Jolly Suspended Indefinitely

[Lurker64]

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/98625354.html

We won't have him at least for the 2010 season, and it's not certain we'll ever see him in Green and Gold again. Still, we got four pretty productive seasons from a 6th round pick, which is fine.

Makes the roster crunch on the D-Line a little less dramatic. We now have 2 spots available for Harrell, Wilson, Wynn, Toribio, and Talley. Rotation on game days should be Jenkins, Raji, Pickett, Neal, and one of the previously mentioned four.

[red]

jinx

[red]

so to me this doesn't sound like it's related to his ongoing court case

it almost sounds like he failed a drug test

it'll be a big loss because he's a good player, but it sure seemed like during the draft that TT was planning on him being suspended for something when he loaded up on D-line talent

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

This is a big loss. Jolly is a good palyer and seems to always play hard. To bad he can't get his shit off the field together. Small chance, but hopefully Harrell plays this year.

[Lurker64]

so to me this doesn't sound like it's related to his ongoing court case

it almost sounds like he failed a drug test

it'll be a big loss because he's a good player, but it sure seemed like during the draft that TT was planning on him being suspended for something when he loaded up on D-line talent

My guess is that the NFL did some research into the prosecutor's claims that they had a witness who would implicate him much deeper in the drug trade than just the kid who got his lean on as it originally seemed. If they found anything substantive there, I could definitely see them being in a hurry to suspend him. Since if it comes to light that he smuggled 25 kilos of coke form Mexico in his large intestine, or something, the NFL doesn't want to have that guy on an active roster when that comes to light.

But yeah, I really think that Thompson approached the offseason thinking that it was unlikely that Jolly would be back. Pickett moving to DE in part was probably because the team termed Raji as close to ready, and part because they needed a starter calibre guy there. Spending a premium pick on a long, strong DT in one of the best years in recent memory (perhaps ever) for talent at DT seems like a pretty good move in retrospect, and the Wilson pick in the 7th is now more of a relief than a head scratcher.

My prediction is that they keep Raji, Jenkins, Pickett, Neal, Wilson, and Wynn on the 53 man. Outside chance of Talley or Harrell though, but I wouldn't bet money on it.

[Scott Campbell]

so to me this doesn't sound like it's related to his ongoing court case

it almost sounds like he failed a drug test

it'll be a big loss because he's a good player, but it sure seemed like during the draft that TT was planning on him being suspended for something when he loaded up on D-line talent


An indefinite suspension makes it sound like he failed more than one drug test.

[boiga]

Or that he was dealing, or financing dealing. That'd do it.

I hope this witness is full of crap because I liked Jolly as a player. That kind of allegation is to a Mike Vick level of douchebaggery though.

This certainly makes this years draft look gold, doesn't it? Mike Neal and Morgan Burnett could both be major steals at otherwise weak positions.

[red]

after reading a couple other little articles, it almost sounds like jolly is some kind of drug czar.

i haven't followed the case closely at all, all i knew was that he got busted with the codeine. it sounds like there's also proof that he was funding and/or distributing coke and weed from 2006 to 2008

so it sure seems like his drug empire was a lot bigger then just the purple drank

and if that is the case he needs to be completely removed from this team

[RashanGary]

I'm surprised and disappointed.


That flier with Jolly's picture on it, what a friggin retard. And I wouldn't be shocked if he talked to Goodell or someone else in the NFL and lied.

That suspension is an attention getter. Whatever their reasoning, they're sending a message here. It's too bad the Packers have to suffer for it. It's really too bad because if we're going to be great, having a deep DL was going to be a big part of that. Hopefully we have decent health and Neal pans out.

Shit, this just stinks. Do we extend Jenkins now? After this year, we could have trouble if we don't have Jenkins.

[Scott Campbell]

Our D is now down 2 starters from last years defense. Hopefully Al makes it back at some point, but I wouldn't count on Jolly ever playing for us again.

[packrulz]

Jolly is talented but needs to grow up and lose his posse.

[pbmax]

La Canfora on NFL Network says the suspension flows from the Drug and Alcohol policy, not from Personal Conduct.

Campbell is right, he would need to have failed 3 drug tests (one of which would still be under wraps and another that should have suspended him for 4 games) to be suspended a year. And that doesn't even cover the indefinite part.

Originally, the fact the the prosecutor was bringing forth an incarcerated witness for the penalty portion of Jolly's trial seemed like piling on before the fact. Apparently, the NFL found something it was troubled by.

He seems especially stupid, in hindsight, not to have just pled the thing out, take the suspension and get back into the league. Unless he knew there was more to be found. Seems odd that a man previously unidentified by the Houston PD is now being accused of essentially dealing.

[boiga]

I think I've been mentally preparing myself for this all summer, otherwise I'd be more upset.

It also helps that ProFootballFocus rated jolly as the worst player on our defense last year on a down by down basis.

http://profootballfocus.com/cstats.php?tab=by_team&season=2009&teamid=12&stats=d&stype=a&playerid=

He's an odd player in that he had only half the QB pressures of Cullen Jenkins, but he did bat down 10 passes. I'm not sure if that makes him a playmaker or a gimmick player.

Then again, I might simply be trying to console myself over the fact that he will be kicked off the team.

[pbmax]

Lori Nickel offers this helpful tidbit in the JSO Packer Blog.


Lori Nickel-JSO (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/98625354.html)[/b]]The usual progression for such a suspension is four games, then eight for the next violation and then the season, but it is possible Jolly had such violations and they never became public.

Yes, Lori. Jolly had previously been suspended for a total of twelve games. But no one noticed. :roll:

Plus, I think she has this wrong. The third failure/second suspension should be for a year, shouldn't it?

[pbmax]

The follicle test. Done in by your own hair! How did I forget that?


GBPG (http://packersnews.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100716/PKR01/100716074/NFL-suspends-DE-Jolly-for-at-least-2010-season)[/b]]In a May court hearing, prosecutor Todd Keagle asked state District Judge Mike Anderson to raise Jolly's bond and order he undergo additional drug testing after finding the football player's picture on a flier saying he hosted a May 7 party at a Houston nightclub.

As I recall, the judge did order the testing.

And by the way, the Green Bay Press Gazette's Packer website looks horrible.

[sharpe1027]

Lori Nickel offers this helpful tidbit in the JSO Packer Blog.


Lori Nickel-JSO (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/98625354.html)[/b]]The usual progression for such a suspension is four games, then eight for the next violation and then the season, but it is possible Jolly had such violations and they never became public.

Yes, Lori. Jolly had previously been suspended for a total of twelve games. But no one noticed. :roll:

Plus, I think she has this wrong. The third failure/second suspension should be for a year, shouldn't it?

Maybe the NFL made him take three tests on consecutive days and counted them as separate violations. Haha.

[Patler]

I believe the policy states that the first suspension is a minimum of 4 games, the second a minimum of 8, the third a minimum of 12 months. Nothing says the first can't be more, depending on circumstances.

I find the timing of this rather peculiar. It has been dragging on forever, and now two weeks before the trial is to start, the NFL comes down with their suspension. Why not earlier? Why not wait until after the trial when they waited this long?

[Lurker64]

My guess, Jolly failed a drug test for more than three different banned substances at the same time.

He was on Steroids, Purple Drank, Crack Cocaine, HGH, Heroin, Meth, and Horse Tranquilizers at the same time. Unfortunately, he was tested the day after one HELL of a party.

[red]

i bet a failed drug test triggered a suspension, minimum 4 or 8 games. then goodell just said screw it, i'm gonna drop the hammer on you right now for all this other crap while i'm at it.

jolly at the very least seems to be hanging around with a very shitty crowd. odds are if his friends are around the shit and sell it, then he has his hands in it as well

him failing a drug test with all these other accusations over his head is just the straw that breaks the camels back. and just plain stupid

[wist43]

This definitely hurts our defense... he was our best DL last year.

[digitaldean]

Even though it hurts us on the d-line, I am glad they did it.

When others did similar stupid things, I've railed on them and was glad when they were suspended. Same goes for Johnny Jolly. This idiot can hopefully get his life in order to prepare for his return OR get ready for some hard time in the slammer.

There had to be a reason why Neal and Wilson were drafted than just to add depth.

Somehow I think TT and M3 had a gut feeling this was coming.

[Kiwon]

Drugs are so cool, man.

How much money is he going to lose now?

[Guiness]

very odd - 'socially' he was pretty quiet - didn't make a lot of news until this bust during his time in GB. And I did like him as a player. Certainly wasn't a pacman or even on a lesser scale, Cedric Benson type guy who seemed to always be having run-ins.

Everyone laughed at the fact he was changed with having 25 grams of codein, said the cop obviously screwed up because 25 grams was a trunk full, not a glass full.

Maybe it turns out he did have a trunk full!!!

[mission]

Rape a girl, get 6 games.

Sell and do some drugs: end of your career. The amount or scope of any of this really shouldn't matter. You either do/sell or you aren't.

Not that I really even want an idiot on the Packers who cares more about his crew and selling bricks than he does about being a better football player. Just seems like there are discrepancies in the NFL's disciplinary program.

I'm not too shook up -- what a fkn moron. He could have made so much more money without having to try and "make more money".

Makes TT look even better now... he must have had some sort of magic 8ball to see this coming.

[Iron Mike]

This definitely hurts our defense... he was our best DL last year.

Too bad we're not in Minnesota.....then he could be suspended indefinitely and STILL play for a few more years. :roll:

[ThunderDan]

It seems like a harsh penalty to drop the hammer for a season right away. I am sure Jolly must have been financing some sort of drug ring for his friends. Who knows for sure.

If he has those kind of issues I have no problem with the league suspending him. Sucks as a Packer fan for results on the field but I can live with our player being an idiot and getting punished for it.

Where is that MNGolf poster getting all into a lather that Jolly has never been convicetd of anything and the NFL is suspending him? Wait the Williams boys did break the banned substances rules! I am so confused!

[Joemailman]

Even though it hurts us on the d-line, I am glad they did it.

When others did similar stupid things, I've railed on them and was glad when they were suspended. Same goes for Johnny Jolly. This idiot can hopefully get his life in order to prepare for his return OR get ready for some hard time in the slammer.

There had to be a reason why Neal and Wilson were drafted than just to add depth.

Somehow I think TT and M3 had a gut feeling this was coming.

