Stephen Jones Nails Coffin Shut On Greg Hardy Rumors

[tyke1doe]

No, it doesn't. Not by a longshot.

We can go back and forth on this. But I don't think I'm wrong, not by a longshot because what I've articulated is a principle of life. And I'm willing to bet that every last one of us who are Alpha Males have done the same thing in our lives when we've faced disrespect - whether it's excluding people from our presence or even as simple as putting someone on ignore - a form of alienating another based on their viewpoint that challenges ours.

But we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Stash]

Well, many thought the Cowboys shouldn't have given Hardy a chance. And yet, the Cowboys did.

And it blew up in their face.

And now they are giving Moore a chance, just like they did Hardy - a player many of you wish was still wearing the star.

Moore has yet to blow his chance. Judging by his background, he will likely do just that. But just as many thought Hardy would reform, maybe there's the same hope for Moore.

So you're advocating that they go down the same road and make another mistake on a much less talented player who's proven to be an even worse headache?

Hardy may have blown two chances. Moore's already blown three, and been kicked off of three teams since last December.

I thought that this team was learning from mistakes made with Hardy, McClain and Gregory. Their talk sure seemed to say it. But then their actions like this bring it all into question again.

 

[UTmodisette]

Your guess is as good as mine. Barring some miraculous comeback and come to Jesus moment from him, I would like to think the Cowboys will cut ties with him this offseason.

But let's note, the problems with McClain aren't the same as Hardy or Moore. From most reports, McClain is just a knucklehead but not a locker room problem. Teammates seem to like him.

Dallas is keeping McClain because they get close to a million in savings on the cap if they wait to cut him after his suspension. My guess is that they told McClain this, and they have an agreement that he won't show up to Dallas facilities.

 

[tyke1doe]

Yep and now the team won't touch because they learned he's a pain in the butt.

So to then try out Moore is hypocritical on some level. It just is.

It wasn't that he was a pain in the butt. He (Hardy) was a pain in the butt WITH THE COWBOYS!!!

Don't miss that important distinction. The Cowboys were willing to give Hardy a second chance ...
1.) Because they NEEDED him and
2.) Because they thought he would conduct himself as the Cowboys expected him too.

And they signed him KNOWING there would be a backlash. So it had to be something more.

Besides, what you're advocating is that if a player has problems with another club, the Cowboys would be hypocritical in signing that player. Is that what you're saying?

 

[Stash]

We can go back and forth on this. But I don't think I'm wrong, not by a longshot because what I've articulated is a principle of life. And I'm willing to bet that every last one of us who are Alpha Males have done the same thing in our lives when we've faced disrespect - whether it's excluding people from our presence or even as simple as putting someone on ignore - a form of alienating another based on their viewpoint that challenges ours.

But we'll have to agree to disagree.

I can do that respectfully. We don't see eye to eye on this one, but I respect you as a poster.

And know that my anger and disappointment is directed solely at the team and in no way towards you.

 

[tyke1doe]

And it blew up in their face.

I agree.

So you're advocating that they go down the same road and make another mistake on a much less talented player who's proven to be an even worse headache?

No, I'm not advocating anything like that. I preferably wouldn't want any bad behavior guys.

My point, however, is that I can understand why the Cowboys would give a player like Moore a chance and not retain Hardy. And that's because Moore has not had an opportunity to show insubordination with the group and team called the Cowboys. Hardy did show insubordination within the confines of THIS organization.

Now I will agree with you - if you're making the argument - that it is highly likely that Moore may turn out to do the same thing as Hardy and get himself released from the organization. But ... that will only confirm what I've said. Again, I'm articulating a principle. The principle isn't dependent on what I think or who I like. It is what it is.

Hardy may have blown two chances. Moore's already blown three, and been kicked off of three teams since last December.

I thought that this team was learning from mistakes made with Hardy, McClain and Gregory. Their talk sure seemed to say it. But then their actions like this bring it all into question again.

I don't disagree with anything you've said. But bringing in Moore is more - pardon the pun - a challenge to Garrett's RKG (Right Kind of Guy) philosophy. In that respect, it would be hypocritical. But in the respect to the insubordination principle, it's not hypocritical.

That's the distinction I'm making, which is why I can both agree with you and disagree with you at the same time. It all depends on the context we choose to apply. If that makes sense.

 

[tyke1doe]

I can do that respectfully. We don't see eye to eye on this one, but I respect you as a poster.

