To clarify "RKG" is white noise and is perfectly acceptable. People can get mad at that all day long if they want but it is a dismissive comment that coaches use.
Where you open yourself up is when you expound on it like it is a virtue that if we follow long enough, it breeds success alone. The toiling on and on with explanations of how "it is the cornerstone" and inherent value or that is a differentiator from other teams is pretentious. That turns white noise to fingernails/chalkboard noise. It begins to grate especially when you couple the above with "We never waver from that" - "Best group in my career." You offer the listener to recall facts and examples and comparisons that counter those assertions. It shouldn't be expected that the whole of the public cannot or should not challenge that. Or when they do challenge with tangible examples, moving the goalposts or taking liberties with the definition further shouldnt be championed.
The only way RKG works is "we think he is the RKG for us" or "he isnt the right kind of guy for us" Period. To say Hardy was the RKG after vetting him and them apparently he may not be the RKG when it doesnt work - that alone is antecdotal (odd he never lost playing time, but antecdotal).
vBut when you combine it with Gregory, with Lawrence with Randle, w R McClain, etc. Maybe, just maybe, they are overestimating their ability to define, project or mold a RKG [expanded definition].
RKG is electing a politician who believes in family values. Of you course you want families valued, or the value of the family championed But how someone interprets family values as to social issues, race, money, rights, etc begins to peel back the onion just a bit on the platitude
In the quote you provided, at least, he's only saying they thought Hardy, with the support system they had in place, *could* be the kind of guy they were looking for. And when it turned out they deemed he was not, they moved on after the season. That's pretty cut and dry.
Gregory has a substance issue, but they knew that coming in. Again, he was a guy they thought could become the kind of guy they're looking for if given the right support. They obviously have a high degree of faith in their support structure. But it was never the case that they determined they weren't going to take risks on high-potential players. That's not Jerry's way. They're only saying they're going to do it when they think a guy's football character justifies the risk.
You didn't mention Josh Brent, but he's another player who I think had troubles but who they thought they could support and who they thought cared a lot about teammates and football.
Lawrence, it remains to be seen what his slip up was, so let's withhold judgement until we know. If it was really the case of an unmarked PED in a supplement, as has been hinted at, I'm not going to ding the guy's character for that.
McClain, I agree with. I don't see him as a high character guy, and I've never liked him being on the team. They seem to think he is, but I can't imagine what they're seeing that I"m not.
And I disagree, a little bit, on RKG being completely meaningless. I agree it's largely a 'no duh' kind of measurement, but there are players out there who are very talented athletes to whom football is just not that important. Bruce Carter was one on our own roster. Greg Hardy ended up in that category. We've seen an influx of guys who were team captains on draft days (at least it seems like that's the case), and not a whole lot of guys getting popped at night clubs or after hours. If you look at the NFL arrest reports, we're down in the bottom quintile, I believe of teams in the league in that regard. It may not be a perfect record, but relative to the rest of the league, it's pretty good. It's not all just white noise and lip-service.
