Packer Player Under Investigation In Sexual Assault

[vince]

Whatever the case, Vince, all of your posts revolved around the possiblity of him doing it, not the possibility of him being innocent. Some people were on the opposite end.


And like you, I could have easily made a post when everything was done saying I was unsure. I was unsure, but I had a way I was leaning and I would have admittted it if I was wrong.

You can back away from the lean you had like it never happened. Maybe you're being honest with yourself, but I was here. You were eating up the, "Underwood has a "problem"" stuff from unnamed sources and the Matthews didn't defend him stuff. Then the evil looking picture on the JS site. . . The whole thing, the stuff they chose to report "he has a problem" but not going into any detail with what he has a problem with. The evil picture. . . It was just the media being the media and you were eating it up.

That's simply untrue JH. I stated up front that I thought the charges were highly questionable and looked at both sides of the evidence in what I believe was a balanced way. Your read that I thought Underwood was guilty of assault is simply incorrect. I thought and stated that he was in trouble and his actions were dumb without a doubt, and he is. That's very different than thinking he assaulted the girls. I specifically avoided coming to any conclusion - regarding assault - until it came out that the girls were for hire.

JH, I appreciate your willingness to make projections when you feel like you have enough information to make a gut assessment. Others seem to resent that for some reason. I think you are more knowledgeable and consume more information than you are usually given credit for having simply because you fly from the seat of your pants when you write. And you go with your gut. Others won't want to agree with this and/or will resent it, but I'd say you're usually right. I may well respect your insight and perspective as much or more than anyone else here, even when I may disagree with you.

I was consistently critical of Underwood's actions. I remain critical of them. He used very poor judgement and caused serious damage to his home life, to other Packers and to the Packer organization. You read more into that than was intended.

[Patler]

Whatever the case, Vince, all of your posts revolved around the possiblity of him doing it, not the possibility of him being innocent. Some people were on the opposite end.

Using the word "innocent" is a little strong for Underwood's involvement. The facts appear to indicate that the entire situation was put into motion because of his actions. He put himself into a situation that commonly has bad results, either immediately or belatedly. He multiplied it by two. He brought it to the doorsteps of six team mates.

But for Underwood, none of this would have happened.

"Innocent"? Hardly.

[Scott Campbell]

It may smack of double standards now, but it sure didn't before he was in the purple. C'mon Tar........you've been around JSO and this board as long as me ...or almost. NOBODY dogged on BF's behavior when he was winning game for GB. This comparison is the most hypocritical thing I've ever read on here!!!!!!

Bulldog did.

[Scott Campbell]

Maybe this is wrong, but I still giggle at the phrase "grizzled vets". Every time.

[Bretsky]

It may smack of double standards now, but it sure didn't before he was in the purple. C'mon Tar........you've been around JSO and this board as long as me ...or almost. NOBODY dogged on BF's behavior when he was winning game for GB. This comparison is the most hypocritical thing I've ever read on here!!!!!!

Bulldog did.

good memory.....Bulldog use to dog Favre and AJ Hawk pretty consistently
They were Wist's Nick Barnett

[TheRaven]

I guess we are finally a legit NFL team now.

[Joemailman]

Underwood apologized to his teammates in team meeting today.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/95988369.html

It's a start. I'm pulling for him. I sense that although he's made some bad decisions, he's not a bad guy. Still, he needs to start showing some responsibility in his actions. Hope he does.

[Fritz]

3) Even if you are pregnant or have a newborn at home you still have to find ways of meeting your husbands needs.

Yep.

I take it you're really hungry?

By golly ol' Paula looks ready to fill ALL of her hubby's needs. Heck, when she gets a young buck on her show she looks about ready to fill his needs too.

And not just with gorgonzola.

[Scott Campbell]

Green Bay Packers CB Brandon Underwood apologizes for role in alleged Lake Delton sex assault

http://packersnews.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100609/PKR01/100609055

[MJZiggy]

I don't believe he was committed until she forced him to be. The baby was not exactly planned. She wasn't a statement of commitment and if you think otherwise, you need to reread her book as Brett didn't stick around after she was born. He went off to college and left them behind. He didn't marry Deanna when the baby showed up. Why do you think that might be?

They weren't married which makes it different. Much easier for her to just dump you and walk away when you aren't married, but after you've stood in a church in front of your families and all your friends and declared in front of whomever you worship that you'd NEVER do that it becomes a bit of a different story. You're not just her boyfriend now who she'd be pissed at. You're her husband and it sort of trashed her whole idea of what her life is about. The one who made that promise in front of everyone has now violated her trust and brought another woman into her sacred union. That's not the same as being pissed at your boyfriend.

Wow, Ziggy. I can't believe how far off this is. THEY WERE LIVING IN A DEFACTO MARRIAGE!! Otherwise, how could she have packed his bags and forced this issue? If he never intended on marrying her, why did he eventually do it? It would have been easier for him to dumpo her and the girl than vice versa. He had the financial means. He was king of the hill and could have gotten any number of non child rearing replacements from any NFL city he visited.

You'd be correct if she lived in a house next door, but they shared the same table and bed. B. Lorenzo cheated on his fiancé AND his baby girl. OFTEN. He was immature, drunk and disorderly in public. OFTEN! He risked his mid-long term income. OFTEN. You're giving him a pass, because they didn't exchange VOWS? Are you seriously making that case?