And know that my anger and disappointment is directed solely at the team and in no way towards you.

Thanks, but I didn't take your disagreement with me to be personal.

I've always appreciated your positions and your value as a poster. And I have no problems with posters who stick strictly to the issue and not try to personally attack others when they can't or don't get their point across.

We still cool peeps.

 

[Sydla]

It wasn't that he was a pain in the butt. He (Hardy) was a pain in the butt WITH THE COWBOYS!!!

Don't miss that important distinction. The Cowboys were willing to give Hardy a second chance ...
1.) Because they NEEDED him and
2.) Because they thought he would conduct himself as the Cowboys expected him too.

And they signed him KNOWING there would be a backlash. So it had to be something more.

Besides, what you're advocating is that if a player has problems with another club, the Cowboys would be hypocritical in signing that player. Is that what you're saying?

The distinction is not that important. You can keep trying to make it important but it is not.

As for your last question, each situation is different. Last year, Hardy was toxic, no question. But if you recall, he got glowing reviews from teammates. So the problem with Hardy wasn't viewed as being a locker room cancer, but rather the stink that was on him and could they control his off the field temper. Turns out, the problems were bigger than that............ Hardy was a big time problem child inside the locker room.

So with that information in hand, if the Cowboys have a clear need and won't resign a player because he's a locker room problem and and they saw what kind of negative effect that type of player can have in the locker room, it's bizarre that they would, in that very same offseason, look at potentially signing a guy who was an even bigger problem for another team. So, yeah, I think the Cowboys would be stupid and look hypocritical in looking at that guy. Especially when the guy isn't even as good as the guy you refuse to sign in the first place.

Here's another example. If the Cowboys cut McClain free after this season because they can't trust him on the drug front anymore, I think they would be hypocritical and silly to then go out and sign a replacement who would also have a big drug history.

 

[tyke1doe]

The distinction is not that important. You can keep trying to make it important but it is not.

It is in terms of why the Cowboys treated Hardy a certain way and why they haven't treated Moore the same way.

And that's what's the issue here. Moore was raised to show how hypocritical the Cowboys are. But my point is that Moore hasn't shown the Cowboys organization disrespect and insubordination as Hardy did. That's the distinction as to why one is here and one is not.

As for your last question, each situation is different. Last year, Hardy was toxic, no question. But if you recall, he got glowing reviews from teammates.

Let's stop right here. He received glowing reviews from TEAMMATES.
People who are on the same level of authority aren't going to see it the same way as those who are IN AUTHORITY!!!.
I mean, your co-worker may applaud you for telling off your boss and saying things he doesn't have the guts to say. But your boss is going to have a different perspective based on his authority and how you disrespected his authority.

So the problem with Hardy wasn't viewed as being a locker room cancer, but rather the stink that was on him and could they control his off the field temper. Turns out, the problems were bigger than that............ Hardy was a big time problem child inside the locker room.

I don't see how this contradicts anything I said. Sorry.

So with that information in hand, if the Cowboys have a clear need and won't resign a player because he's a locker room problem and and they saw what kind of negative effect that type of player can have in the locker room, it's bizarre that they would, in that very same offseason, look at potentially signing a guy who was an even bigger problem for another team. So, yeah, I think the Cowboys would be stupid and look hypocritical in looking at that guy. Especially when the guy isn't even as good as the guy you refuse to sign in the first place.

You're not getting it. There's a different dynamic between subordinate to subordinate and subordinate to supervisor.

Here's another example. If the Cowboys cut McClain free after this season because they can't trust him on the drug front anymore, I think they would be hypocritical and silly to then go out and sign a replacement who would also have a big drug history.

Again, this doesn't really have anything to do with the subordinate-authority dynamic.

Second, I would only call them hypocrites if they made a big deal about not signing players who are druggies. To my knowledge, the Cowboys haven't said they wouldn't sign a player who had a past drug issue. So you can't say they're hypocrites if they're not making a stand against signing players with drug problems.

Third, if Moore dog cusses Garrett, slaps a clipboard out of the hands a coach or mocks and ridicules the play calling and he DOESN'T get fired, I will agree with you that they're hypocrites for getting rid of Hardy. But I doubt very seriously that's the case because - based on the principle I've articulated - Garrett and Co. would lose all credibility with the players if they allowed that to happen. And if they aren't going to let it happen for Hardy, they sure aint going to let it happen for Moore.

