Owners need to create downside for taking chances on problem players

Getty Images

It’s an idea that has been percolating for years. With the latest arrest of Bears defensive lineman Ray McDonald, its time finally has come.

NFL teams will continue to give talented players second (and third . . . and fourth) chances because NFL teams want to win. Seven years ago, the NFL implemented a deterrent to the practice of harboring problem players by instituting a convoluted system of fines on teams with multiple players suspended in a given year.

It hasn’t worked the way it should, and for good reason. Fines are a cost of doing business, especially when the ultimate goal of business is to compete for championships.

The only way to get the attention of teams inclined to roll the dice on the Ray McDonalds of the world will be to attach the loss of future draft picks when a player with a propensity for getting into trouble gets into trouble.

Last October, owners discussed the possibility of removing draft picks from teams with players who have multiple incidents under the Personal Conduct Policy.

What level of accountability should be expected of clubs?” Commissioner Roger Goodell wrote in a memo to owners before the October session, Mike Garafolo of FOX Sports reported at the time.  “Is the current Salary Remittance Program sufficient, or should additional measures be considered?”

They should be considered, and they should be implemented. It won’t be easy; the formula for taking away draft picks when players get into trouble needs to be clear, simple, and fair.

Ultimately, it’s the only thing that will cause a team that sees a first-round talent slide to round four to stop and think about the potential consequences for rolling the dice. If/when the worst-case scenario unfolds, the team won’t simply lose the lower pick invested in a player whose ability should have gotten him off the board much sooner. They’ll lose one or more picks in the future.

Given the weight teams attach to those draft picks, it’s the best (and probably only) way to get them either to do a better job of keeping out players who may find trouble — or to ensure that players with a checkered past won’t find trouble in their next place of employment.

162 responses to “Owners need to create downside for taking chances on problem players

  1. The system works just fine, quit tinkering. Problem players are punished with suspensions and clubs are punished by not having the player available for games.

  2. Justin Houston was a ‘problem’ that slide from the 1st Round to the 3rd. Haven’t heard a peep from him since, except for the 22 QB grunts of pain last season.

  3. It’s a fine line between punishing deliberate taking of bad actors and giving young players the benefit of the doubt. Heavy handed policies are not noted for being able to find that medium. If we could trust the league office, it would be better to deal with cases on an individual basis. Unfortunately, neither the Union nor the fans trust Roger Goodell.

  4. Media and the court of public opinion are usually more than enough of a deterrent.

  5. I really don’t see any practical way that this could work.

    The only way for it to be consistent and fair would be for the league to ‘tag’ problem players so that teams could have crystal clarity of the risk they were taking when signing such a player.

    The problem with that solution though is that the NFLPA would (rightly) never, ever, allow that to happen.

  6. The deterent to this lies with the fans. As long as they’re wiling to look the other way while a Greg Hardy, Adrian Peterson, Ray McDonald or Ray Rice helps their team win, then the owners will keep signing them.

    Moreover, as long as advertisers like Budweiser, Coke, or Allstate have no problem endorsing this league, and networks like ESPN (which is owned by Disney {a family company}) have no moral qualms in showing it then there are zero repercussions.

    It’s cowardly but the buck just keeps getting passed around, unless we, the fans, stand up and actually take our ball and go home. We vote with our wallets in this country.

    Beyond buying tickets, or jerseys, it’s more important sending the advertisers a message, and boycotting them by supporting their competators.

    Then you’ll see a REAL change.

  7. Teams are penalized with cap hits and the loss of a skilled player that will be replaced by a non-53 player of lesser skill.

  8. But yet with Brady’s inevitable reduced suspension, there is no downside to stonewalling and covering up the (second) biggest cheating scandal in the history of the NFL? First was obviously Spygate

  9. I literally do not care what a player’s criminal record is and neither should anyone. They get paid for their talent at football, not being model citizens. Your venom should be directed at the LEGAL SYSTEM if you feel justice has not been served in regards to their punishment for crimes committed, allegedly or otherwise.

  10. Penalize a team for giving a player a chance?

    Wow! Just wow!

    There are so many things wrong with that concept, but as the NFL seems to be in a shark jumping contest, nothing would surprise me.

  11. Why does the league even allow these guys to be signed if they’re just going to punish the team for giving them a chance? If the league really wants to keep these guys out then they should hand out longer suspensions or lifetime bans for guys that choose to commit violent crimes.

