musccy
13 years ago
On some level I agree with what you're saying, zero. With the Packers he was surrounded by a positive support group. However, he's an adult in his late 20s when this happened. He chooses where he lives, what he does, and who he associates with. He repeatedly made poor choices, and I'm not sure that simply being surrounded by the Packers will prevent another relapse. Do you date a girl that just cheated on two previous boyfriends? She may be really hot, but is it worth when it looks like a tragic inevitability?

Zero2Cool
13 years ago

On some level I agree with what you're saying, zero. With the Packers he was surrounded by a positive support group. However, he's an adult in his late 20s when this happened. He chooses where he lives, what he does, and who he associates with. He repeatedly made poor choices, and I'm not sure that simply being surrounded by the Packers will prevent another relapse. Do you date a girl that just cheated on two previous boyfriends? She may be really hot, but is it worth when it looks like a tragic inevitability?

Originally Posted by: musccy 



I don't think cheating is on any level as being addicted to a drug. I don't think it's even close. I don't care if he's 20 or 30 or 40, if he can be helped by someone, I feel he has that right. The question being, is it worth the Packers to risk one of 53 spots for? I don't know, hence why I'm saying a try out is merited. If he shows the same promise as he showed in '09 then you need to take proper measures to make the best decision for the Packers.

The Packers have people who help players stay on track, I know this because Edgar Bennett was once doing just that.

I find it bothersome that someone would turn away help simply because they are at an age where they are perceived to not need help anymore.
UserPostedImage
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
13 years ago
When do you give another chance?

It's a tough question. It's easy for me (or anyone else) to say "give another chance" when it is someone else who is going to take the risk of another failure. It's a lot harder when you are the one taking the risk.

If I were in the Packers' shoes, I expect I'd bring him in to camp and allow him to compete for a roster spot. But that's me -- partly because I know it took me well into my 40s before I started to have a clue -- in many ways I could have gone down the route of a Jolly or a Ryan Leaf or innumerable other screw-ups; I simply never got caught at the things that would have sent me to jail and expose me to public scrutiny.

And because the reality is that "straightening up" requires commitment by more than one person. For Johnny Jolly to "grow up" or "figure things out" -- obviously that's a necessary condition. If he doesn't get his head on straight, he's going to fall down again. But while his own "change" is a necessary condition, it isn't a sufficient one. If he's to improve the rest of his life someone is going to have to "take a chance on him." Someone is going to have to be willing to say "I know he's been a screwup for years, but I think he's turned the corner, etc."

But all that said, I'm not going to rag on the Packers if they decide to say, "sorry, but you've used up all your chances here." Because the risk of relapse is real and significant. If you're an addict, you're always going to be more susceptible to certain kinds of temptations. And you're always going to be a bigger risk to those who agree to deal with you.

IMO there are no easy rules for the Packers (or any employer) to apply in these kind of cases. IMO a moral decision-maker must consider each case individually. And IMO regardless which particular individual decisions are made, some of them are going to be wrong. Sometimes an extra chance is given and is followed by disappointment. Sometimes one fails to give a chance that would have made the difference.

As a teacher, every semester I have to make several "give another chance?" choices. What do I do if student X misses without excuse? What if he misses an exam worth 20% of the grade? What if he misses the exam, and fails to turn in multiple assignments on time? What if he does all of these things, and then, a week before the final, asks for an incomplete because of an inability to complete a major project?

Earlier in my career I took the approach of the strict constructionist lawyer. I simply went by what the syllabus specified. I essentially said, "These are the rules. You knew what they were. Now you have to bear the consequences of your choice." After a while, I found that I had somehow swung to the opposite end of the pendulum, when I was pretty much allowing "another chance" every time. Eventually, though, I realized that there's nothing you can do to avoid screwing it up from time to time. There was that student in my second semester of teaching I gave a D (because that's what the syllabus said was earned) that I should have "arbitrarily" adjusted upward to a C+. There was that other student in year 10 who I should have given a D to, but because of my "extra chances"/"adjustments", ended up getting a B-.

So now, while the syllabus once again says I'm strictly going to follow it's rules, I don't actually have a hard rule against "adjustments" -- I treat each case as unique.

And I rarely worry about "setting a precedent."

/enter boring teacher mode

If you look at the longer history of the Anglo-American legal system (i.e., before the last 25-50 years, when everything has gotten muddled and out of whack), you'll find a distinction between actions "at law" and actions "at equity." Law cases were decided based upon interpretation of existing "rules of law." Some of these rules came from statutory enactment; a lot more of them came by virtue of rulings in prior law cases ("precedents"). So when he were sitting in law, the judge not only had to make sure he applied the law correctly to the current case's facts, he had to keep half an eye on what his decision might portend for future cases,

(This is also why, if you've ever read/seen how Supreme Court justices question the lawyers on appeal, you'll see a lot of questions that deal with hypothetical facts not actually involved in the case being appealed. The justices are thinking about what the case will yield down the line in another case(s).