I'm not sure that Jolly's legal situation had that much to do with the draft. Jolly and Jenkins were both entering the final years of their contracts. There had been talk previously that the Packers might part ways with Jolly, so this might have been his last year with the Packers anyway.

[DonHutson]

This is for violating the substance abuse policy, so I'm pretty sure that implies failed drug tests. It's pretty cut and dried, x number of violations = y number of games suspended.

Anything related to his upcoming trial would be under the personal conduct policy. That's the tool Goodell uses to take players behind the woodshed, and it's fairly arbitrary. Presumably then, there would another personal conduct penalty down the road on top of this suspension.

Jason Wilde talked about Jolly on Homer's show this afternoon. He seemed to think he either failed multiple tests this off-season or he may have failed one last year that was being appealed and then another in the off-season. Wilde felt sure the Packers knew this was coming, (hence the Neal pick and hence the Pickett move to DE, not to mention Jolly's unvitation to minicamp) and he added that they've been concerned about his character from the moment they drafted him.

Based on that there was no way he was coming back next year anyway. Ted's not giving a big bonus to a headcase like that.

I can't imagine why they wouldn't just cut him now. Let the trial headlines be about 'former-Packer Johnny Jolly.' That has a much better ring to it.

[red]

This is for violating the substance abuse policy, so I'm pretty sure that implies failed drug tests. It's pretty cut and dried, x number of violations = y number of games suspended.

Anything related to his upcoming trial would be under the personal conduct policy. That's the tool Goodell uses to take players behind the woodshed, and it's fairly arbitrary. Presumably then, there would another personal conduct penalty down the road on top of this suspension.

Jason Wilde talked about Jolly on Homer's show this afternoon. He seemed to think he either failed multiple tests this off-season or he may have failed one last year that was being appealed and then another in the off-season. Wilde felt sure the Packers knew this was coming, (hence the Neal pick and hence the Pickett move to DE, not to mention Jolly's unvitation to minicamp) and he added that they've been concerned about his character from the moment they drafted him.

Based on that there was no way he was coming back next year anyway. Ted's not giving a big bonus to a headcase like that.

I can't imagine why they wouldn't just cut him now. Let the trial headlines be about 'former-Packer Johnny Jolly.' That has a much better ring to it.

it thats the case then his career is probably over, what an absolute waste

if they cut him now would they owe him money? if they wait until after he is(if he is) convicted, then they can cut him without having to pay him a dime (conduct detrimental to the team)

[Lurker64]

I can't imagine why they wouldn't just cut him now. Let the trial headlines be about 'former-Packer Johnny Jolly.' That has a much better ring to it.

I'm pretty sure they won't cut him because they can't. A suspended player is moved to the Reserve-Suspended list automatically, and IIRC you can't cut people on that list. It's entirely possible that they will cut him the instant he is removed from that list, but if they were going to do that they could have always pulled the tender. I think Ted's willing to try to get that 1 RFA year he's owed from Jolly, and then cut the line.

The positive side of this is that the Packers don't owe Jolly a dime while he's suspended, and he doesn't accrue any years of service while he's suspended. So likely when he gets off suspension, if he's not in jail, the Packers will have the option of paying him the RFA tender and keeping him for a year, or just cutting him.

[mraynrand]

This seems like an extreme punishment for what will likely be a very minor incident. Live and let live, that's my motto.

[gbgary]

anyone out there unsigned to take his place?

[Joemailman]

Ol' Cleedeeus is available.

[Lurker64]

anyone out there unsigned to take his place?

No, and I doubt there would be anybody out there who would have a better chance of making the roster than guys like Ronald Talley, C.J. Wilson, or Jarius Wynn. Remember, that we'll keep 6 DL on the 53 and suit 5 on game days.

Remember, Jolly was demoted from a starting position early in the offseason when Pickett was moved to DE, and so we're really just losing a backup. We already drafted the guy who was intended to replace Jolly in April, and there were no free agents worth pursuing at this position with our depth at the spot. Thompson saw the possibility of this coming and already prepared for it. We may bat down fewer passes at the line, but we should be fine.

[pbmax]

I believe the policy states that the first suspension is a minimum of 4 games, the second a minimum of 8, the third a minimum of 12 months. Nothing says the first can't be more, depending on circumstances.

I find the timing of this rather peculiar. It has been dragging on forever, and now two weeks before the trial is to start, the NFL comes down with their suspension. Why not earlier? Why not wait until after the trial when they waited this long?
Where is the avatar? :shock:

I may be getting old, but I do not remember a second suspension clocking in under a year. But to be honest, I may have missed the details on the individual appeals, etc. So my memory may only be of the original announcements. I do not remember reading that 8 games was the minimum second suspension. That is news to me.

[wist43]

I understand you guys soft pedal bad news, and set off fireworks at the signing of minimum wage FA's... but, Jolly was arguably our best DL last year, and he will be missed.

And don't even try to make the argument that we'll be fine at DE b/c Pickett is moving there... Pickett is a career long NT for a reason - he's a NT!!!! :shock:

The drafting of Neal and Wilson will hopefully ease the blow a bit, but none of you can argue that we'll be better at DE with the loss of Jolly. They'll plug a body in there, but this hurts the Packers front seven - no doubt about it.

[Lurker64]

And don't even try to make the argument that we'll be fine at DE b/c Pickett is moving there... Pickett is a career long NT for a reason - he's a NT!!!! :shock:

Actually, Pickett's not a career long NT. He's played in the B gap more than he's played in the A gap, and last year was his first year at NT. Now we're asking him to play in the C-gap, but playing the 5-technique really isn't all that different from playing the 3-technique. If anything, fast slippery penetrators are a lot better 3-techs than 5-techs, and Pickett is anything but. You might like a little more length out of him from the 5-tech, but he should be fine. Attitude, assignment sureness, and hard-working is more important for 3-4 defensive ends who are physically suited to that position than anything else. If a guy's not long enough (Raji) or not strong enough (Wynn), he will likely struggle at the 5-tech no matter what, but if a guy is long enough, strong enough, smart enough, knows the plays, and willing to work hard he should be fine.

The thing that could really save the Packers here is if, by some miracle, Justin Harrell can play this year. He'd be a monster at 5-tech, if he can return to his pre-back injury form. I wouldn't bet any money on that though, regardless of the odds you gave me.

[CaliforniaCheez]

There is a lot we do not know yet.

Probably much will come out at trial.

For the NFL to come out with the big hammer on a first offense it has to be really bad.

Probably should start assuming he will never put on a Packer Jersey again.

I never thought it was this bad.

[Fritz]

I really do not understand the anger toward Johnny Jolly. We've had many threads about NFL players' lack of preparedness for their post-NFL careers. We read stories about formerly rich players who end up broke because they didn't prepare for life after football. According to the prosecution for his case, Johnny Jolly is heavy into the drug business, dealing.

So here we have a player who is trying to diversify, who is investing his football earnings into another very lucrative business, and he runs into a little bad luck and now we're hating on him? Nobody seemed to hate on Mark Brunell when his investments went south. Johnny was looking ahead, like any good businessman. Sure, he took some pretty big risks, but look at the potential payoff. It just didn't work out. Like all those hotshots who invested in real estate six years ago and now are sitting there broke.

Johnny Jolly is a forward-thinking individual who is unconcerned with the rules, sure he can work around them are be treated with kid gloves. He's no different than the CEO of a large corporation, maybe just with less clout. But he's pulled himself up by his bootstraps. He's no Donald Trump, who was handed his fortune.

If anything the NFL should hire Jolly to tutor young NFL players on thinking ahead and developing other talents so that when their careers are over they can continue to live in the style to which they will soon be accustomed.

As for his personal drug use, well, he's only using the product he's selling. Would you want the CEO of GM to drive a Toyota, or to take a bus to work? Of course not. Would you want Steve Jobs to not use an Apple? Of course not.

Johnny Jolly is a sadly misunderstood businessman.

[Scott Campbell]

There is a lot we do not know yet.

Probably much will come out at trial.

For the NFL to come out with the big hammer on a first offense it has to be really bad.

Probably should start assuming he will never put on a Packer Jersey again.

I never thought it was this bad.



Remember all the grief Ted got for drafting Neal in the 2nd? They knew.

[sharpe1027]

I understand you guys soft pedal bad news, and set off fireworks at the signing of minimum wage FA's... but, Jolly was arguably our best DL last year, and he will be missed.

And don't even try to make the argument that we'll be fine at DE b/c Pickett is moving there... Pickett is a career long NT for a reason - he's a NT!!!! :shock:

The drafting of Neal and Wilson will hopefully ease the blow a bit, but none of you can argue that we'll be better at DE with the loss of Jolly. They'll plug a body in there, but this hurts the Packers front seven - no doubt about it.

Not better, by any means, but not necessarily the end of the world. JJ was a stout option that would eat up blockers and get in passing lanes, no more, no less. That's a great thing to have and fits the 3-4 pretty well, but is should not be impossible to replace (compared to a pass-rushing 4-3 end). The big test will be if one or two guys go down with an injury for any length of time.

[BallHawk]

I really do not understand the anger toward Johnny Jolly. We've had many threads about NFL players' lack of preparedness for their post-NFL careers. We read stories about formerly rich players who end up broke because they didn't prepare for life after football. According to the prosecution for his case, Johnny Jolly is heavy into the drug business, dealing.

So here we have a player who is trying to diversify, who is investing his football earnings into another very lucrative business, and he runs into a little bad luck and now we're hating on him? Nobody seemed to hate on Mark Brunell when his investments went south. Johnny was looking ahead, like any good businessman. Sure, he took some pretty big risks, but look at the potential payoff. It just didn't work out. Like all those hotshots who invested in real estate six years ago and now are sitting there broke.

Johnny Jolly is a forward-thinking individual who is unconcerned with the rules, sure he can work around them are be treated with kid gloves. He's no different than the CEO of a large corporation, maybe just with less clout. But he's pulled himself up by his bootstraps. He's no Donald Trump, who was handed his fortune.

If anything the NFL should hire Jolly to tutor young NFL players on thinking ahead and developing other talents so that when their careers are over they can continue to live in the style to which they will soon be accustomed.

As for his personal drug use, well, he's only using the product he's selling. Would you want the CEO of GM to drive a Toyota, or to take a bus to work? Of course not. Would you want Steve Jobs to not use an Apple? Of course not.