  12. Absolutely.
    But let’s be real here. Beating a child or your spouse is nowhere near as egregious as letting air out of a football.

  13. Interesting concept. I have never liked the idea of constant-problem guys consistently getting third and fourth chances due to their being absolutely no risk involved for the teams that pick them up.

    Having said that, if this idea was already in place, should the likes of the Patriots and the Ravens lose picks because of the misdemeanors of first-time serious offenders like Hernandez and Rice? Definitely not.

  14. “the formula for taking away draft picks when players get into trouble needs to be clear, simple, and fair.”

    I don’t think the NFL is capable of that. Instead I would expect more Ted Wells type investigations that cost millions and resolve little. The NFL is so close to jumping the shark..

  15. Why? Because ppl don’t ever deserve a second chance? Just because some guys aren’t capable of turning over a new leaf, doesn’t mean there needs to be this sweeping change. McDonald will never play again. Which will be the same conclusion for any player who blows their ‘second chance’

  16. This proposal would also create an environment where an anti-establishment team could sign all of the talented players who get into trouble and say who needs draft picks. This is especially true as the picks would likely be lower round picks only. All of the people who would prefer that the league concentrate on the game between the lines instead of becoming a social welfare agency could buy their Jerseys.

  17. Any system they come up with would be severely convoluted, unfair, biased, and wholly unpredictable. Much like league discipline, game officiating, and roger the dodger goodell in general.

  18. “the formula for taking away draft picks when players get into trouble needs to be clear, simple, and fair.”

    Simple. Publish it as a $25,000 fine.

    But if another team suspects a rival on another team is in violation, launch an “independent investigation”. Then, if in the opinion of the “independent” investigator, it is more likely than not the player IS a problem then fine the team “One MILLION dollars!”, take a way a couple of draft picks (including a first rounder) and then suspend the player for four games. (Less if he assaulted a woman though.)

  19. Under this plan, the Patriots would never get another draft pick, ever, for the Hernandez mess.

  20. Owners of the team with the most fines have to run the Jets the following season. Done.

  21. Most of these guys simply grow up in a culture where this behavior that the rest of us find so reprehensible is the norm. I know a lot of folks don’t want to hear that and have never been around it so have a tough time believing it but it is true. It must be stopped well before they get to the NFL, even college and high school but it is very difficult because it is a learned behavior, learned from their parents and peers and passed along over the last few generations. Simply not allowing these characters to play in the NFL will not address the issue. The problem is, it’s a no-no to talk about it.

  22. Ummm… how many times have you complained about how complicated the NFL rules and bylaws are? And now you want to invent more?

    The rules work fine. We don’t even know the details of McDonald’s arrest – just that he has lost his job, perhaps forever. The Bears are without a dependable 5 technique. I think both the team and the player are suffering enough today.

  23. Funny how moral policing kicks in after someone gets nailed for something, isn’t it?

    Jameis Winston went #1 overall in the draft this year, with a sexual assault case looming in the backfield like an 800lb gorilla.

    The owners sure as hell didn’t care then. The media didn’t, either.

  24. I don’t get the need to punish a person multiple times. Get the punishment correct the first time and let him serve that punishment.

    If a guy gets 4 game suspension, let him serve the 4 game suspension. That’s his punishment.

    What is it going to be: 4 game suspension plus the next team that signs Player X forfeits their 3rd round pick. Come on.

    Also, Should a team be punished for PED suspensions as well? Or failed recreational drug tests? Nobody mentions that, and that harms “the shield”.

  25. Dumb idea.

    In the Bears’ case, they rolled the dice, and now they lose a key addition in FA. What is the point of penalizing them further? Suspend the player under the current Personal Conduct Policy, but penalizing his employer? Would this ever happen outside of pro sports?

    Makes zero sense.

  26. The NFL cares more about the so called integrity of the game than any of these assaults. When they hand down the harshest penalty in the history of the NFL for something they did not prove and used the “more probably than not” standard, which at least in my eyes was not met, its obvious these domestic assault issues are way down the list compared to how much air is in a football.

  27. This seems reasonable until you consider that it has nothing to do with the case at hand.

    You cant start punishing teams for what is essentially “first time” bad behavior.

  28. The PR hit along with the potential salary cap/locker room issues are the deterrants of signing troubled players.

    If the league doesnt want these players to play, kick them out of the league. Other than that, leave em alone.