This has NOTHING to do with sexual assault, yet you tie that in here as to what you would certainly punish a QB for. Well, guess what, Underood is no more guilty of that than B. Lorenzo. I am astounded you would even bring that comparison up. The only true differences are that Underwood isn't a star and even if he cecomes one, he doesn't play QB. To validate the difference, ask yourself whom you'd prefer replacing in a crisis: Rodgers or Woodsen?

Secondly, B. Lorenzo wasn't suspected publicly of soliciting prostitution, but until the latter came up, Underwoods conduct was no more distasteful than that other guy's and while Underwood was being crucified on here, B. Lorenzo has been sainted.

That, ladies and gentlen, smacks of double standards to me.

Tossing a guy out on his ass can have a cold-water-on-the-face effect. I'm not saying any more than that if if she hadn't forced his hand by throwing his drunk ass to the curb, he likely wouldn't be married today as it didn't happen until she made him.

Don't accuse me of liking Favre's behavior when he was a Packer. You didn't know me when he cheated on Deanna and I can like the player he became without liking the behavior. And part of the reason you've never had to have this discussion is that Ol' Brett didn't get caught or accused by anyone which Underwood did which is why sexual assault came up now, remember? The reason Favre gets a pass with so many people is not because the behavior was ever acceptable, but because he'd cleaned up his act considerably and became a much better person (at least until the end-stage drama). I'd always given him a ton of credit for that, but it doesn't excuse the fact that he'd behaved like an idiot for the first part of his career and deserved to be left by his girlfriend regardless whether he did--and it doesn't make him married until he was. Sorry, there's a difference. In one case it's adultery. In the other, it's idiocy.

[Tarlam!]

Don't accuse me of liking Favre's behavior when he was a Packer. You didn't know me when he cheated on Deanna and I can like the player he became without liking the behavior.

I'm not. You're defending the player and his behaviour by doggedly insisting the baby and engagement meant nothing. Yet, you criticise another player for similar shortcomings because of a legal document (both players had given a moral promise). You raised your criticism, as did many others, before it was clear he was suspected for solicitation.

Favre was already a star before he publicly cleaned up his act. So claiming you liked "the player he became" is a red flag for me.

Sorry, there's a difference. In one case it's adultery. In the other, it's idiocy.

I'm sure you would have honoured that difference yourself had you been in Deanna's position with a baby on your arm and having to face the whispers behind your back about, that inevitabley were there.

[MJZiggy]

Don't accuse me of liking Favre's behavior when he was a Packer. You didn't know me when he cheated on Deanna and I can like the player he became without liking the behavior.

I'm not. You're defending the player and his behaviour by doggedly insisting the baby and engagement meant nothing. Yet, you criticise another player for similar shortcomings because of a legal document (both players had given a moral promise). You raised your criticism, as did many others, before it was clear he was suspected for solicitation.

Favre was already a star before he publicly cleaned up his act. So claiming you liked "the player he became" is a red flag for me.

Sorry, there's a difference. In one case it's adultery. In the other, it's idiocy.

I'm sure you would have honoured that difference yourself had you been in Deanna's position with a baby on your arm and having to face the whispers behind your back about, that inevitabley were there.

I'm not defending anyone. They were both despicable. I'm trying to tell you that I don't believe he made a promise to her. He knocked her up and then cheated on her until the day she tossed his bags on the doorstep. That to my mind isn't much of a commitment. They weren't engaged, they weren't married. She was simply putting up with his shit. When she decided not to any longer, then she suddenly became worthy of a proposal. Not until. You talk of me being in her position. I were in Deanna's position, I'd have been long gone and collecting a BUTTLOAD of child support. I don't put up with that kind of trash. I have more self respect than that.

I further didn't say I liked the "player" he became. I said I liked the player (on the field) but not the behavior. Then I said I could appreciate the changes he made to his life and the improvement in the person he became. How is this so difficult for you to grasp. Nobody's behavior was ok.

Underwood did make a promise, however. He was not just engaged, but married. Apparently I put more stock in the legal document and the ring on the finger than you. And with Underwood, it wasn't whispers behind her back. It was a police report and a week on the news.

[Scott Campbell]

Moral equivalency arguments are pretty absurd. What Underwood did was wrong, and the matter still under consideration for solicitation charges being filed. And all of this has NOTHING to do with Bert whoring around 15 years ago. NOTHING.

T's line of thinking is headed right back to Harlan's "Would you shoot teens stealing beer out of your garage?"

[Tarlam!]

My line of thinking is what I said it is. If Favre's name (at the beginning of his GBP career) were to be replaced with Underwood's, Mathews wouldn't have thrown him under a bus.

Double standards.

[Scott Campbell]

My line of thinking is what I said it is. If Favre's name (at the beginning of his GBP career) were to be replaced with Underwood's, Mathews wouldn't have thrown him under a bus.

Double standards.

Would you shoot teens stealing beer?



And your speculation about what Mathews might or might not have done if he could magically be teleported back in time 17 years, and then magically have Favre hire a couple of grizzled vet hookers who magically get caught stealing from him during an act that never happened, and then he magically gets investigated by the Lake Delton police department when were not sure if Bert has ever been in Lake Delton.......................it's magically delicious. But it's pure speculation on your part, and not relevant.