Johnny Jolly is a sadly misunderstood businessman.

+1

[wist43]

And don't even try to make the argument that we'll be fine at DE b/c Pickett is moving there... Pickett is a career long NT for a reason - he's a NT!!!! :shock:

Actually, Pickett's not a career long NT. He's played in the B gap more than he's played in the A gap, and last year was his first year at NT. Now we're asking him to play in the C-gap, but playing the 5-technique really isn't all that different from playing the 3-technique. If anything, fast slippery penetrators are a lot better 3-techs than 5-techs, and Pickett is anything but. You might like a little more length out of him from the 5-tech, but he should be fine. Attitude, assignment sureness, and hard-working is more important for 3-4 defensive ends who are physically suited to that position than anything else. If a guy's not long enough (Raji) or not strong enough (Wynn), he will likely struggle at the 5-tech no matter what, but if a guy is long enough, strong enough, smart enough, knows the plays, and willing to work hard he should be fine.

The thing that could really save the Packers here is if, by some miracle, Justin Harrell can play this year. He'd be a monster at 5-tech, if he can return to his pre-back injury form. I wouldn't bet any money on that though, regardless of the odds you gave me.

Nah, not buyin it Lurker :) You guys told me for how long?? that Kampman was destined for the HOF as a LB... didn't see that then, don't see this now.

In a 4-3, go ahead, move Pickett anywhere you want inside, but even Sherman Klump wouldn't consider him at DE. As for the 3-4, yes the skills needed to play DE in a 3-4 are quite similar to the skills needed to play inside - we've discussed this at length; however, Jolly and Pickett are 2 completely different types of players.

Jolly excelled outside b/c of his athleticism; Pickett on the other hand is just a fat guy - he's shaped like a pear, he has no burst, and he can't run at all. He's great at eating up blockers inside - plop him down in the middle of the line, and let him slug it out with the C and G's for 16 games.

Raji on the other hand, may not have the requisite length to be pencilled in at DE (just as Pickett doesn't)... but, Raji does have great burst and strength to go with his bulk; and he damn sure can offer inside pass rush on passing downs - something Pickett cannot.

Now why would you take 2 players - and play them at positions where their strengths are negated??? Pickett is not a DE in any scheme, just as Kampman was never a LB; Raji can play anywhere in a 3-4, and inside in a 4-3, but his greatest strength is his ability to be disruptive on the interior pass rush with his quickness, size, and strength.

In the end, my greatest objection to the DL musical chairs is moving Raji to NT... to me, his #1 job should be inside pass rush, collapse the pocket - go ahead and rotate him at DE, but I want a fresh and explosive Raji coming off the snap, and I want the QB to be aware that he's there, and that he's coming. I believe a healthy Raji can be a very disruptive force on the interior pass rush, and I don't want anything to take away from that.

Playing the nose in the base can only serve to wear him down and negate his greatest strength. I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say that any players movement skills and pass rush will diminish considerably over the course of a seasons worth of NT abuse.

Justin Harrell??? don't think he can play anywhere, in any scheme :)

[RashanGary]

We need either Neal, Wilson, Harrell, Wynn or a combination of those 4 to have a good year if we hope to have a good defense.

If Neal doesn't click right away, if Wilson doesn't look very good, if Wynn is no better than last year, if Harrell is what he is. . . .

Those things all could happen and if they do, our DL rotation is very mediocre. I'm hoping for the best, but now we have a question mark that I really didn't want to have going into the season. My enthusiasm is dampered after this news.

[retailguy]

We need either Neal, Wilson, Harrell, Wynn or a combination of those 4 to have a good year if we hope to have a good defense.

If Neal doesn't click right away, if Wilson doesn't look very good, if Wynn is no better than last year, if Harrell is what he is. . . .

Those things all could happen and if they do, our DL rotation is very mediocre. I'm hoping for the best, but now we have a question mark that I really didn't want to have going into the season. My enthusiasm is dampered after this news.

Expecting Wilson to step up this year is really unrealistic. He's a 7th round prospect that might contribute in a limited fashion, but all season? Not realistic.

Really, the expectations should be on Wynn primarily and Neal secondarily. Anything we get out of Harrell is a damn gift.

Yep, it's a hole. But realistically Jolly wasn't going to be available in the early part of the season anyhow, so they've had the time to plan to overcome it. The plan is Neal. It better work, that's what Ted is paid for.

No excuses this season. It's time to win. Just win baby. Just win.

[RashanGary]

Relax, RG. Ted's got this thing on track. He's earned time.

[retailguy]

Relax, RG. Ted's got this thing on track. He's earned time.

I'm not the one who is nervous.

It's time. I bought a new comfy chair from which to watch all the wins this year, and even renewed my Sunday Ticket so I can see them all.

I've got designs on Super Bowl reservations and will be crushed if the Packers are not there to join me.

I'm not the slightest bit worried. There are no more excuses. It's time and I AM EXCITED!!! 1996 all over again!

[swede]

I really do not understand the anger toward Johnny Jolly. We've had many threads about NFL players' lack of preparedness for their post-NFL careers. We read stories about formerly rich players who end up broke because they didn't prepare for life after football. According to the prosecution for his case, Johnny Jolly is heavy into the drug business, dealing.

So here we have a player who is trying to diversify, who is investing his football earnings into another very lucrative business, and he runs into a little bad luck and now we're hating on him? Nobody seemed to hate on Mark Brunell when his investments went south. Johnny was looking ahead, like any good businessman. Sure, he took some pretty big risks, but look at the potential payoff. It just didn't work out. Like all those hotshots who invested in real estate six years ago and now are sitting there broke.

Johnny Jolly is a forward-thinking individual who is unconcerned with the rules, sure he can work around them are be treated with kid gloves. He's no different than the CEO of a large corporation, maybe just with less clout. But he's pulled himself up by his bootstraps. He's no Donald Trump, who was handed his fortune.

If anything the NFL should hire Jolly to tutor young NFL players on thinking ahead and developing other talents so that when their careers are over they can continue to live in the style to which they will soon be accustomed.

As for his personal drug use, well, he's only using the product he's selling. Would you want the CEO of GM to drive a Toyota, or to take a bus to work? Of course not. Would you want Steve Jobs to not use an Apple? Of course not.

Johnny Jolly is a sadly misunderstood businessman.

At first I didn't understand this post.

Then I knocked back a few shots of Chivas Regal mixed with Diet Coke and cough syrup with codeine.

+1

+1 again

[Fritz]

I really do not understand the anger toward Johnny Jolly. We've had many threads about NFL players' lack of preparedness for their post-NFL careers. We read stories about formerly rich players who end up broke because they didn't prepare for life after football. According to the prosecution for his case, Johnny Jolly is heavy into the drug business, dealing.

So here we have a player who is trying to diversify, who is investing his football earnings into another very lucrative business, and he runs into a little bad luck and now we're hating on him? Nobody seemed to hate on Mark Brunell when his investments went south. Johnny was looking ahead, like any good businessman. Sure, he took some pretty big risks, but look at the potential payoff. It just didn't work out. Like all those hotshots who invested in real estate six years ago and now are sitting there broke.

Johnny Jolly is a forward-thinking individual who is unconcerned with the rules, sure he can work around them are be treated with kid gloves. He's no different than the CEO of a large corporation, maybe just with less clout. But he's pulled himself up by his bootstraps. He's no Donald Trump, who was handed his fortune.

If anything the NFL should hire Jolly to tutor young NFL players on thinking ahead and developing other talents so that when their careers are over they can continue to live in the style to which they will soon be accustomed.

As for his personal drug use, well, he's only using the product he's selling. Would you want the CEO of GM to drive a Toyota, or to take a bus to work? Of course not. Would you want Steve Jobs to not use an Apple? Of course not.

Johnny Jolly is a sadly misunderstood businessman.

At first I didn't understand this post.

Then I knocked back a few shots of Chivas Regal mixed with Diet Coke and cough syrup with codeine.

+1

+1 again

By golly Swede you are supporting the American economy with those purchases. It's all about consumption.

Johnny Jolly would be proud.

[BobDobbs]

I think the rush to judge Johnny Jolly is coming far too quickly. From what I've read the original amount of codeine that they busted him for was derived from the police weighing the soda. They postponed the trial so that the prosecution could get people trained to use a more accurate device to measure the narcotics. I haven't seen anything that slightly pointed to him funding a distribution ring.

Let's not start the Free Johnny Jolly Committee too soon.

It's a huge suspension, so something was going on that we don't know about. But, it may well be failed drug tests or an example being made. The trial got a lot more interesting.

Football wise it will be a loss. If Raji didn't work out at NT or Pickett at DT, Jolly would be in the starting lineup. Our rotation is definitely downgraded unless Neal plays better than Jolly did last year. That seems like a longshot.

Still, our run defense may stay stalwart with Pickett on the end, and our pas rush might improve with Raji playing three downs and him plus Jenkins in the nickel.

I hope he beats his case and we get to find out what the real rationale is for his suspension.

[Joemailman]

I think the rush to judge Johnny Jolly is coming far too quickly. From what I've read the original amount of codeine that they busted him for was derived from the police weighing the soda. They postponed the trial so that the prosecution could get people trained to use a more accurate device to measure the narcotics. I haven't seen anything that slightly pointed to him funding a distribution ring.


The allegations against Jolly were extended beyond the original indictment as court records state that Jolly “bought, sold, funded, transported and aided in the buying, selling, funding and transportation of illegal narcotics including cocaine and marijuana.”

Assistant District Attorney Todd Keagle said the broadened allegations can be introduced only during the punishment phase if Jolly is found guilty.

It's a huge suspension, so something was going on that we don't know about. But, it may well be failed drug tests or an example being made. The trial got a lot more interesting.

If Jolly failed any kind of a drug test (which appears likely) while awaiting trial on drug charges, that points to two possibilities. Either he has complete disdain for the league's drug policies, or he is an addict. Either way, he has no business playing in the NFL until he rectifies his problem.

Football wise it will be a loss. If Raji didn't work out at NT or Pickett at DT, Jolly would be in the starting lineup. Our rotation is definitely downgraded unless Neal plays better than Jolly did last year. That seems like a longshot.