  29. Honestly, the NFL needs to worry about the diminishing product they’re putting on the field more that these ridiculous rule changes, crazy discipline policy that changes every week where you essentially appeal to the same guy that punished you, remove the doubt of rigged games created by cheaters and horrendous officiating, etc.

    If they don’t get those issues fixed… a few years it won’t matter who NFL teams sign/draft. Because there won’t be (m)any fans left to pay them.

  30. What would be the pick loss for a player like (example only) Lael Collins? An undrafted free agent?

  31. This is one of the dumbest ideas ever. It’s on individuals to to make good choices. If the NFL is so scared of problems players causing problems then ban these guys. McDonald was available , they took a chance, he screwed up and they cut him. No sweat of of ANYONES back.

  32. It’s a shame but, crime DOES pay if you’re a good enough athlete. Something needs to change and quickly. If these players that continually get in trouble aren’t going to be held accountable for their actions then teams touting them as “misunderstood” need to be.

  33. Stupid idea. Patriots lose 10 years of draft picks for harboring a serial killer? The Jags franchise gets shipped to Europe for drafting a drunk? Steelers lose their cheerleaders over rapist QB? Browns franchise disbanded because a player smoked weed?

    Just another way for the NFL to try and spin the narrative. This idea is insanely stupid.

  34. I think you’re wrong. If these guys are so terrible then the reasons not to hire them will be self evident. There is no reason to create artificial deterrents. This is America, for gosh sakes.

  35. It’s should be the same as for teams like the Patriots, who get caught cheating in a playoff game.

  36. If you want to watch a bunch of upstanding citizens maul each other for cash you’re in the wrong place.

    Parents are responsible to teach children how to act, not professional athletes. We wouldn’t even know about their missteps if you didn’t report them until we become numb to it.

  37. Many of the personal conduct offences are caused by the league. Take a player with nothing, give him no training and a few million dollars and wait for the results. I think colleges need to do a better job with football players before they leave that level and I think the NFL has to learn how to transition guys into responsible millionaires instead of instant lottery winners.

  38. The core problem will still exist: you have no reliable way to determine the ones who will no longer get in trouble from the ones who will. All this will do is have teams err on the side of cutting any player. In effect, you are no longer offering a second chance to those who would do well from it as a result.

  39. I don’t see how you can punish a team for something that happens outside the realm of football.

    What the NFL needs to do is in cases like this especially when a child is involved is rather than fine the player, instead put that money into a fund for the child. It doesn’t help the family if the father is suddenly out of work with no money.

    It should be up to the club when they want to cut him because every case is different and not always black & white.

  40. Why? If the player is allowed to sign why punish the club for giving the player a chance. This is dumb, the Chicago Bears took a chance on an eligible player, he messed up an the Chicago Bears acted promptly. Now they go into otas without a starting DT

  41. I would like to add that cutting a player can actually make it WORSE for the victims of domestic violence.

    As I said before, The NFL needs to make the player put money into a trust for the victims when a child is involved and mandate that the player seeks counseling. This should be the conditions that the player must make in order to being employed in the NFL.

    Each case should then be judge separately when to cut a player and should be up to the Team.

  42. When/if this truly becomes bad for business they will do something. But the problem is that all the noise comes from the media, not sponsor boycotts.

    When Roethlisberger had his Milledgeville adventure there were plenty of Pittsburghers on talk radio that wanted him booted off the team. That lasted until about the second quarter of his return game. I don’t remember any of them calling in in the weeks leading up to Super Bowl XLV.

  43. The loss of draft picks proposal doesn’t make sense.

    A better idea would be to dock the team’s salary cap the entire salary of such a player.

    For example, the Bears signed McDonald to a one year deal for a total of $1,037,500 ($870K base, $137,500 roster bonus, $30K workout bonus). The Bears would forfeit that amount of salary cap space for 2015.

    With problem players who have multi-year contracts and get into trouble, then the team would be docked salary cap space for each of the years the player is signed.

    The net effect will be to deter teams from signing problem players to long term deals and limit their earning potential.

  44. I don’t see why teams should be punished for giving players a second chance. There are many cases of players turning their careers around, and this proposal would rather simplify things by lumping them all together. Teams take a big enough PR hit as it is. Taking draft picks is absurd. If it’s such a bad thing to be hopeful for a player to turn things around then maybe we should kick all convicts out right now. Should we just expect the worst from these men, and write them off? Teams won’t risk draft picks so no more redemption stories if this were to happen.

