Archive - Random Cowboys Related Stuff Thread...
- Thread starter Cotton
- Start date
- Status
Texas Ace
Teh Acester
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 23,458
dallen
Senior Tech
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2000
- Messages
- 8,466
I was curious so I found this highlight of QC throwing a game winning TD last night: https://www.facebook.com/CorpusChristiFury/posts/937778136320112
What really strikes me is how empty the arena is, and the cost for tickets to the game was only a $1. Kinda sad.
What really strikes me is how empty the arena is, and the cost for tickets to the game was only a $1. Kinda sad.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 52,637
I'd suit up and play in that game in a heart beat right now. So I can't really call it sad that a guy is still playing a sport that most of us love playing. Now if he is doing it for the $200.00 check that is sad.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 120,043
Greg Hardy refuses to explain what happened
Posted by Michael David Smith on April 5, 2016, 2:44 PM EDT
Free agent defensive end Greg Hardy was given a chance to explain on ESPN what happened on the day he was accused of domestic violence. Hardy declined to explain.
In an interview that aired today, Adam Schefter asked Hardy, “How do you explain what happened?”
Hardy answered, “I don’t think I want to get into a situation like that. It’s in the past. I want to say that I’m an innocent man, I’ve been proven not guilty, and it’s a situation that’s in my past. And I feel like, as a grown man, as a football player of my caliber there are situations, inside that situation, where it has nothing to do with the situation, but I could have done better. I should have done better.”
Hardy’s goal in granting Schefter the exclusive interview was obviously to present himself as a person an NFL team could proudly add to its roster, but that answer isn’t gong to do Hardy any favors. If he’s an innocent man, why won’t he answer the simple question, What happened?
It also isn’t accurate for Hardy to say he’s “been proven not guilty.” Charges were dropped after he reached a civil settlement with his accuser and she declined to testify against him in a criminal trial. That’s a far cry from being “proven not guilty.”
When Schefter asked Hardy how his accuser got bruises on his body — bruises that have been documented in graphic photographs — Hardy answered, “Like I said, that’s a conversation for lawyers. Pictures are pictures and they can be made to look like whatever they want to.”
Again, that’s not a satisfying answer. Is Hardy suggesting that the pictures were doctored? If so, why wouldn’t he have said so clearly and unequivocally the moment the pictures were first used as evidence against him?
Hardy tried to portray himself as having been treated unfairly, saying he feels that he’s become “a leper.” That won’t change after this interview. In fact, NFL teams will likely be even less interested in signing Hardy now than they were before.
Posted by Michael David Smith on April 5, 2016, 2:44 PM EDT
Free agent defensive end Greg Hardy was given a chance to explain on ESPN what happened on the day he was accused of domestic violence. Hardy declined to explain.
In an interview that aired today, Adam Schefter asked Hardy, “How do you explain what happened?”
Hardy answered, “I don’t think I want to get into a situation like that. It’s in the past. I want to say that I’m an innocent man, I’ve been proven not guilty, and it’s a situation that’s in my past. And I feel like, as a grown man, as a football player of my caliber there are situations, inside that situation, where it has nothing to do with the situation, but I could have done better. I should have done better.”
Hardy’s goal in granting Schefter the exclusive interview was obviously to present himself as a person an NFL team could proudly add to its roster, but that answer isn’t gong to do Hardy any favors. If he’s an innocent man, why won’t he answer the simple question, What happened?
It also isn’t accurate for Hardy to say he’s “been proven not guilty.” Charges were dropped after he reached a civil settlement with his accuser and she declined to testify against him in a criminal trial. That’s a far cry from being “proven not guilty.”
When Schefter asked Hardy how his accuser got bruises on his body — bruises that have been documented in graphic photographs — Hardy answered, “Like I said, that’s a conversation for lawyers. Pictures are pictures and they can be made to look like whatever they want to.”
Again, that’s not a satisfying answer. Is Hardy suggesting that the pictures were doctored? If so, why wouldn’t he have said so clearly and unequivocally the moment the pictures were first used as evidence against him?
Hardy tried to portray himself as having been treated unfairly, saying he feels that he’s become “a leper.” That won’t change after this interview. In fact, NFL teams will likely be even less interested in signing Hardy now than they were before.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 52,637
I think this could just as easily be interpreted as she may have had bruises but I didn't put them there. Which is probably what his answer should have been instead of this. But I don't really even care about that incident. I'd take him back in a heartbeat as long as he will show up for practices and show up on time.
L.T. Fan
I'm Easy If You Are
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 21,698
I don't think he is coming back. I suspect he has burned his bridges in Dallas.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 52,637
Oh I agree. I think he burned one bridge that will not allow him to come back and that is Garrett. I can't see Hardy playing in Dallas again while Garrett is here.
townsend
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2013
- Messages
- 5,377
I think it's a pretty big indictment that he can't make it work on the island of misfit toys. I think it took a strong willed coach to keep him in check, and only a big ol puss like Garrett can would actually let a GM hire Hardy. So he's pretty much out of options.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 19,471
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 19,471
Y'all army getting it. Its not about getting Hardy but in Crocks post he said "can't see Hardy playing in Dallas if Garrett is still here". In that scenario it would mean Garrett is gone so I embrace a return of Hardy for that.
- Status