It's a loss, but I don't think it means Neal has to outplay Jolly. The Packers should get more from Raji than they did last year, and Raji should provide more pressure up the middle than Pickett did. That should help take some pressure off the LDE, which will be a rotation of Pickett and Neal.

[Bossman641]

Relax, RG. Ted's got this thing on track. He's earned time.

I'm not the one who is nervous.

It's time. I bought a new comfy chair from which to watch all the wins this year, and even renewed my Sunday Ticket so I can see them all.

I've got designs on Super Bowl reservations and will be crushed if the Packers are not there to join me.

I'm not the slightest bit worried. There are no more excuses. It's time and I AM EXCITED!!! 1996 all over again!

When even RG is positive and has super bowl dreams, you know we must have assembled a good team.

:D :oops:

[BobDobbs]

I think the rush to judge Johnny Jolly is coming far too quickly. From what I've read the original amount of codeine that they busted him for was derived from the police weighing the soda. They postponed the trial so that the prosecution could get people trained to use a more accurate device to measure the narcotics. I haven't seen anything that slightly pointed to him funding a distribution ring.


The allegations against Jolly were extended beyond the original indictment as court records state that Jolly “bought, sold, funded, transported and aided in the buying, selling, funding and transportation of illegal narcotics including cocaine and marijuana.”

Assistant District Attorney Todd Keagle said the broadened allegations can be introduced only during the punishment phase if Jolly is found guilty.

It's a huge suspension, so something was going on that we don't know about. But, it may well be failed drug tests or an example being made. The trial got a lot more interesting.

If Jolly failed any kind of a drug test (which appears likely) while awaiting trial on drug charges, that points to two possibilities. Either he has complete disdain for the league's drug policies, or he is an addict. Either way, he has no business playing in the NFL until he rectifies his problem.

Football wise it will be a loss. If Raji didn't work out at NT or Pickett at DT, Jolly would be in the starting lineup. Our rotation is definitely downgraded unless Neal plays better than Jolly did last year. That seems like a longshot.

It's a loss, but I don't think it means Neal has to outplay Jolly. The Packers should get more from Raji than they did last year, and Raji should provide more pressure up the middle than Pickett did. That should help take some pressure off the LDE, which will be a rotation of Pickett and Neal.



I saw that article today. I still haven't seen any proof of any kind. My gut reaction is that it's a bunch of crap. They are basically charging someone for being within arms reach of a drink. Unless they have a urine or blood test showing opiates I think that the prosecutors are screwed. They've been trying to bluff him into a plea this whole time, because they don't feel confident in their case.

I mean, allegations that can only be introduced in the punishmentl phase if you're found guilty? What is that? They're not charging him with distribution or providing any evidence. I call bullshit.

[Joemailman]

M<y initial reaction to this was the same as yours, that the prosecutors were trying to intimidate Jolly into making a guilty plea. However, some of Jolly's behavior the last couple of months makes me think he may be a big enough fool to have gotten more mixed up in drugs than we originally thought. We'll see.

[MichiganPackerFan]

It seems like there are a lot of unknown facts that will come out eventually. He was the best DL last year, but young blood can also make an impact. Very disappointed in the 12 month suspension agree that if this was MIN he could just delay the suspension until he retired.

Can't wait until training camp starts so we can focus on on-the-field stuff.

[Fritz]

I really don't think you can argue that somehow the team will be as well off without the guy on the field as they would be with him on the field.

At least strictly in terms of the game itself.

But if you look long term at the impact of his actions and presence on the team, if in fact he's as mixed up in drugs (doing or selling, who knows?), it may be best for the team if Jolly's not on it.

But short term, football-wise, I'd like to see him on the field for the Pack. They're weaker without him.

[swede]

Can we prove that he was somehow within Minnesota's jurisdiction at the time of the alleged actions?

[ThunderDan]

Can we prove that he was somehow within Minnesota's jurisdiction at the time of the alleged actions?

It's Texas Swede. I'm sure you can legally drug test your employees twice a day if needed.

[pbmax]

In the end, my greatest objection to the DL musical chairs is moving Raji to NT... to me, his #1 job should be inside pass rush, collapse the pocket - go ahead and rotate him at DE, but I want a fresh and explosive Raji coming off the snap, and I want the QB to be aware that he's there, and that he's coming. I believe a healthy Raji can be a very disruptive force on the interior pass rush, and I don't want anything to take away from that.
While he has a quick first step, did you see pass rush from him last year? I mostly saw him get diverted out of harms way. I think you are projecting this ability like some are projecting Pickett's future at DE.

Its a prediction I hope comes true, but he was no sure fire pass rusher last year.

[pbmax]

I would not be surprised if Jolly got nailed on one of the court ordered drug tests. Somewhere, I cannot find the page in my history or bookmarks, I think one of the NY papers ran a periodic series from actual NFL players bylined anonymously. It was sometime last season or this offseason.

In one article, a player said avoiding "recreational" drug test violations were simple for players if they were not in the program. They had to be clean in preseason and they needed to be clean in the off-season until they were randomly tested. 2 tests total. After each test, they knew they were in the clear for several months.

If Jolly was tested by the NFL earlier this offseason or if he had reason to suspect he wouldn't be tested, he may have relaxed and thought himself in the clear.

[Freak Out]

Big loss for the team but not a surprise AT ALL.

It always amazes me how easy it is for these guys will throw away a career....over something like drank. :crazy:

Stay in school...get the most out of the scholarships...play in the NFL....retire and party.

[mngolf19]

It seems like a harsh penalty to drop the hammer for a season right away. I am sure Jolly must have been financing some sort of drug ring for his friends. Who knows for sure.

If he has those kind of issues I have no problem with the league suspending him. Sucks as a Packer fan for results on the field but I can live with our player being an idiot and getting punished for it.

Where is that MNGolf poster getting all into a lather that Jolly has never been convicetd of anything and the NFL is suspending him? Wait the Williams boys did break the banned substances rules! I am so confused!

I'm here but you have the wrong poster.

[Fritz]

I would not be surprised if Jolly got nailed on one of the court ordered drug tests. Somewhere, I cannot find the page in my history or bookmarks, I think one of the NY papers ran a periodic series from actual NFL players bylined anonymously. It was sometime last season or this offseason.

In one article, a player said avoiding "recreational" drug test violations were simple for players if they were not in the program. They had to be clean in preseason and they needed to be clean in the off-season until they were randomly tested. 2 tests total. After each test, they knew they were in the clear for several months.

If Jolly was tested by the NFL earlier this offseason or if he had reason to suspect he wouldn't be tested, he may have relaxed and thought himself in the clear.

Or in the cream...

[ThunderDan]

It seems like a harsh penalty to drop the hammer for a season right away. I am sure Jolly must have been financing some sort of drug ring for his friends. Who knows for sure.

If he has those kind of issues I have no problem with the league suspending him. Sucks as a Packer fan for results on the field but I can live with our player being an idiot and getting punished for it.

Where is that MNGolf poster getting all into a lather that Jolly has never been convicetd of anything and the NFL is suspending him? Wait the Williams boys did break the banned substances rules! I am so confused!

I'm here but you have the wrong poster.

Sorry MNGolf19, you are correct. It was SMACKTALKIE I should have named.

[cheesner]

Lori Nickel offers this helpful tidbit in the JSO Packer Blog.


Lori Nickel-JSO (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/98625354.html)[/b]]The usual progression for such a suspension is four games, then eight for the next violation and then the season, but it is possible Jolly had such violations and they never became public.

Yes, Lori. Jolly had previously been suspended for a total of twelve games. But no one noticed. :roll:

Plus, I think she has this wrong. The third failure/second suspension should be for a year, shouldn't it? Just to clarify, there is a rumor (or was it a theory?) that Jolly was nailed last season and he was appealing the suspension. Recently, he failed another drug test. So its like his second failure, though he hadn't gotten penalized for the first.

[BobDobbs]

M<y initial reaction to this was the same as yours, that the prosecutors were trying to intimidate Jolly into making a guilty plea. However, some of Jolly's behavior the last couple of months makes me think he may be a big enough fool to have gotten more mixed up in drugs than we originally thought. We'll see.

Yeah, the last couple months have made me wonder if he is dumb enough to risk millions of dollars to make ten of thousands. The main thing that worries me is that they allege that his involvement was from 2006 to 2008. It's plausible that he signed his rookie contract, had a small signing bonus by NFL standards, wasn't playing much, and decided to invest it in the drug trade. I hope not and there is no public proof, but that's the scenario I'm afraid of.

[pbmax]

Lori Nickel offers this helpful tidbit in the JSO Packer Blog.


Lori Nickel-JSO (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/98625354.html)[/b]]The usual progression for such a suspension is four games, then eight for the next violation and then the season, but it is possible Jolly had such violations and they never became public.

Yes, Lori. Jolly had previously been suspended for a total of twelve games. But no one noticed. :roll:

Plus, I think she has this wrong. The third failure/second suspension should be for a year, shouldn't it? Just to clarify, there is a rumor (or was it a theory?) that Jolly was nailed last season and he was appealing the suspension. Recently, he failed another drug test. So its like his second failure, though he hadn't gotten penalized for the first.
But if that penalty sequence is correct (1-enter program, 2-4 game susp, 3-8 game susp, 4-one year suspension) then Jolly would need three tests to hit the one year suspension.

One caveat is that I have read one of those steps might allow for 2 positives before moving to the next step. I also believe that Patler has made a point that the 8 game suspension is a minimum, so there could have been extenuating circumstances that bumped it to a year plus.

[Fritz]

M<y initial reaction to this was the same as yours, that the prosecutors were trying to intimidate Jolly into making a guilty plea. However, some of Jolly's behavior the last couple of months makes me think he may be a big enough fool to have gotten more mixed up in drugs than we originally thought. We'll see.

Yeah, the last couple months have made me wonder if he is dumb enough to risk millions of dollars to make ten of thousands. The main thing that worries me is that they allege that his involvement was from 2006 to 2008. It's plausible that he signed his rookie contract, had a small signing bonus by NFL standards, wasn't playing much, and decided to invest it in the drug trade. I hope not and there is no public proof, but that's the scenario I'm afraid of.



Bob, I'm disappointed. Here's a guy thinking about his income, investing in a business, and you're unhappy with that.

Are you one of those commie bastards?