  45. I don’t see the problem.

    If you are dumb enough to spend ANY draft pick on a player with a sullied record, when that player continues his actions as a pro, the NFL should ban the player for a year on the first offense and then implement a career ban on the second. Teams that risk picks end up with nothing to show for their effort and will think twice before drafting horrible players. And then you cannot replace the player on your roster – your team shrinks instantly by one slot for each miscreant you bring on board.

    Of course this won’t solve the problem of signing undrafted players, but the same standards should be held – year and lifelong ban and a shrinking roster ceiling.

  46. Your right PFT cause we all know the Pats knew Hernadez would be an eventual murdered, and the Ravens knew Ray Rice would eventually beat women, and so on and so on. My sarcastic point is that hindsight is always 20/20 but there is no humanly possible way of knowing somebody without previous history of such would be a trouble maker. There simply is no way of knowing. Of course I’m only referring to the troubled players who had zero previous accusations or charges before being drafted not the known troublemakers.

  47. “Clear simple & fair”… Hence the issue
    NOTHING the league office under Goodells tenure has EVER been CLOSE to that formula…. I have never seen a hint of logic or reasoning behind ONE decision that REGIME has handed down….
    Would Tom Brady now be considered a problem player??
    To implement Goodell with any such ADDITIONAL DICTATOR type power would be INSANE!!!
    I ALSO believe the newly adopted policy of putting a guy in the booth with the power to have players pulled should HE deem fit is one of the most corrupt/ Vegas odds leveling/ WWF/potential game altering miss steps I’ve seen to date….At this time, seeing how the LEAGUE & MEDIA have INJUSTLY worked together to CREATE the FARCE known as deflategate it’s “MORE PROBALE THAN NOT” that GAMES OUTCOMES will be DIRECTLY effected by people NOT qualified to make the decisions FAIR & ACCURATE….
    Forget that I’m a Patriots fan… That has NOTHING to do with this… I’m speaking to ALL as a FAN OF FOOTBALL!!! USE your BRAINS PEOPLE!!!!

  48. Why should owners/teams be punished for taking a chance on a problem player?

    Let the free market handle it – if you are talented and act like an ass – you will earn less money as people are scared off of paying you full value.

    They already lose a draft pick, the money invested, and the roster spot that could have gone to another player that may have turned out to be NFL quality.

    Also – which moral majority decides who a bad player is?
    Which crimes are “bad” crimes that make a player a problem player?

    If they are rebellious, with team violations, that can be a sign of immaturity that can be corrected.

  49. In the sports universe that Mike Florio is advocating for, Josh Hamilton never would have been given another shot by the Cincinnati Reds, and would never have become an All-Star who wowed us all with that crazy good Home Run Derby in Yankee Stadium.

    I don’t want to live in that sports universe.

    What’s the big deal about players getting in trouble anyways? This is the real world…people make mistakes. But this is also America, and people should be granted opportunities. The benefits we derive from the formerly troubled players who clean up their act exceed the downside from players who then get into trouble again. Why take talent out of the game while stamping a scarlet letter on the chests of players forevermore?

  50. Will the team lose draft picks if the player doesn’t have a checkered past but gets in trouble after he’s drafted? At what point does the team lose the draft pick? after accusation? after arrest? after conviction? If the player meets the terms of the pre-trail program and charges are dropped (a la Ray Rice), does the team still lose draft picks? If they hire a player with a checkered past who turns his life around while with the team, will the team be rewarded an additional draft pick?

  51. If you feel there is a need for a penalty for teams taking chances on these players, then it seems the players should be out of the league after the 1st incident.

    But isn’t “the shield” is red – white and blue and we are living in the USA and Irsay is still the colts owner.

    So NO there shouldn’t be a league imposed downside, the downside is that the player may blow up and become an embarrassment to the team. just like any company hiring an ex-con or someone who had drug/alcohol issues or should all those people not be permitted to work in their chosen field either

    The upside is a la Michael Vick He served his penalty ( like it or not > once the penalty is served for a crime – a person has paid the price and is even with society ) and he came back and was successful successful for a few years.

    The NFL has too much arbitrary power to start with, and it didnt start with Goodel > they are a business, not a ruling country.

    Why does the league have the ability to suspend, fine or ban players who do not work for them, aren’t the players employees of the signing team ?

    Shouldn’t the League be in the position to address the team for violations but the team the only one who can address their employee ?