Equity, however, doesn't have this same kind of precedent value. (Or at least it didn't use to.) Equity decisions were decided solely on the facts of the case at hand. The finding was determined according to "common principles of equity, justice, and fairness," not according to the rules of law.
Today, of course, we no longer care much about the distinction, save in battles between lawyers about the proper instructions to be given to a jury. Historically, there was no right to a jury decision of a matter of equity -- those "common principles" were always decided by a judge. Today, however, we try to reduce equity and fairness to rules of law; and we see all trials not as "applying the law", but as deciding matters of justice.

Indeed, I expect that were I today to make the claim that "courts are not about ensuring justice", I'd get derided just about everywhere. (Even though for most of our nation's history, America's courts, like the English common law and equity courts they combined, reserved findings of "justice" for cases in equity, and satisfied themselves with the application of the existing laws of contract, property, tort, and crime.)

IMO this transformation of courts from being primarily places of "law" into places primarily of "justice" may be the single greatest problem with modern American jurisprudence. Without it, the activist Supreme Courts that conservatives have railed against for 50+ years would never have been possible. Without it, we would be less a nation of legalists, less susceptible to the pettifogging of lawyers and "thought leaders" and know-nothing protectors-of-our-interests. Without it, we would still have our William Brennans and our Thurgood Marshalls and our David Souters and Antonin Scalias and our William Howard Tafts. But a political hack like Sonia Sotomayer would never have passed muster.

/exit boring teacher mode

Why the extended digression? Because, to me, "second chances" are more like "equity" than they are like "law." When we're a judge/jury confronted with a Johnny Jolly who comes before us having been caught with an illegal amount of something, we ought to apply the law relating to that possession. And we should do so whether we think the law sucks or not. Save in extreme cases (judicial review; jury nullification) it is not our job as judge/jury to make the law, only to apply it.
But when we're an individual employer or customer or neighbor dealing with a Johnny Jolly asking for a second chance, we ought to be controlled by our personal sense of equity and fairness.

Personal relationships should be governed by the moral characters of those in the relationship, shaped by general principles of equity and fairness. Only when those relationships break down (divorce, breach of contract, etc.) should a "law (and precedent)" way of thinking get involved.

And that means that, while I am happy to say what *I* would do in this particular situation, I shouldn't judge or complain if Thompson, McCarthy, et al decide on another approach. Those who know the most about the situation, those who are going to bear the costs of the wrong decision, should be the one's deciding.

A decision based in equity, which IMO this is, needs a lot more information about facts than I will ever have.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
musccy
13 years ago
I didn't mean cheating is the same as an addiction, I'm just saying if someone shows a pattern, why subject yourself to the potential of being let down by that person again?

I'm very pessimistic about his ability to stay clean through February - so to me, it's not about talent evaluation, it's about getting your hopes up over nothing. If you knew you could have Daryl Strawberry and his talent on your roster, but also knew there's a good chance he'd only make it through somewhere between July and August, would you even bother bringing him to spring training over giving a younger guy a shot? Admittedly this assumes Jolly would relapse, and neither you nor I can possibly know that, but given his history I'm on the skeptical side of the fence.

As for the support system, I agree that's a nice benefit and we all want to see the best for people or second chances like with the Banks kid who just got out of jail, but obviously the Packers need to approach things with winning being the principal focus, not on character/chemical rehab.
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
13 years ago
^^ probably well written and well thought out. Too much for me to read. :(







But then I can be a lazy pig.
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
13 years ago
I started reading that, then 5 minutes later scrolled down to see how long it was ... I was scrolling for another two minutes! :P

I won't be hurt if the Packers try him out, sign him or just release him. I would prefer he pass a physical and does a tryout, but I'm not the one signing the paychecks. So I agree with Wade that's easier for joe blow to say "eh give him a shot!" cuz it is not our money.
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
13 years ago

I didn't mean cheating is the same as an addiction, I'm just saying if someone shows a pattern, why subject yourself to the potential of being let down by that person again?

I'm very pessimistic about his ability to stay clean through February - so to me, it's not about talent evaluation, it's about getting your hopes up over nothing. If you knew you could have Daryl Strawberry and his talent on your roster, but also knew there's a good chance he'd only make it through somewhere between July and August, would you even bother bringing him to spring training over giving a younger guy a shot? Admittedly this assumes Jolly would relapse, and neither you nor I can possibly know that, but given his history I'm on the skeptical side of the fence.

As for the support system, I agree that's a nice benefit and we all want to see the best for people or second chances like with the Banks kid who just got out of jail, but obviously the Packers need to approach things with winning being the principal focus, not on character/chemical rehab.

Originally Posted by: musccy 



Well, in tune with your pessimistic view, I counter with an optimistic point. Mike Neal, suspended four games. Anthony Hargrove suspended eight games. If Johnny Jolly were to relapse (hopefully never), Packers could hope it happens before one of them returns. 🙂 After all, it would be DL position for DL position!
UserPostedImage
nerdmann
13 years ago
Here's an issue.