[SMACKTALKIE]

It seems like a harsh penalty to drop the hammer for a season right away. I am sure Jolly must have been financing some sort of drug ring for his friends. Who knows for sure.

If he has those kind of issues I have no problem with the league suspending him. Sucks as a Packer fan for results on the field but I can live with our player being an idiot and getting punished for it.

Where is that MNGolf poster getting all into a lather that Jolly has never been convicetd of anything and the NFL is suspending him? Wait the Williams boys did break the banned substances rules! I am so confused!

I'm here but you have the wrong poster.

Sorry MNGolf19, you are correct. It was SMACKTALKIE I should have named.

I had a feeling this would come up. The only way these cases could be compared is if:

1. Jolly had a cough or pain.
2. Jolly took a cough syrup or pill labled all natural that despite it's labled ingredients contained a banned substance.
3. The NFL knew there was a banned substance in said all natural cough syrup or pill and decided not to tell the NFLPA.
4. Jolly then failed a drug test due to the inaccurate labeling of said cough syrup or pill and the NFL suspended him.

These are two totally different cases. And honestly, as close as I have followed the Williams's case, all the leagal BS going on makes it hard to understand. The courts will sort it out someday.

Besides all that, this is not about the Williams. This is about Jolly and what appears to be a growing problem in the NFL. If Jolly had all that codeine and it was for "sizrup" or whatever they call it, then Jolly may have a problem with an addiction. He is a solid player and if he has an addiction, and it can be addressed, he may come back from this a better person and player.

[sharpe1027]

I had a feeling this would come up. The only way these cases could be compared is if:

1. Jolly had a cough or pain.
2. Jolly took a cough syrup or pill labled all natural that despite it's labled ingredients contained a banned substance.
3. The NFL knew there was a banned substance in said all natural cough syrup or pill and decided not to tell the NFLPA.
4. Jolly then failed a drug test due to the inaccurate labeling of said cough syrup or pill and the NFL suspended him.


Weren't they appealing based on violation of MN law? What do any of 1-4 have to do with that? None of them are exceptions to the NFL's drug policy.

[SMACKTALKIE]

I had a feeling this would come up. The only way these cases could be compared is if:

1. Jolly had a cough or pain.
2. Jolly took a cough syrup or pill labled all natural that despite it's labled ingredients contained a banned substance.
3. The NFL knew there was a banned substance in said all natural cough syrup or pill and decided not to tell the NFLPA.
4. Jolly then failed a drug test due to the inaccurate labeling of said cough syrup or pill and the NFL suspended him.


Weren't they appealing based on violation of MN law? What do any of 1-4 have to do with that? None of them are exceptions to the NFL's drug policy.

At this point all of those questions are not for us to answer. The Courts have/will decide.

The point is the two cases are not comparable. Maybe a comparison to a guy like Nate Newton should be in order.

[sharpe1027]

At this point all of those questions are not for us to answer. The Courts have/will decide.

The point is the two cases are not comparable. Maybe a comparison to a guy like Nate Newton should be in order.

Why can't they be compared? Because some of them happened to work in MN? They each violated the NFL's drug policy.

We know that Williams boys failed a drug test for a steroid masking agent. We know that they "claim" to have been taking star caps, which just happens to contain the masking agent. We know that ignorance is not an excuse for the NFL's drug policy. Thus, we know that the Williams boys violated the NFL's drug policy and, if they were anywhere by MN, would have been suspended already.

We are only guessing what exactly Jolly did or did not do to get suspended at this point.

[SMACKTALKIE]

At this point all of those questions are not for us to answer. The Courts have/will decide.

The point is the two cases are not comparable. Maybe a comparison to a guy like Nate Newton should be in order.

Why can't they be compared? Because some of them happened to work in MN? They each violated the NFL's drug policy.

We know that Williams boys failed a drug test for a steroid masking agent. We know that they "claim" to have been taking star caps, which just happens to contain the masking agent. We know that ignorance is not an excuse for the NFL's drug policy. Thus, we know that the Williams boys violated the NFL's drug policy and, if they were anywhere by MN, would have been suspended already.

We are only guessing what exactly Jolly did or did not do to get suspended at this point.

I think the whole felonious possession of codeine thing may be a reason for suspension. Perhaps the fact that he is facing 20 years in prison is a reason for a suspension.

Also two reasons the Williams and Jolly cases are not comparable.

[ThunderDan]

I had a feeling this would come up. The only way these cases could be compared is if:

1. Jolly had a cough or pain.
2. Jolly took a cough syrup or pill labled all natural that despite it's labled ingredients contained a banned substance.
3. The NFL knew there was a banned substance in said all natural cough syrup or pill and decided not to tell the NFLPA.
4. Jolly then failed a drug test due to the inaccurate labeling of said cough syrup or pill and the NFL suspended him.


Weren't they appealing based on violation of MN law? What do any of 1-4 have to do with that? None of them are exceptions to the NFL's drug policy.

At this point all of those questions are not for us to answer. The Courts have/will decide.

The point is the two cases are not comparable. Maybe a comparison to a guy like Nate Newton should be in order.

I think the issue is you absolutely defended 2 players (who happen to be Vikings) who violated the NFL's drug policy and here you have a player (on the GB Packers) who hasn't been convicted of anything or had a positive drug test reported being suspended for a year and you don't make a peep.

Why aren't you defending all players but only the Viking players?

[cheesner]

Lori Nickel offers this helpful tidbit in the JSO Packer Blog.


Lori Nickel-JSO (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/98625354.html)[/b]]The usual progression for such a suspension is four games, then eight for the next violation and then the season, but it is possible Jolly had such violations and they never became public.

Yes, Lori. Jolly had previously been suspended for a total of twelve games. But no one noticed. :roll:

Plus, I think she has this wrong. The third failure/second suspension should be for a year, shouldn't it? Just to clarify, there is a rumor (or was it a theory?) that Jolly was nailed last season and he was appealing the suspension. Recently, he failed another drug test. So its like his second failure, though he hadn't gotten penalized for the first.
But if that penalty sequence is correct (1-enter program, 2-4 game susp, 3-8 game susp, 4-one year suspension) then Jolly would need three tests to hit the one year suspension.

One caveat is that I have read one of those steps might allow for 2 positives before moving to the next step. I also believe that Patler has made a point that the 8 game suspension is a minimum, so there could have been extenuating circumstances that bumped it to a year plus.

First offense 4 weeks
2nd offense 8 weeks
Getting busted the 2nd time while trying to fight the 1st? Timeless.

I see what you are saying. The offenses together would be 12 weeks, and maybe the NFL through in the extra 4 because they came so close together - obviously the first didn't get his attention. I think there may be more to it, that there were 2 failed tests and then the pictures of him drinking at a party maybe counted for strike 3.

This brain surgeon has to be sitting there thinking, 'okay I was about to make over $5m/year; got to play a game for work; got 2 months off every year; and I thought being a drug dealer would help me, how?'

[SMACKTALKIE]

I had a feeling this would come up. The only way these cases could be compared is if:

1. Jolly had a cough or pain.
2. Jolly took a cough syrup or pill labled all natural that despite it's labled ingredients contained a banned substance.
3. The NFL knew there was a banned substance in said all natural cough syrup or pill and decided not to tell the NFLPA.
4. Jolly then failed a drug test due to the inaccurate labeling of said cough syrup or pill and the NFL suspended him.


Weren't they appealing based on violation of MN law? What do any of 1-4 have to do with that? None of them are exceptions to the NFL's drug policy.

At this point all of those questions are not for us to answer. The Courts have/will decide.

The point is the two cases are not comparable. Maybe a comparison to a guy like Nate Newton should be in order.

I think the issue is you absolutely defended 2 players (who happen to be Vikings) who violated the NFL's drug policy and here you have a player (on the GB Packers) who hasn't been convicted of anything or had a positive drug test reported being suspended for a year and you don't make a peep.

Why aren't you defending all players but only the Viking players?

So the legal ramifications of getting caught with a feloniois amount of codeine mean nothing?

Do you think Ben Rothlisberger is being treated unfairly?

[sharpe1027]

I think the whole felonious possession of codeine thing may be a reason for suspension. Perhaps the fact that he is facing 20 years in prison is a reason for a suspension.

Also two reasons the Williams and Jolly cases are not comparable.

Just because you can point out differences that doesn't make the similarities go away. If we could only ever compare things that were exactly the same, this forum would be pretty dull. :wink:

[sharpe1027]

So the legal ramifications of getting caught with a feloniois amount of codeine mean nothing?

Do you think Ben Rothlisberger is being treated unfairly?

As far as I know, the legal ramifications do not necessarily mean anything to the NFL. The fact that he may have had codeine in is possession does, but not the "legal ramifications."

Ben didn't get suspended for the substance abuse policy. Both Jolly and the Williams boys did, however.

[SMACKTALKIE]

I think the whole felonious possession of codeine thing may be a reason for suspension. Perhaps the fact that he is facing 20 years in prison is a reason for a suspension.

Also two reasons the Williams and Jolly cases are not comparable.

Just because you can point out differences that doesn't make the similarities go away. If we could only ever compare things that were exactly the same, this forum would be pretty dull. :wink:

I agree with your last point. I feel there are more differences than similarities in the two cases.

[cheesner]

I had a feeling this would come up. The only way these cases could be compared is if:

1. Jolly had a cough or pain.
2. Jolly took a cough syrup or pill labled all natural that despite it's labled ingredients contained a banned substance.
3. The NFL knew there was a banned substance in said all natural cough syrup or pill and decided not to tell the NFLPA.
4. Jolly then failed a drug test due to the inaccurate labeling of said cough syrup or pill and the NFL suspended him.


Weren't they appealing based on violation of MN law? What do any of 1-4 have to do with that? None of them are exceptions to the NFL's drug policy.

At this point all of those questions are not for us to answer. The Courts have/will decide.

The point is the two cases are not comparable. Maybe a comparison to a guy like Nate Newton should be in order.

I think the issue is you absolutely defended 2 players (who happen to be Vikings) who violated the NFL's drug policy and here you have a player (on the GB Packers) who hasn't been convicted of anything or had a positive drug test reported being suspended for a year and you don't make a peep.

Why aren't you defending all players but only the Viking players?

So the legal ramifications of getting caught with a feloniois amount of codeine mean nothing?

Do you think Ben Rothlisberger is being treated unfairly?