    Like in the real world

    The NFL is a mirror of society sorry to tell you but society as a whole has a bad sector to it, ever watch the evening news

  52. There is already dowside for the team. If the league does their job, when a player is suspended the team loses the ability for that player to help the team win.

    The lopsided punishment of players is the real problem. If a player isn’t suspended and is eligible to play why should a team be punished if the player screws up?

    Also, if this causes teams to shy away from kids coming out of college it’s ruining opportunities for kids that could now be on the straight and narrow trying to do good things with their lives!

    Punish the players correctly and don’t make things worse on everyone else.

  53. Let’s see punish a team for trying to win, when the job of the GM, coaches, etc is on the line ? Yes, that seems fair. There’s two sides to this, we want our teams to win, but only if they can do it with choir boys..yet, a GM and coaches are fired if that can’t win because they couldn’t get enough talent. There taking chances on these type of guys because, they know their jobs could be on the line.

  54. This is insane. So, the Cowboys or whoever loses a draft pick because Johnny Jackass gets in trouble. Then, on the flip side, Jimmy Collegeboy doesn’t get drafted by the Cowboys.

    How about doing this thing the good ole fashioned way;

    Johnny Jackass, who gets in trouble, gets put on the suspended list. If convicted, then he is fired. If fired, then he can be resigned by another employer. Well, since NFL is only a 32 team league, then make it something as simple as a salary cap for any player who had been suspended:

    So, Johnny Jackass who earns $27.4 million over 4 years gets in trouble for slapping his 125lb girlfriend…then he gets suspended. Goes to court. Is guilty. Gets fired. No paycheck anymore. After he FINISHES his legal matters…he can be hired. First employer gets first crack. If they want him, then they sign him to Option 1, 2, or 3 contract. None of those contract options are higher than the lowest paid player who hasnt gotten in trouble. Contracts are 2 years. After 2 years without incident, then they can be signed for whatever a club wants to pay.

  55. The NFL is littered with immature players who actually change after early problems, and you’re proposing penalizing a team for giving these players a 2nd (or 3rd) chance? Chris Carter, Jared Allen, Pacman Jones and MANY others would have flamed-out before finding their success. Dumb, dumb idea.

    There will always be immature 21 & 22 yr. old athletes making mistakes, but to blackball them from the league by potential team penalties is beyond ridiculous.

  56. Makes no sense to me. Teams damage their individual brand when they associate themselves with these players. Not to mention, some people do turn themselves around – see PacMan Jones in Cincy for example. Had teams been under penalty after his second or third mess up, he’d have been out of the league.

    Maybe we should just content ourselves with the punishment the folks get (after ensuring it’s appropriate…) instead of wanting to punish them forever – which is what you are doing when you put a penalty on the team for bringing them in… You are killing the market for their services. It’s not the American way… not defending the player in anyway, but I wouldn’t want to be blacklisted like this if I made a mistake at my job. Think about it –

  57. The NFL needs to let the players play, the coaches coach and the best team win.

    If any of us commit a felony the legal system should handle it. No different for an NFL player.

    If our employer wants to fire us they can fire us. Teams can cut guys. The problem is they want to cut some guys but screw others by suspending them while still controlling them contractually. Why? Because they believe either the player is an asset they own and has value or they don’t want to look foolish when the player does well for another team.

    Get rid of the commissioner.

    Players should either be on the roster or get cut. None of this holding them in purgatory.

  58. it is the players responsibility to not get in trouble. its not the NFL teams job to keep them out of trouble.

    If a college kid gets in trouble, they lose their scholarship. If a welder gets in trouble, they lose their job. If a truck driver gets a DUI, they lose their license. If a football player gets in trouble, he gets to pick the team he wants to go to.

  59. I am struggling to understand who you are trying to protect or the motivation for this policy. This type of policy only benefits the league from a PR prospective.

    Seriously, do you think it is more or less likely that a player commits these types of crimes if they are playing football (and more importantly getting paid)? Sure there will be the Aaron Hernandez but I imagine the majority of players will clean up their act when the incentives are as large as they are in the NFL.

    Given that many players come from a rough background, it would be all too easy to pass on players who would otherwise have had the opportunity to make a better life for themselves. Again, who benefits?

  60. How about making “troubled” players count double (or more) on the salary cap. For instance if someone signs such a player for $2,000,000 a season he actually counts against the cap for $4,000,000. In this way the player responsible for the problems is punished and the team has an immediate downside that would make them use caution.