The probability of injury in football is 100%. So, what do they give Jolly for pain? Clearly from the example of Nick Collins, these people don't know anything at all about acupuncture. So do they just let him hurt? Because that will effect his performance on the field during games.

I'm sure this has been dealt with in the past by other players who have had similar issues. It's just something that occurred to me as an issue.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Zero2Cool
13 years ago

Here's an issue.

The probability of injury in football is 100%. So, what do they give Jolly for pain? Clearly from the example of Nick Collins, these people don't know anything at all about acupuncture. So do they just let him hurt? Because that will effect his performance on the field during games.

I'm sure this has been dealt with in the past by other players who have had similar issues. It's just something that occurred to me as an issue.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 



WTF does Nick Collins have to do with this?

As for what they can do about pain for an injury, remember when Brett Favre suffered an addiction to Vicodin, they found a solution for that ... I'm willing to bet there's one for Johnny Jolly too.
UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
13 years ago

I started reading that, then 5 minutes later scrolled down to see how long it was ... I was scrolling for another two minutes! :P

I won't be hurt if the Packers try him out, sign him or just release him. I would prefer he pass a physical and does a tryout, but I'm not the one signing the paychecks. So I agree with Wade that's easier for joe blow to say "eh give him a shot!" cuz it is not our money.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



nice summary.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
dfosterf (25-Jul) : It's my one day deal complaint dept. on shareholder meeting day
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Probably a homer access credential intimidation kinda thing
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Meathead "journalists" skip this, concentrating on operational revenue when convenient. They switch when net revenue is more favorable.
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Resulting in an actual drop of net revenue of 12.5%. She is from Minnesota. Just sayin'
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Any plans to hold Maureen Smith (CFO) accountable for a 95% drop in investment revenue?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : In your face, HBO!
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : @ByRyanWood Mark Murphy: “A great source of pride of mine is that we were never on Hard Knocks.”
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : *years
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : @mattschneidman Mark Murphy says he anticipates “many Packers games” being played in Germany, Ireland and/or the U.K. over the next 5-10 yea
dfosterf (25-Jul) : *cafeteria* I have hit my head also, so I sympathize
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Possibly hit his head leaning into the glass protecting the food in the cafateria
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Maybe a low flying drone
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Did Savion Williams run into a goalpost or something?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : also, no bueno when a guy starts getting concussions right off the bat in his career
Zero2Cool (25-Jul) : Concussion is worse. Banks probably vet off day via back booboo claim
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : @AndyHermanNFL Jordy Nelson out at camp today. No word if he’s in play for one of the two open roster spots ; )
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Is that better or worse than Banks bad back?
Zero2Cool (25-Jul) : Savion concussion ... not good.
packerfanoutwest (24-Jul) : Aaron Rodgers’s first pass of first team period was picked off
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : tbh I didn't hear of his passing
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Cosby Show. Malcom Jamal Warner I think is real name
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : I was thinking of Ozzy and Hulk
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : Who's Theo?
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : How is Theo alliteration?
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : Bad week for people whose names are alliterations
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Hulk Hogan gone too.
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Oh, it's toe injury
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Hope it's not serious. that would stink
dfosterf (24-Jul) : Sounds like an ankle not a knee for Fields
dfosterf (24-Jul) : Ya Flaccp on Browns
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Maybe Tyrod Taylor instead
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : He's on Browns, right?
dfosterf (24-Jul) : They would probably go with Flacco is my guess if Fields out
dfosterf (24-Jul) : Fleece 'em again!
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Malik Willis might be someone Jets come after
packerfanoutwest (24-Jul) : Packers introduce 1923-inspired classic uniform, leather-look helmet
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Both LB Quay Walker and Rookie DB Micah Robinson have passed their physicals
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Happy to see site feels more snappy snappy
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : No sir. I did not.
dfosterf (23-Jul) : You didn't get free childcare when you were at work?
wpr (23-Jul) : These guys make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Pay for their own childcare.
dfosterf (23-Jul) : 2nd issue. Number 1 issue was no gameday childcare. 1 of 3 teams not providing it
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Suppose if locker room is main issue, we sitting pretty
wpr (23-Jul) : I thought so Mucky. In those useless player polls GB always rates high overall. Locker is a part of it.
Mucky Tundra (23-Jul) : Wasn't the locker room just updated like 6 or 7 years ago?
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : I have forum updated on different site. We'll see how this one goes before going to that
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Elgton Jenkins has a back injury, is expect to end contract dispute
wpr (23-Jul) : It's funny the PA complained about the locker room. It wasn't that long ago it was top shelf. Things change in a hurry.
wpr (23-Jul) : The site is much more better.
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : NFLPA report said Packers lockerroom needed upgrade. Whining bout where you change?
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
25-Jul / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

25-Jul / Around The NFL / beast

24-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

24-Jul / Around The NFL / beast

24-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

22-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.