Players who have committed domestic violence or been accused of it will get second chances in this league, even if it's not as easily or accepted as it once was. But those who make life tougher on coaches or divide locker rooms still appear to have a much tougher time getting jobs. Hardy appears to be an example of that.

His involvement with domestic violence made Hardy less employable, but he still got a job — and a very well-paying one — after that. His insubordination made him unemployable in a market where his skills should be extremely valuable. We'd like to think that the domestic violence alone would ban him from the league, but that's not the case.

I'm more concerned with the ethics of some of our posters who follow and believe in draconian right wing social issues than I am whether or not a player falls into "Packer People" categories.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

Yeah I know. You never get all bent out of shape and rant on about Lofton or Hotubing Coffman. 😁

Originally Posted by: wpr 

I never knocked Lofton. I thought that was a pretty stupid ostracizing. Chmura, now don't even start.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

Who’s worse, Hardy or Smith? That’s a hard question to answer. But Smith got no signing bonus and nothing guaranteed from the Raiders, and Smith remains suspended by the NFL and won’t even be eligible for reinstatement until November. So the Raiders weren’t taking much of a risk when they signed him.