    If you read the news, liberal politicians do not want employers to be able to ask about criminal past of employees, especially if it isn’t pertinent to job duties. Is the NFL exempt from such employment restrictions?

    As others have said, is an accusation enough to result in consequences? That certainly gives an enormous amount of power to wives and girl friends. Not all will use it properly.

  61. I’m not sure how to feel about this issue ….

    do players deserve another chance? if so how many?

    what determines the level of offense that would trigger a player having this type of designation attached to his signing?

    is the ball club responsible for the player screwing up again?

    confusing at best ….

  62. Making employers responsible for criminal convictions of their employees is just an extension of the disgusting nanny state the US has turned in to.

    Don’t agree with this at all.

  63. That could backfire on the NFL really quickly. Negative reinforcement has never in history been a deterrent of bad behavior. If that was the case then prisons would be almost empty. The only way for the NFL to stop the insurgence of players like this they would need to have a system that prevents the player from entering into the NFL. In the next CBA there should be an ethics clause forcing the NFLPA to expel players from their Union that are found guilty of felony offences and prevent college players from entering into the NFL that already do not meet the ethical qualities that the NFL desires. This is a fundamental right of any organization to ensure that all their employees (payroll and contracted) represent the image the organization is attempting to project.

  64. I don’t think that is fair to pin the owners and teams for deciding if players should not receive second and third chances, if the league (i.e. Roger Goodell) is not inclined to ban said players from the league in the first place. If your established conduct policy, and league rulings do not justify levying a permanent ban on a player from being signed, then any team should have the right to decide whether they are willing to take a chance on the player.

  65. There is the huge PR hit teams take today (Internet lynch mob). Pair that with the fact that the team wasted a lot of money and/or a draft pick to not have the player on the field and to only cause a distraction. That is punishment enough. Teams are already taking a ton of risk. Leave it alone. There are many quality players and men in this league who wouldn’t be here if this became policy because they did something stupid in their youth. Second chances would be a rarity and that my friend is un-American.

  66. Yea, the NFLPA won’t have any problem with that…

    Imagine failing a drug test in the corporate world and then the next company that interviews you has to pay a penalty if they were to hire you and you failed again. Would that be legal? Exactly.

  67. I’m calling BS on this. The only person that will then be hurt is the player. What, they don’t deserve second chances? Our very society is built on second chances. This whole off season has been about placing a much higher standard on football players than on regular society. And I, for one, am sick of it.

  68. You people need to stop the preachy moralizing, constantly seeking to penalize people or teams that don’t act according to your personal expectations.

    Teams are punished by salary cap penalties, plus having roster holes they have to fill, frequently at times when the replacement market is weak, when they have to unexpectedly cut a player.

    Players who have allegations against them that turn out to be false in effect have lifetime consequences in damaged or lost careers and salary, assuming they can even get a team to overlook the fact the allegations are false. Creating further penalties will make it even harder on players. I have no doubt that you would soon start railing about the unfairness to such players in such cases.

    Some players have benefited enormously from the second chances they have been given. IMO the goal is not to crush players as people, it’s to allow measured and thoughtful determinations about when second chances are worth it.

    Besides, who is to decide when a penalty is deserved – you?

  69. Owners like Jerry Jones, a guy willing to toss his crippled Grandmother down a flight of stairs to win need to be held accountable. Losing draft picks is an excellent idea and might have deranged hypocritical owners like Jones thinking twice. If the bag guy has 15 sacks he gets the second chance and if the same guy is a practice squad player he gets cut. I’m sick of the BS.

  70. Yeah, but I bet the football was inflated to 12.5 psi in the games in which he was suspended. Oh, wait, he didn’t get suspended……………..

  71. Some of the arguments here are ridicules. Players need to be held accountable for bad behavior and anything less is called enabling. They can have all the second chances America affords it citizens but the honor of playing in the NFL isn’t one of them.

  72. Here’s an idea. If a player runs afoul of domestic violence laws (or anything else the league deems egregious-enough behavior) and is charged with a crime by police, take away a future pick in the same round as which the player in question was drafted.

    Example: my Seahawks drafted Frank Clark in the 2nd round. He was charged by police with assaulting a woman in college. If next month he does something similarly stupid, and once again gets charged by police, the Hawks lose a 2nd-round pick in May 2016. If that 2nd rd pick had already been traded away, they lose it in May 2017. Having the case subsequently settled would not bring back the lost draft pick.