He was in a vehicle with 3 other guys. Are you so sure that it was his?

The Williams' have admitted taking a banned substance.

Personally, I think Jolly is probably guilty and I am sure the NFL has seen more evidence than the public knows about to suspend him for a full year. He must be an idiot and I won't defend his actions, even though he is a Packer. Wrong is wrong, no matter what jersey a person wears.

[SMACKTALKIE]

So the legal ramifications of getting caught with a feloniois amount of codeine mean nothing?

Do you think Ben Rothlisberger is being treated unfairly?

As far as I know, the legal ramifications do not necessarily mean anything to the NFL. The fact that he may have had codeine in is possession does, but not the "legal ramifications."

Ben didn't get suspended for the substance abuse policy. Both Jolly and the Williams boys did, however.

So you are saying you don't know if legal ramifications mean anything to the NFL, but you do know why Rothlisberger was suspended?

Rothlisberger has not been convicted of anything but has been suspended for his illegal behavior.

John Jolly broke the law and is facing 20 years in prison.

Obviously the legal ramifications DO mean something to the NFL.

[sharpe1027]

So you are saying you don't know if legal ramifications mean anything to the NFL, but you do know why Rothlisberger was suspended?

Rothlisberger has not been convicted of anything but has been suspended for his illegal behavior.

John Jolly broke the law and is facing 20 years in prison.

Obviously the legal ramifications DO mean something to the NFL.

Jolly was suspended under the substance abuse policy.

Ben was suspended under the conduct policy.

Neither was suspended because of any the prison sentence or fine they might receive. Thus, neither was suspended because of the "legal ramifications."

Jolly's suspension is arguably much more like the Williams' than Ben's.

[ThunderDan]

So the legal ramifications of getting caught with a feloniois amount of codeine mean nothing?

Do you think Ben Rothlisberger is being treated unfairly?

As far as I know, the legal ramifications do not necessarily mean anything to the NFL. The fact that he may have had codeine in is possession does, but not the "legal ramifications."

Ben didn't get suspended for the substance abuse policy. Both Jolly and the Williams boys did, however.

So you are saying you don't know if legal ramifications mean anything to the NFL, but you do know why Rothlisberger was suspended?

Rothlisberger has not been convicted of anything but has been suspended for his illegal behavior.

John Jolly broke the law and is facing 20 years in prison.

Obviously the legal ramifications DO mean something to the NFL.

JJ has not been convicted yet he has been charged.

Big Ben was suspended under the conduct policy not the drup policy. JJ was suspended under the drug policy not the conduct policy.

I would have no problem if Goodell suspended JJ 4 games for his conduct. If what is alledged is true I have no problem at all.

Clean up football and make it a level playing field for everyone.

[SMACKTALKIE]

So you are saying you don't know if legal ramifications mean anything to the NFL, but you do know why Rothlisberger was suspended?

Rothlisberger has not been convicted of anything but has been suspended for his illegal behavior.

John Jolly broke the law and is facing 20 years in prison.

Obviously the legal ramifications DO mean something to the NFL.

Jolly was suspended under the substance abuse policy.

Ben was suspended under the conduct policy.

Neither was suspended because of any the prison sentence or fine they might receive. Thus, neither was suspended because of the "legal ramifications."

Jolly's suspension is arguably much more like the Williams' than Ben's.

I guess if Jolly feels he is being treated unfairly he should take it to court.

[Lurker64]

My guess for the Jolly drug suspension is that he piled up multiple failed drug tests before we heard about it. Entirely possible that he failed a test at some point last year and has been appealing it (a la Brian Cushing), and then failed one NFL mandated drug test in the offseason, and then another court-ordered drug test during the offseason.

I think that would be enough to get Goodell to just say "screw it, you're not playing until I say you can."

[sharpe1027]

I guess if Jolly feels he is being treated unfairly he should take it to court.

I think Jolly is being probably being treated fairly. The policy is pretty clear, and I trust the NFL has reason for the suspension. He probably deserves what he gets.

The Williams boys found a state law that might get them out on a technicality despite there being no argument about whether or not they violated the policy they agreed to. Does that sound fair to you?

[ThunderDan]

I guess if Jolly feels he is being treated unfairly he should take it to court.

I think Jolly is being probably being treated fairly. The policy is pretty clear, and I trust the NFL has reason for the suspension. He probably deserves what he gets.

The Williams boys found a state law that might get them out on a technicality despite there being no argument about whether or not they violated the policy they agreed to. Does that sound fair to you?

DING DING DING, We have a WINNER!!!

[SMACKTALKIE]

I guess if Jolly feels he is being treated unfairly he should take it to court.

I think Jolly is being probably being treated fairly. The policy is pretty clear, and I trust the NFL has reason for the suspension. He probably deserves what he gets.

The Williams boys found a state law that might get them out on a technicality despite there being no argument about whether or not they violated the policy they agreed to. Does that sound fair to you?

No. I don't think it's fair. But there are alot of aspects regarding the Williams case that are not fair.

All said the NFL will demand a CBA that will address the state law loophole. I just hope the NFL will work more with the NFLPA in the players interests.

[Bossman641]

I guess if Jolly feels he is being treated unfairly he should take it to court.

I think Jolly is being probably being treated fairly. The policy is pretty clear, and I trust the NFL has reason for the suspension. He probably deserves what he gets.

The Williams boys found a state law that might get them out on a technicality despite there being no argument about whether or not they violated the policy they agreed to. Does that sound fair to you?

DING DING DING, We have a WINNER!!!

I'm just impressed that he continues to argue in favor of the Williams and doesn't just give up and say ya you're right, the Williams are getting off the hook based on a technicality.

[SMACKTALKIE]

I guess if Jolly feels he is being treated unfairly he should take it to court.

I think Jolly is being probably being treated fairly. The policy is pretty clear, and I trust the NFL has reason for the suspension. He probably deserves what he gets.

The Williams boys found a state law that might get them out on a technicality despite there being no argument about whether or not they violated the policy they agreed to. Does that sound fair to you?

DING DING DING, We have a WINNER!!!

Good one dan. Believe me you would be crying fowl if the NFL attempted to suspend Woodson and Matthews based on the same circumstances as those surrounding the Williams case.

[SMACKTALKIE]

I guess if Jolly feels he is being treated unfairly he should take it to court.

I think Jolly is being probably being treated fairly. The policy is pretty clear, and I trust the NFL has reason for the suspension. He probably deserves what he gets.

The Williams boys found a state law that might get them out on a technicality despite there being no argument about whether or not they violated the policy they agreed to. Does that sound fair to you?

DING DING DING, We have a WINNER!!!

I'm just impressed that he continues to argue in favor of the Williams and doesn't just give up and say ya you're right, the Williams are getting off the hook based on a technicality.

See above.

[ThunderDan]

I guess if Jolly feels he is being treated unfairly he should take it to court.

I think Jolly is being probably being treated fairly. The policy is pretty clear, and I trust the NFL has reason for the suspension. He probably deserves what he gets.

The Williams boys found a state law that might get them out on a technicality despite there being no argument about whether or not they violated the policy they agreed to. Does that sound fair to you?

DING DING DING, We have a WINNER!!!

Good one dan. Believe me you would be crying fowl if the NFL attempted to suspend Woodson and Matthews based on the same circumstances as those surrounding the Williams case.

No I wouldn't. I would be pissed that the players and the origanization were stupid enough to eat something that they aren't sure of. The drug policy is the drug policy. Let's all play by the same rules.

[ThunderDan]

I guess if Jolly feels he is being treated unfairly he should take it to court.

I think Jolly is being probably being treated fairly. The policy is pretty clear, and I trust the NFL has reason for the suspension. He probably deserves what he gets.

The Williams boys found a state law that might get them out on a technicality despite there being no argument about whether or not they violated the policy they agreed to. Does that sound fair to you?

DING DING DING, We have a WINNER!!!

Good one dan. Believe me you would be crying fowl if the NFL attempted to suspend Woodson and Matthews based on the same circumstances as those surrounding the Williams case.

If I am making $6,000,000 a year and I can get suspended for what I eat; I sure the hell am sending a supplement to a lab to make sure that it doesn't contain ingredents that are banned.

[Bossman641]

Maybe you can expand on this statement a little bit


But there are alot of aspects regarding the Williams case that are not fair.

As others have already stated, neither Jolly or Big Ben were suspended for any legal reasons. Jolly was for the drug plicy, Ben was for the player conduct policy. Those are facts. It is also a fact that the Williams failed the drug policy as well. Ignorance is not an excuse.

[sharpe1027]

No. I don't think it's fair. But there are alot of aspects regarding the Williams case that are not fair.

All said the NFL will demand a CBA that will address the state law loophole. I just hope the NFL will work more with the NFLPA in the players interests.

Does this mean that you agree that the Williams boys should have been suspended already?

[SMACKTALKIE]

I guess if Jolly feels he is being treated unfairly he should take it to court.

I think Jolly is being probably being treated fairly. The policy is pretty clear, and I trust the NFL has reason for the suspension. He probably deserves what he gets.

The Williams boys found a state law that might get them out on a technicality despite there being no argument about whether or not they violated the policy they agreed to. Does that sound fair to you?

DING DING DING, We have a WINNER!!!

Good one dan. Believe me you would be crying fowl if the NFL attempted to suspend Woodson and Matthews based on the same circumstances as those surrounding the Williams case.

If I am making $6,000,000 a year and I can get suspended for what I eat; I sure the hell am sending a supplement to a lab to make sure that it doesn't contain ingredents that are banned.

Why should you send it to a lab when the NFL already has and found an illegal substance? Who said I am not pissed at them for not just hitting the treadmill?

I think the whole thing sucks but my point has been since the beginning that its mere presence in the court of law points to something being fishy. Judges with far more knowledge of the law and the CBA have also decided there was unfairness in their suspension and that is all that matters.

[SMACKTALKIE]

The last ruling actually stated that the Williams have to serve their suspensions, however there is a futher ruling that they can play while their case is being appealed. The law is the law, and it is above the CBA.

So the latest gripe from packerland is that they can play despite their case not being resolved. The legal process is our responsibility so the only people who you can be pissed at is yourselves.

[ThunderDan]

I guess if Jolly feels he is being treated unfairly he should take it to court.

I think Jolly is being probably being treated fairly. The policy is pretty clear, and I trust the NFL has reason for the suspension. He probably deserves what he gets.

