doing their "due diligence" in exploring options with Hardy.

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seah ... reg-hardy/

If John Schneider really did have a policy that striking a woman was a "deal breaker", then why would we even be "exploring options" with Hardy? Did they not know before they were "exploring options" that he had struck a woman? Or did Schneider just invent this "deal breaker" policy of his in response to the criticism over the drafting of Frank Clark?

My point here isn't that Clark's transgressions are equal to Hardy's or that John Schneider's sense of decency is anywhere close to being as low as that of Jerry Jones's. My point is that we are far from being as pure as the wind driven snow when it comes to our stance on domestic violence and that we as Hawk fans have no basis for leveling such harsh criticism on the Cowboys unless we at the very least admit that our act hasn't been all that exemplary, either.

[kalibane]

A team should do due diligence whenever a player of that caliber is available. And in Hardy's case the fact that it never got past due diligence speaks to the responsibility of the front office. I would be highly upset if he had ever been signed though considering what was obviously in those files and available for the Seahawks to review.

Personally, I think that the "deal breaker" statement is precisely why you don't make those kind of statements and is something Schneider blurted out in the wake of all the publicity around the subject and would take back if he could. Not every situation is the same. I'm still not comfortable with the Frank Clark pick but I would be a hypocrite if I were to say that he doesn't deserve at least one chance to prove that was aberrant behavior versus a pattern of behavior that clearly exists with Greg Hardy.

In general I'm in favor of giving second chances when there is significant grey area and extenuating circumstances around an incident. I believe people can be rehabilitated. What I have problem with is when someone has significant pattern of behavior and shows absolutely zero desire to correct it (Greg Hardy) or has an inability to correct it (Aldon Smith). In cases like Greg Hardy the guy just deserves to be in jail... full stop. In Aldon Smith's case I think he needs actual help and getting all these 4th and 5th chances is just setting him up for a bigger fall.

And again, the reason why I feel comfortable criticizing the Cowboys is Hardy is one of many examples since Jones has taken over, they didn't even try to make him earn his keep, giving him a 10 million dollar contract, and the severity and pattern of this same behavior while not even showing token remorse.

[kalibane]

Let me put it this way:

To me equating Frank Clark to Greg Hardy is like equating two people on the sex offender registry list... one put there because they are 18 and had "consensual" sex with a 15 year old class mate in a state where the age of consent is 16 and the other one is a 45 year old luring 12 year olds for the purposes of molesting or having sex with them.

If my daughter or son was a victim of either one I'd be highly upset, but I don't think the 18 year old should have that mark on them for the rest of their life. The 45 year old on the other hand will need protective custody or they won't be allowed to live with that mark on them.

[RiverDog]

A team should do due diligence whenever a player of that caliber is available. And in Hardy's case the fact that it never got past due diligence speaks to the responsibility of the front office. I would be highly upset if he had ever been signed though considering what was obviously in those files and available for the Seahawks to review.

Personally, I think that the "deal breaker" statement is precisely why you don't make those kind of statements and is something Schneider blurted out in the wake of all the publicity around the subject and would take back if he could. Not every situation is the same. I'm still not comfortable with the Frank Clark pick but I would be a hypocrite if I were to say that he doesn't deserve at least one chance to prove that was aberrant behavior versus a pattern of behavior that clearly exists with Greg Hardy.

In general I'm in favor of giving second chances when there is significant grey area and extenuating circumstances around an incident. I believe people can be rehabilitated. What I have problem with is when someone has significant pattern of behavior and shows absolutely zero desire to correct it (Greg Hardy) or has an inability to correct it (Aldon Smith). In cases like Greg Hardy the guy just deserves to be in jail... full stop. In Aldon Smith's case I think he needs actual help and getting all these 4th and 5th chances is just setting him up for a bigger fall.

You weren't real clear in your response to my question, so let me paraphrase: You felt that John Schneider made up his "deal breaker" statement in response to the criticism over the drafting of Clark. Is that a true statement?

And I agree about making such a blanket, zero tolerance statement like deal breaker. Like you said, each situation is different, and you don't want to encumber yourself with an unworkable policy if a situation comes along, such as Clark's, that technically fits the zero tolerance policy but doesn't fit the spirit of the resolution. No team should adapt that kind of policy unless they are prepared to apply it in every situation without exception.

But that's not what happened. Schneider did say it, and to my knowledge, he has never expressed any regrets about having said it. For all we know, "deal breaker" always has been and always will be the Seahawk's stated policy regarding the striking of a woman. We have been told no different.

[NorthHawk]

Does Hardy's contract with Dallas address personal conduct over and above what the NFL demands?
If it does, then he has to be on the straight and narrow to continue to be a part of the NFL, if not then it's a huge mistake on the Cowboys part if just for the image of both the team and league. I would guess that at some point Hardy will go off again in some manner or other. I just hope when he does he hurts only himself.

RD, I agree with you about what Schneider said then did, and was disappointed in the pick (but I must admit some of that was taking a DL instead of an OL).
However, Clark has shown an awareness of his actions and how it impacts not only his victim's life, but his future in the NFL and his life in general. He had already sought out counseling prior to the draft and was willing to talk about it and seems to understand the gravity of that event. The Cowboys, on the other hand didn't seem to care that Hardy has refused to comment or face his actions and now seem to be willing to largely ignore it until now, apparently in the hope it will all go away.
There is a substantive difference in the two situations and one big similarity, but the actions of how the two players addressed it have been almost opposites.
At this point, I think Clark has a better chance of not having another issue, but who knows what the future holds?
That's how I look at it.

[kalibane]

I think that Schneider overplayed his hand and made a stronger statement than he would have liked to if he could do it over; not necessarily in response to Frank Clark directly but due to the overall political climate around domestic violence in the NFL at the time. I don't believe he ever meant that deep down and I never believed it.

[RiverDog]

I think that Schneider overplayed his hand and made a stronger statement than he would have liked to if he could do it over; not necessarily in response to Frank Clark directly but due to the overall political climate around domestic violence in the NFL at the time. I don't believe he ever meant that deep down and I never believed it.

The "deal breaker" statement was made in direct response to questions about Seahawk policy when he was being queried about the drafting of Clark. He never mentioned it prior to his questioning about drafting Clark. It's also accompanied by a statement from Schneider that the Seahawks "absolutely believes" that Clark did not strike his GF when there's clear and convincing photographic evidence to the contrary that Schneider must have seen that has no other possible explanation other than Clark inflicting those wounds by physically striking her. There wasn't even a disclaimer mentioned that Schneider did not considered it "striking a woman" if he did it in self defense.

http://mynorthwest.com/category/pod_pla ... and%20Salk

Schneider said what he said and he has never expressed any regret in having said them. You're attempting to put words in his mouth that he didn't say them by speculating that he didn't really believe in them or that they were said in a different context rather other than in response to the drafting of Clark.