Packer Player Under Investigation In Sexual Assault

[Tarlam!]

I'd agree if it hadn't happened at company related function.

Sure, but when is the shift over? The tournie was done and dusted some hours previous and the boys were being boys, although very moderately by at least one account.

A poster over at JSO claims to have been at the event and claims to have met some of the players in attendance. He was nothing short of glowing in his recap, although he didn't name names.

At any rate the company wasn't negatively impacted the way Pittsburg was. The tournament won't go down in history the way Green Bay hot tubs has. If Underwood committed a crime, he'll get what he deserves. His wife has gotta be pissed.

[Scott Campbell]

Sure, but when is the shift over?

Especially for married guys, I don't think other players are ever going to get behind a guy having an orgy. Never gonna happen.

[Tarlam!]

I don't think other players are ever going to get behind a guy having an orgy. Never gonna happen.

No man I know will publicly endorse that behaviour, most will denounce it in front of their wives. But CMIII singled out one player. I would have more respect if he kept his comments generic and referred to the incident, rather than the player.

Calling a guy out forces the team to choose sides. That can't be good for the locker room dynamics.

[Scott Campbell]

I don't think other players are ever going to get behind a guy having an orgy. Never gonna happen.

No man I know will publicly endorse that behaviour, most will denounce it in front of their wives. But CMIII singled out one player. I would have more respect if he kept his comments generic and referred to the incident, rather than the player.

Calling a guy out forces the team to choose sides. That can't be good for the locker room dynamics.

Calling out a player for being stupid and shedding other players and the team in a bad light is a sign of leadership by my line of thinking. I appreciate Clay taking as much of a stand as he could.

[vince]

He's accused of assaulting them. Matthews can't defend what Underwood admitted to doing. What Underwood needs defending from is what he's accused of doing but he denies. If Matthews thought otherwise, he could have suggested that he was confident that things would turn out OK for him in some way.

It's total speculation, but if these girls were consenting to a three-way (which they may well have been), I'd suspect that some evidence of such a development would have been able to have been observed prior to their retirement to the bedroom. We've all been to parties like that before. The "players" are usually not too subtle about their intents at 3am after a drinking binge.

[Joemailman]

If CMIII (along with 5 others) got dragged into a story he had nothing to do with because of the actions of one guy, I think he had the right to point that out. I kind of got the sense from his comments that he doesn't have much use for Underwood in general, and isn't going to stick his neck out to defend him.

[Joemailman]

He's accused of assaulting them. Matthews can't defend what Underwood admitted to doing. What Underwood needs defending from is what he's accused of doing but he denies. If Matthews thought otherwise, he could have suggested that he was confident that things would turn out OK for him in some way.

It's total speculation, but if these girls were consenting to a three-way (which they may well have been), I'd suspect that some evidence of such a development would have been able to have been observed prior to their retirement to the bedroom. We've all been to parties like that before. The "players" are usually not too subtle about their intents at 3am after a drinking binge.

Is it certain that the other 6 players were back at the condo when the incident occurred? I know they were there when the police showed up, but is there a definite timeline of when the alleged assault actually occurred?

[vince]

I read somewhere that others in the neighborhood had complained about what sounded like a bachelor party at the condo. In fairness, that's all that can be said. So I'd say you're right Joe. It's possible that the other 6 guys arrived later and didn't see Underwood and the girls at all. My speculation above could be moot. That said, if that were the case, that would seem to be somehting that would be in Matthews best interests to be known because it would further separate him and the others from the incident.

[RashanGary]

I don't think Matthews comments are particularly or specifically damning to Underwood being a sex criminal.

Underwood is out cheating on his wife with a couple of 30+ women. My experience with people who sleep around at this age, they're not starry eyed teenies with visions of love, marriage and kids. They know the ropes, know the game. . .