The Williams boys found a state law that might get them out on a technicality despite there being no argument about whether or not they violated the policy they agreed to. Does that sound fair to you?

DING DING DING, We have a WINNER!!!

Good one dan. Believe me you would be crying fowl if the NFL attempted to suspend Woodson and Matthews based on the same circumstances as those surrounding the Williams case.

If I am making $6,000,000 a year and I can get suspended for what I eat; I sure the hell am sending a supplement to a lab to make sure that it doesn't contain ingredents that are banned.

Why should you send it to a lab when the NFL already has and found an illegal substance? Who said I am not pissed at them for not just hitting the treadmill?

I think the whole thing sucks but my point has been since the beginning that its mere presence in the court of law points to something being fishy. Judges with far more knowledge of the law and the CBA have also decided there was unfairness in their suspension and that is all that matters.

No, once again you are mistaken. Every judgement so far has been won by the NFL. The judges may have brought up some issues but all have ruled for the NFL. The WIlliams just keep appealing to a higher court. At some point they will be out of appeals and they will be suspended.

[SMACKTALKIE]

I guess if Jolly feels he is being treated unfairly he should take it to court.

I think Jolly is being probably being treated fairly. The policy is pretty clear, and I trust the NFL has reason for the suspension. He probably deserves what he gets.

The Williams boys found a state law that might get them out on a technicality despite there being no argument about whether or not they violated the policy they agreed to. Does that sound fair to you?

DING DING DING, We have a WINNER!!!

Good one dan. Believe me you would be crying fowl if the NFL attempted to suspend Woodson and Matthews based on the same circumstances as those surrounding the Williams case.

If I am making $6,000,000 a year and I can get suspended for what I eat; I sure the hell am sending a supplement to a lab to make sure that it doesn't contain ingredents that are banned.

Why should you send it to a lab when the NFL already has and found an illegal substance? Who said I am not pissed at them for not just hitting the treadmill?

I think the whole thing sucks but my point has been since the beginning that its mere presence in the court of law points to something being fishy. Judges with far more knowledge of the law and the CBA have also decided there was unfairness in their suspension and that is all that matters.

No, once again you are mistaken. Every judgement so far has been won by the NFL. The judges may have brought up some issues but all have ruled for the NFL. The WIlliams just keep appealing to a higher court. At some point they will be out of appeals and they will be suspended.

See above.

[sharpe1027]

Why should you send it to a lab when the NFL already has and found an illegal substance? Who said I am not pissed at them for not just hitting the treadmill?

I think the whole thing sucks but my point has been since the beginning that its mere presence in the court of law points to something being fishy. Judges with far more knowledge of the law and the CBA have also decided there was unfairness in their suspension and that is all that matters.

The presence if court points to a lot of money being at stake. The found a loophole and are exploiting it.

I thought the judge ruled that they could be suspended, and they had to appeal just to keep from serving it? Seems like they lost and are appealing mainly to put it off as long as possible. Not a bad strategy for them, but not exactly fair to the rest of the NFL players.

[Bossman641]

The last ruling actually stated that the Williams have to serve their suspensions, however there is a futher ruling that they can play while their case is being appealed. The law is the law, and it is above the CBA.

So the latest gripe from packerland is that they can play despite their case not being resolved. The legal process is our responsibility so the only people who you can be pissed at is yourselves.

Your statement above seems a little at odds with your earlier statement


John Jolly broke the law and is facing 20 years in prison

In the Williams instance, you want to respect the legal process. In Jolly's case you are fine with whatever he gets even though he has not been convicted.

[SMACKTALKIE]

The last ruling actually stated that the Williams have to serve their suspensions, however there is a futher ruling that they can play while their case is being appealed. The law is the law, and it is above the CBA.

So the latest gripe from packerland is that they can play despite their case not being resolved. The legal process is our responsibility so the only people who you can be pissed at is yourselves.

Your statement above seems a little at odds with your earlier statement


John Jolly broke the law and is facing 20 years in prison

In the Williams instance, you want to respect the legal process. In Jolly's case you are fine with whatever he gets even though he has not been convicted.

I was under the impression that Jolly had been suspended under the personal conduct policy, not the substance abuse policy. This is because I was not aware of any previously failed drug test.

Facing 20 years in prison, I felt, would be a good reason to suspend someone under the personal conduct policy, much like Adam Jones or Ben Rothlisberger.

I want to respect the legal process regardless.

[ThunderDan]

The last ruling actually stated that the Williams have to serve their suspensions, however there is a futher ruling that they can play while their case is being appealed. The law is the law, and it is above the CBA.

So the latest gripe from packerland is that they can play despite their case not being resolved. The legal process is our responsibility so the only people who you can be pissed at is yourselves.

Your statement above seems a little at odds with your earlier statement


John Jolly broke the law and is facing 20 years in prison

In the Williams instance, you want to respect the legal process. In Jolly's case you are fine with whatever he gets even though he has not been convicted.

I was under the impression that Jolly had been suspended under the personal conduct policy, not the substance abuse policy. This is because I was not aware of any previously failed drug test.

Facing 20 years in prison, I felt, would be a good reason to suspend someone under the personal conduct policy, much like Adam Jones or Ben Rothlisberger.

I want to respect the legal process regardless.

You were told that 2 or 3 times pages ago and now you want to change your stance that you are called out on it? :oops:

[Lurker64]

Facing 20 years in prison, I felt, would be a good reason to suspend someone under the personal conduct policy, much like Adam Jones or Ben Rothlisberger.

That's a horrible idea. Someone can be accused of a crime that would carry a significantly worse penalty than 20 years in prison (e.g. murder) and yet be completely innocent and ultimately be found not guilty in a court of law. Why would you want to punish a guy simply for being accused formally?

The presumption in our society is, after all, "innocent until proven guilty" and not "the other way around."

You get suspended under the personal conduct policy for conduct that reflects poorly on your employer. What Johnny Jolly has done would only reflect poorly on the NFL if he's found guilty (at which point he will be suspended). If it turns out he's not guilty, all he was doing was "hanging with some guys who were doing drugs", which really doesn't damage the brand of the NFL. On the other hand, having Ben repeatedly accused of sexual assault, poor judgement, and general jackassery reflects poorly on the NFL.

But anyway, Jolly was suspended on a substance abuse violation, the specifics of which nobody knows at this point.

[sharpe1027]

I was under the impression that Jolly had been suspended under the personal conduct policy, not the substance abuse policy. This is because I was not aware of any previously failed drug test.


See above? Ah, nevermind.

:bang: :bang:

[mngolf19]

Why should you send it to a lab when the NFL already has and found an illegal substance? Who said I am not pissed at them for not just hitting the treadmill?

I think the whole thing sucks but my point has been since the beginning that its mere presence in the court of law points to something being fishy. Judges with far more knowledge of the law and the CBA have also decided there was unfairness in their suspension and that is all that matters.

The presence if court points to a lot of money being at stake. The found a loophole and are exploiting it.

I thought the judge ruled that they could be suspended, and they had to appeal just to keep from serving it? Seems like they lost and are appealing mainly to put it off as long as possible. Not a bad strategy for them, but not exactly fair to the rest of the NFL players.

Just to clarify, it's helping 2 players on the Saints right now as well.

[ThunderDan]

I guess if Jolly feels he is being treated unfairly he should take it to court.

I think Jolly is being probably being treated fairly. The policy is pretty clear, and I trust the NFL has reason for the suspension. He probably deserves what he gets.

The Williams boys found a state law that might get them out on a technicality despite there being no argument about whether or not they violated the policy they agreed to. Does that sound fair to you?

DING DING DING, We have a WINNER!!!

Good one dan. Believe me you would be crying fowl if the NFL attempted to suspend Woodson and Matthews based on the same circumstances as those surrounding the Williams case.

If I am making $6,000,000 a year and I can get suspended for what I eat; I sure the hell am sending a supplement to a lab to make sure that it doesn't contain ingredents that are banned.

Why should you send it to a lab when the NFL already has and found an illegal substance? Who said I am not pissed at them for not just hitting the treadmill?

I think the whole thing sucks but my point has been since the beginning that its mere presence in the court of law points to something being fishy. Judges with far more knowledge of the law and the CBA have also decided there was unfairness in their suspension and that is all that matters.

You know, if you just said I am for the Williams because they are Vikings and ready to throw the book at Jolly because he is a Packer you would have a lot more credibility than the what you have been posting for the last couple of pages.

[ThunderDan]

Double Post

[pbmax]

Why should you send it to a lab when the NFL already has and found an illegal substance? Who said I am not pissed at them for not just hitting the treadmill?

I think the whole thing sucks but my point has been since the beginning that its mere presence in the court of law points to something being fishy. Judges with far more knowledge of the law and the CBA have also decided there was unfairness in their suspension and that is all that matters.

The presence if court points to a lot of money being at stake. The found a loophole and are exploiting it.

I thought the judge ruled that they could be suspended, and they had to appeal just to keep from serving it? Seems like they lost and are appealing mainly to put it off as long as possible. Not a bad strategy for them, but not exactly fair to the rest of the NFL players.

Just to clarify, it's helping 2 players on the Saints right now as well.
Its a Minnesota state law matter now, at least the current branch of the case. Didn't one of the affected Saints retire? And I think one served the suspension,

[pbmax]

It worries me that the application of State Law is called a technicality. It may be only a technicality that the NFL's labor lawyers blew the language in the CBA, but once in effect, the State Law is perfectly valid.

[sharpe1027]

It worries me that the application of State Law is called a technicality. It may be only a technicality that the NFL's labor lawyers blew the language in the CBA, but once in effect, the State Law is perfectly valid.

Sure it is valid. Pretty much anytime someone gets out of what would otherwise be a valid a contract or crime, it is because of some law. Without getting into semantics of what a "technicality" is or is not, the MN law is a bit of an oddity. It was probably not originally intended to protect people in the situation that the Williams boys are in.

In the end, the court held that they can still be suspended (pending appeal). So they have effectively been able to delay the suspension based upon a law, that doesn't prevent them from being suspended. Call it what you will, I don't feel sorry for them at all.

[retailguy]

No, once again you are mistaken.

are you sure? I'm not.

Just purely out of curiosity, do you feel like you've "won" yet? I can't figure that part out yet.