 

[Sydla]

The point about Hardy being well liked by teammates in Carolina is important because it shows his issues weren't necessarily causing friction in the locker room. Unlike Moore, who teammates did not like. Further, the owner of the Panthers was pretty clear in explaining why Hardy was not brought back............. the off the field issue. So again, Hardy didn't have a reputation of being a clubhouse problem. So when you say the Cowboys gave him a 2nd chance, it's important to note what that second chance was from.................... My comment wasn't made to show a contradiction you made, it was to add more insight to what's at play here.

So, again, with that being said................ if you won't resign a guy at a position of need because you don't want a clubhouse problem in your locker room, you look like a hypocrite bringing another guy in who is an even bigger clubhouse problem (and far more documented clubhouse problem).

Seems to me you think they can only be seen as hypocritical if they sign a guy, he's a clubhouse problem but then they keep him.

That's just not accurate.

 

[big dog cowboy]

He hasn't had the chance yet. But he's burned three bridges in 6 months' time. Do you really want to be bridge #4?

Hell no. Let him to that in Philly or in Skin country.

 

[tyke1doe]

The point about Hardy being well liked by teammates in Carolina is important because it shows his issues weren't necessarily causing friction in the locker room. Unlike Moore, who teammates did not like. Further, the owner of the Panthers was pretty clear in explaining why Hardy was not brought back............. the off the field issue. So again, Hardy didn't have a reputation of being a clubhouse problem. So when you say the Cowboys gave him a 2nd chance, it's important to note what that second chance was from.................... My comment wasn't made to show a contradiction you made, it was to add more insight to what's at play here.

So, again, with that being said................ if you won't resign a guy at a position of need because you don't want a clubhouse problem in your locker room, you look like a hypocrite bringing another guy in who is an even bigger clubhouse problem (and far more documented clubhouse problem).

Seems to me you think they can only be seen as hypocritical if they sign a guy, he's a clubhouse problem but then they keep him.

That's just not accurate.

Actually, I heard Chris Carter say that Hardy wasn't well liked in the Carolina locker room.

Be that as it may, there's another principle at work beyond the subordinate-superior dynamic and it's the "to whom much is given much is required."

Moore is a bit player. He's not Hardy. So if Moore is a distraction, he's probably not that big of a distraction because he's a minor player, kind of like the third stringer who talks trash. Most of the starters would just blow him off because they view him as a "nobody." But Hardy was a major player. His impact on the locker room would be greater because of his position and status with the team.

At any rate, we can hash this to death. We too must agree to disagree.

 

[fortdick]

He's 10X better than anyone we have, what's that say?

But he is a cancer in the locker room. The guy isn't playing anywhere, is he? Maybe the bidding war will start.

 

[Stash]

But he is a cancer in the locker room. The guy isn't playing anywhere, is he? Maybe the bidding war will start.

My opinion is that somebody will sign him at some point. How about you? Any personal feelings aside, do you think he gets another job or do you think he's done?

 

[UTmodisette]

My opinion is that somebody will sign him at some point. How about you? Any personal feelings aside, do you think he gets another job or do you think he's done?

People thought the same thing about Ray Rice. I think Hardy blew his last with Dallas. Any chance he had got destroyed when he did that terrible interview that made him look like he has learned nothing from his domestic violence issues.

 

[Stash]

People thought the same thing about Ray Rice. I think Hardy blew his last with Dallas. Any chance he had got destroyed when he did that terrible interview that made him look like he has learned nothing from his domestic violence issues.

That's true. We'll have to wait and see if he ever steps foot on an NFL field again.

 

[KJJ]

Yeah, was there anyone who thought there was a chance he'd be back?

Mrtxstar thought there was a real chance at the start of training camp and he's currently choking down another plate of crow.

You honestly think Hardy will be on the team at the start of the 2016 season? Do you really want to go out on that limb? Lol

yup

 

[big dog cowboy]

My opinion is that somebody will sign him at some point. How about you? Any personal feelings aside, do you think he gets another job or do you think he's done?

He's done.

 

[coult44]

My opinion is that somebody will sign him at some point. How about you? Any personal feelings aside, do you think he gets another job or do you think he's done?

If it were me we would sign him tomorrow . Give him one more contract full of incentives and say here's your last chance. We have ZERO, NADA, Nothing ready to go at DE. Hardy is an instant upgrade.

 

[JoeKing]

As if our difficulties at DE weren't already peaking, David Irving now has a lingering groin pull. Might there still be hope... Stephen said they were moving on but maybe they will move back Hardy's way.