A lot of people look down on that and won't want to support a team taht stand for that. The Packers moral standards go above the law. It goes to the moral expectation fo the fans who pay the ticket prices. These guys were at a charity event and now they look like hooligans because of what happened, illegal or not. . .

Time will tell, but Matthews words strike me more as a guy who's pissed that Underwood put a major damper on a great charity even and gave a black eye to the image of a bunch of great guys who don't deserve to be mentioned in that boat.

So yeah, just being in that spot, cheating on his wife, having an orgy. That's immature (because it hurts the image and football players need to be concerned with image). These guys forget fans pay their salary adn don't want to pay to watch dirt balls. It's immature and reckless to not recognize and respect that.

[vince]

I'd say that makes sense JH. What I would also say though, is that, while his words aren't necessarily damning, they are definitely not exonerating. That's really all we can say at this point.

[pbmax]

But he didn't say anything whatsoever to shed any light on Underwood's possible innocence.

Maybe I am missing the article with the quotes you are providing. But from the two JSO articles, Matthews uses most of those words to refer to the charity event, not the after hours escapades. The term "black eye" was used to describe what Matthews hoped wouldn't happen to the event, not the Packers, themselves or other players.

And if Matthews does not know anything about the incident (probably an overstatement, he probably saw something, even incidental) he would not help Underwood by providing details to the press. It is entirely possible that the players know nothing that would help exonerate Underwood if this is truly a he said-they said situation.

Underwood's misfortune (with fellow players) has more to do with causing six teammates to have their name published and be interviewed by the police than it does with having the other players throw him under the bus. Had he not involved them, then they might have been more publicly supportive.

"We had an outstanding showing, amazing donors there. Celebrities showed up. It was a great auction. Overall it was a great day," Matthews said. "One person's misjudgment really put a damper on it. Hopefully this doesn't put a black eye on the tournament and the foundation, but I think for the most part I think it worked out this year, and next year, just be a little more careful. Hopefully we can learn from this and make correct decisions next time."

[RashanGary]

I'd say that makes sense JH. What I would also say though, is that, while his words aren't necessarily damning, they are definitely not exonerating. That's really all we can say at this point.

Look what happens here when someone suggests maybe this guy didn't do it. Saying that is calling a potential rape victim a liar to some, although really, it's just considering a possibility.

Teh Packers PR is very smart. Those guys had a talking to of what not to say. I'll bet anything they all know not to suggest she's a liar (even if that suggestion is indirect). If she were a real victim, that would be very hurtful. They'd have womens rape associates throwing fits like you've never seen and it's a very real possibility she's a victim, so you cannot say in public that you don't think it happened. It's not fair to her and it's not smart.

On a message board though, I would think people here are mature enough to consider all possiblities without getting personal or angry about it, but that's not the case here even.

[3irty1]

So speculation so one sided it allows the poster to declare the result virtually conclusive is OK on the internet.

But pointing out the flaws in the conclusion is not OK on the internet?

JH merely painted a likely scenario based on what limited facts are given. The only conclusion he reached was that the situation was suspicious. If someone disagrees and wants to point out the flaws in that conclusion they should be able to do so without playing the sexist card on JH.

[vince]

I'm referring to the video on JSO pb. Matthews refers to the incident putting a black eye on the weekend. All the words I quoted were from the video, and they all referred to the effect of Underwood's actions on others.

[RashanGary]

I'm referring to the video on JSO pb. Matthews refers to the incident putting a black eye on the weekend. All the words I quoted were from the video, and they all referred to the effect of Underwood's actions on others.

Being in this situation, whether he's a sex criminal or not, is not up to the standards of the ticket holders. Teh Packers probably talked to these guys about how bad this makes them look, told them what not to say (so as not to offend certain groups) and gave them some suggested punch lines. If Underwood is not guilty, this is still a check against him. It just amkes the Packers look bad, PERIOD.

All guys are following a similar suit. Nobody's saying anything that has a chance to be used negatively. That's not accident. The Packers PR machine works and works well.