[Guiness]

No, once again you are mistaken. Every judgement so far has been won by the NFL. The judges may have brought up some issues but all have ruled for the NFL. The WIlliams just keep appealing to a higher court. At some point they will be out of appeals and they will be suspended.

Not my understanding. The NFL made a rule, thought they were above the law, and broke a serious one - they didn't notifiy the William's that they'd failed the test within the requisite 3 days. This was their resonponsibility, and they failed to fulfill it.

Someone mentioned the William's should've had the supplements tested, because they were making $6million/yr. I counter with the fact the NFL is trying to run a multi-billion dollar industry, and should have they're lawyer's researching laws to make sure they don't get caught with their pants on the ground.

[ThunderDan]

No, once again you are mistaken. Every judgement so far has been won by the NFL. The judges may have brought up some issues but all have ruled for the NFL. The WIlliams just keep appealing to a higher court. At some point they will be out of appeals and they will be suspended.

Not my understanding. The NFL made a rule, thought they were above the law, and broke a serious one - they didn't notifiy the William's that they'd failed the test within the requisite 3 days. This was their resonponsibility, and they failed to fulfill it.

Someone mentioned the William's should've had the supplements tested, because they were making $6million/yr. I counter with the fact the NFL is trying to run a multi-billion dollar industry, and should have they're lawyer's researching laws to make sure they don't get caught with their pants on the ground.


Here is the offical ruling:

Hennepin County Judge Gary Larson ruled in April that the NFL violated the three-day notice requirement in a Minnesota law on drug testing. But he said the Williamses had not been harmed by the violation.

Their attorneys say that ruling allows the NFL to benefit from violating the players’ rights.

The Court of Appeals earlier rejected the NFL’s request to expedite the case, so the defensive tackles may get to play the entire 2010 season.

As to your second point, the NFL and NFLPA agreed to a drug policy. The Williams clearly violated the agreement. You are absolutely correct that both the NFL and the NFLPA should have researched the implications on a state-by-state basis or included all inclusive language in the CBA.

The last thing players want to do is have to take drugs to be a top performer in the NFL. They understand that there are serious health risks involved. The players suffer enough damage from the physical contact to have to worry about long-term drug effects also.

[sharpe1027]

Not my understanding. The NFL made a rule, thought they were above the law, and broke a serious one - they didn't notifiy the William's that they'd failed the test within the requisite 3 days. This was their resonponsibility, and they failed to fulfill it.

Someone mentioned the William's should've had the supplements tested, because they were making $6million/yr. I counter with the fact the NFL is trying to run a multi-billion dollar industry, and should have they're lawyer's researching laws to make sure they don't get caught with their pants on the ground.

I am not sure why you are saying that they thought they were above the law. The NFL and player's association were both responsible for drafting an agreement, so it was a failure on both ends. The agreement needed to be consistent with 20 or so different states. That they they missed one law is unfortunate, but not all that surprising. Going through all the state laws for a single state is difficult enough.

[mngolf19]

Why should you send it to a lab when the NFL already has and found an illegal substance? Who said I am not pissed at them for not just hitting the treadmill?

I think the whole thing sucks but my point has been since the beginning that its mere presence in the court of law points to something being fishy. Judges with far more knowledge of the law and the CBA have also decided there was unfairness in their suspension and that is all that matters.

The presence if court points to a lot of money being at stake. The found a loophole and are exploiting it.

I thought the judge ruled that they could be suspended, and they had to appeal just to keep from serving it? Seems like they lost and are appealing mainly to put it off as long as possible. Not a bad strategy for them, but not exactly fair to the rest of the NFL players.

Just to clarify, it's helping 2 players on the Saints right now as well.
Its a Minnesota state law matter now, at least the current branch of the case. Didn't one of the affected Saints retire? And I think one served the suspension,

PB I think the NFL is holding off suspending the Saints players until the whole Williams thing is finalized.

[pbmax]

JSO Blogtacular: (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/99849744.html)


Aug. 3, 2010 11:22 a.m. | Greg Bedard

Green Bay - Suspended Green Bay Packers defensive end Johnny Jolly agreed to a plea deal today in a Houston court that will allow him to have a clean record if he stays out of trouble for one year.

Seems kinda light for a major player in drug trafficking evidence that the prosecutor was planning on bringing to his sentencing hearing.

[packers11]

JSO Blogtacular: (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/99849744.html)


Aug. 3, 2010 11:22 a.m. | Greg Bedard

Green Bay - Suspended Green Bay Packers defensive end Johnny Jolly agreed to a plea deal today in a Houston court that will allow him to have a clean record if he stays out of trouble for one year.

Seems kinda light for a major player in drug trafficking evidence that the prosecutor was planning on bringing to his sentencing hearing.

why the hell is he suspended for the year with that ruling...

[pbmax]

JSO Blogtacular: (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/99849744.html)


Aug. 3, 2010 11:22 a.m. | Greg Bedard

Green Bay - Suspended Green Bay Packers defensive end Johnny Jolly agreed to a plea deal today in a Houston court that will allow him to have a clean record if he stays out of trouble for one year.

Seems kinda light for a major player in drug trafficking evidence that the prosecutor was planning on bringing to his sentencing hearing.

why the hell is he suspended for the year with that ruling...
That was under the Drug and Alcohol Policy. Jolly failed a test or three, somewhere along the line. Though, my original guess was probably wrong. If he failed the court ordered test, I think he would have suffered more than this. But its hard to be certain.

[Fritz]

Also, didn't Jolly's attorney swear they were going to go to court and beat the rap because his client was innocent?

[Patler]

Also, didn't Jolly's attorney swear they were going to go to court and beat the rap because his client was innocent?

Essentially, they did beat it by this plea deal. All Jolly has to do is stay out of trouble for 12 months and the charge will be dropped, apparently. He stays clean, he has no record at all. That's better than a charge, trial and not guilty verdict. He has no "risk" in this deal, it's all up to him, not the uncertainty of a trial.

Makes me wonder why the prosecutor dragged this out so long. To agree to this, the prosecutor must have been fairly sure they would lose.

[imscott72]

Also, didn't Jolly's attorney swear they were going to go to court and beat the rap because his client was innocent?

Essentially, they did beat it by this plea deal. All Jolly has to do is stay out of trouble for 12 months and the charge will be dropped, apparently. He stays clean, he has no record at all. That's better than a charge, trial and not guilty verdict. He has no "risk" in this deal, it's all up to him, not the uncertainty of a trial.

Makes me wonder why the prosecutor dragged this out so long. To agree to this, the prosecutor must have been fairly sure they would lose.

Either that or the court system is bogged down right now with bigger cases so they decided to plea this one out. I work in law enforcement so I'm pretty familiar with how this works. Our DA is only allowed to take so many cases to trial each month, and if it gets bogged down he has to pick and choose which ones to plea out and which ones to take to trial.

[MadScientist]

Also, didn't Jolly's attorney swear they were going to go to court and beat the rap because his client was innocent?

Essentially, they did beat it by this plea deal. All Jolly has to do is stay out of trouble for 12 months and the charge will be dropped, apparently. He stays clean, he has no record at all. That's better than a charge, trial and not guilty verdict. He has no "risk" in this deal, it's all up to him, not the uncertainty of a trial.

Makes me wonder why the prosecutor dragged this out so long. To agree to this, the prosecutor must have been fairly sure they would lose.

Either that or the court system is bogged down right now with bigger cases so they decided to plea this one out. I work in law enforcement so I'm pretty familiar with how this works. Our DA is only allowed to take so many cases to trial each month, and if it gets bogged down he has to pick and choose which ones to plea out and which ones to take to trial.

Who says the prosecutor dragged this out? The delays are by all reports standard for Houston courts. The plea could have been done at any time, but Jolly didn't want the suspension that would come with it. Now that he is already suspended for a year (or more) it doesn't matter too much so he can take the plea.

[mission]

It's called a suspended sentence and I had one for a year. Basically, if you get in trouble for anything else within that year, you could be subject to penalty from the previous crime in addition to whatever you just got arrested for.

Beats the alternative and usually/hopefully an eye opener for the guy. I changed just about everything after that and it's worked out wonderfully. Shortcut money just isn't worth it.

Wonder if he can turn it around...

[Patler]

Also, didn't Jolly's attorney swear they were going to go to court and beat the rap because his client was innocent?

Essentially, they did beat it by this plea deal. All Jolly has to do is stay out of trouble for 12 months and the charge will be dropped, apparently. He stays clean, he has no record at all. That's better than a charge, trial and not guilty verdict. He has no "risk" in this deal, it's all up to him, not the uncertainty of a trial.

Makes me wonder why the prosecutor dragged this out so long. To agree to this, the prosecutor must have been fairly sure they would lose.

Either that or the court system is bogged down right now with bigger cases so they decided to plea this one out. I work in law enforcement so I'm pretty familiar with how this works. Our DA is only allowed to take so many cases to trial each month, and if it gets bogged down he has to pick and choose which ones to plea out and which ones to take to trial.

Ya, but they way they charged this it was a big deal to them, and the plea deal is a complete win for Jolly if he lives up to the requirements for just 1 year. It's very favorable to Jolly.

All DAs plea out cases, starting with the ones they doubt they can win. After that they work deals where each side recognizes the risk of losing at trial, so each side gives up something. Jolly didn't give up much, if anything, in this deal, which makes it look like the DA saw it as a loser.

[vince]

This seems to me like justice served. This has been an extremely costly experience for Johnny - much more so than the average drankard off the street. Further, he WILL change his lifestyle and help serve the community or he will find himself in jail and out of football forever.

[BobDobbs]

For the voyeur in me this is disappointing. I was hoping to get a look at what kind of evidence the state actually had. There's been so much speculation around this case. It could have been three guys sitting in a car outside the club talking about girls.

Or maybe it was a conspiratorial meeting of players in the drug underworld outside of a murderous den of thieves. Now we'll never know. And we're not going to know what he got suspended for, if it was related. And we haven't even seen pictures of the women that Brandon Underwood got in trouble with. It's just a sad day for Packer Tabloid journalism.

[falco]

Too bad he failed the drug test, or else he'd probably be contributing to the team this fall; I'm guessing this wouldn't have resulted in a suspension, only a warning.

Hopefully the young guys can step up; I think Jolly was a big part of our success last year.