Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

If I read this right, Jolly on Feb 13 said he's getting "real close" to being reinstated.

Feb 13 Marvin‏@Am_Svensk.@JJolly97 Any news on your situation? Is anybody talking to you about lifting your suspension?

Feb 13 johnny jolly‏@JJolly97@mashlanm gettin real close

Feb 13 Marvin‏@Am_Svensk.@JJolly97 Good to hear. I think there are many Packer fans that would love to see you in action again.

https://twitter.com/JJolly97
Last edited by sschumer - Packer Fan HoF'r
With 3 seasons away from football, it would be amazing if he could come back from that. He was a great talent, I know the Packers considered him their best D-Lineman in 2009, but it's tough for guys who are away from the game that long to come back.

Normally, I'd give a guy like that zero chance, but he was such a freakish athlete, there'd be just a real slim hope that maybe some of that freakish talent still is there after those years of inactivity.
I'm sure there is plenty "gas left in his tank". He's been out of football for the past 3 years. It's more a matter of whether he can "shake the rust off" and get the engine back into gear at the level it was at in 2009. IF he can round himself back into shape and IF TT trusts him, I don't see why he couldn't play another 3 - 4 years. He was an impact player at a position the Packers sorely need one at. So I would roll the dice.
If Goodell announced convicted felons will be denied the ability to play in the NFL, I'm fine with that. As long as it's upheld.

But when Mike Vick is embraced by Goodell on his return, Goodell helps find him a soft landing spot in his reacclimation back into the NFL, and talks about the opportunity of second chances, then strong arms Jolly (or anyone else) it's a power hog altering competitive balance for his own personal reasons.
quote:
If he wasn't a Packer, or even an NFL player, none of y'all would give f*ck one about him

I would. The guy got convicted the first time for altering his brain chemistry in a way the government doesn't approve of. The second one was pretty much for contempt of court, and the government gave him a six-year sentence because f*ck you, that's why. (Note: the "you" in the last sentence does not refer to Shoeless Joe, to whose post I was responding.) They wanted to make an example of somebody and ruin somebody's life because they could.

The War on Drugs is evil.
quote:
Originally posted by Shoeless Joe:
So lemme see if I have this straight, you care about some multimillionaire thug being crapped on by our judicial system even though he broke law(s), but not about a young innocent girl being traumatized. Does that about cover it? Roll Eyes


I'm still waiting fedgeya, I really want to know, hell I even took you off of ignore anticipating your answer.

I can see you trying to hide in your forum, talk about hiding in plain sight, any more than two people at once in that forum triggers a CNN News Alert.
quote:
Originally posted by Shoeless Joe:
I'm still waiting fedgeya [sic], I really want to know, hell I even took you off of ignore anticipating your answer.


Ooh, I've got my very own stalker!

First, I disagree with your assertion that imbibing in purple drank makes one a thug. It may be a sign of poor taste, but I see nothing thuggish about drinking it.

Second, Jolly's being rich has nothing to do with it. The War on Drugs sh*ts on the rule of law in so many ways (abuse of asset forfeiture; increased militarization of the police; the destruction of Robert Peel's weel thought-out principles of policing) that I will continue to maintain that it's evil.

And third, I would still argue that the State misusing its power to deprive people of their liberty is far worse than a bunch of fans of Bears fans telling a female Packer fan she's fat and ugly. You (and this time I do mean you personally in addition to the general you) can put me on ignore; you can't put the State on ignore.
Stalker, no. Low tolerance for a$$holes, yes.

Now was that so hard? All I wanted was a clarification on your stance. Now that I have it I can indeed put your stupid back on ignore. In the future though try not to be such an a$$hole I'm getting tired of clicking "show post" after people quote your stupid for everyone to see. It's like watching a train wreck, you just can't turn away. Bye! wave3
quote:
Originally posted by Hungry5:
Absolutely no reason to believe that he is motivated to restart his career.


His tweeterbox seems to say he is. HOW serious is the question. He would be exactly what the DL needs if he finds his previous form. It's a pie in the sky at this point but that addition would be huge.

Hope springs eternal in the offseason.
quote:
Originally posted by Shoeless Joe:
...but wanting to keep convicted felons out of the NFL is something I can go along with.


I'm all for this too, SJ, but either it has to apply to everybody or nobody; there's no sitting on the fence. If people like Leonard Little, Plaxico, or Vick are welcomed back into the league, Jolly should be at the front of that line.
If the league were smart, they'd make it a rule; felony conviction of any kind prohibits you from playing in the league. Even if it occurs in college or before.

However, what other lines would/could be drawn?
Having multiple babies out of wedlock?
Beating their wife/girlfriend?
DUI arrests?
These may or may not rise to a felony level, but the potential 'black eye' for the team and/or league is no less.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×