    I go back and forth on whether being charged is enough to trigger a penalty, or whether being convicted is needed. I still say being charged ought to be enough. If you go with a standard of convicted, then a team can let the slow wheels of justice enable it to defer the penalty for an extremely long time. That standard would also give an NFL team a huge incentive to play a role in getting the victim to retract her allegation and/or refuse to testify. It does mean that the league would be holding its players to a higher standard than the courts do, but since all the league cares about is the optics of its brand anyway, it gives them a chance to say that they are taking this issue seriously.

    My guess, college players with checkered histories will fall further down the draft order. Other college players will see this and realize that DV will eliminate their chances of the immediate windfall that comes with a high pick.

  73. Although this sound a bit ridiculous, something needs to be done. We’re not talking about a second chance, we’re talking about repeat offenders.

  74. People deserve second chances. What they decide to do with them us up to them. To create penalties for teams that provide these opportunities is ridiculous because it has the potential to ruin it for people that are actually serious about making changes in their lives.

  75. Teams cannot control players outside of team activities to a point. How about they focus on the players instead since they’re the ones actually doing the bad deeds.

    No one has a right to play any professional sport, regardless of the talent level they may have. You can hold clubs accountable but, the player should be held more accountable than the team.

    The players union will fight any measure broached by the league. However, at some point the players, collectively, need to do something to drive home the point that they all suffer from bad deeds of their fellow members.

    It’s time the players union do something about this because no matter what the owners may put forth, the union will always fight it.

  76. Stop enabling problem kids. It starts at high school and they keep getting away with it their whole lives.
    Figures McDonald was a Gator. Urban Meyer didn’t care what they did.

  77. this is what happens when you try to re-invent the wheel…..sometimes you throw a stick into the spokes…

  78. You are basically asking them to do something that you and the union will scream about when they actually do it. You know darn well somebody will categorize that as a form of collusion.

    The easiest way to handle this is to establish guidelines for eligibility to play in the league. It would be similar to guidelines in other industries (can’t work in a bank if convicted for theft, can’t work in a sensitive government position if a security clearance is denied due to past behavior, etc.) Identify certain behavior that automatically triggers ineligibility, regardless of circumstances, and a review board to make the final decision after the legal scenario plays out. They have basically started a similar process with the exempt list but it is vague and dependent upon subjective decisions to even use it. People will complain that it is unfair but there is no other way to deal with these things objectively. If it is a privilege to play in the league and make a ton of money, then treat it that way. After enough blockheads are dealt with, the rest will get the message and either comply or get rolled up in the program.

    A few suggestions for the targeted behavior would be any felony, any violence against women/children, DUI, etc. The PED and cheating kinda stuff would remain as is.

  79. This is an awful idea. And so is cutting a guy before he’s been through the legal process. Guilty until proven innocent is no way to run a league. The commissioner needs to go.

  80. the way to stop repeat offenders is you give them 2 chances then they are done with the league. the Bears handled it perfectly, he got no bonus for signing with the club and he was gone the min. he got arrested no waiting for a drawn out legal process. he was told what was expected and what would happen if he got in trouble and when he did he was gone end of story. as a fan it’s like he was never on the team and he still seen as an ex-49er. he never made it to training camp let alone played a down for the bears.

  81. Just to add another dimension to this…

    How would this solution of yours work for people like Darren Sharper?

  82. Well then, why not just go the next step further and keep certain players with a record of bad behavior from even getting into the league at all? Basically the league office would vet all the draft prospects before the draft and create a blacklist of guys that no team would take. So guys like Frank Clark and Doriel Beckham Green would not have even been in play this past draft.

    Ridiculous I know, and yet if you want to stop the problem at the source that’s where you would have to take it.

  83. Well then, why not just go the next step further and keep certain players with a record of bad behavior from even getting into the league at all? Basically the league office would vet all the draft prospects before the draft and create a blacklist of guys that no team could take. So guys like Frank Clark and Doriel Beckham Green would not have even been in play this past draft.

    Ridiculous I know, and yet if you want to stop the problem at the source that’s where you would have to take it.

  84. The punishment to the Bears will be, 4 more years of Jay Cutler, and another year of Jared Allen. The Bears are such a pathetic franchise.

  85. There should be zero discipline for off-field behavior. If they’re not in jail, put them on the field. Let the courts water down the talent, the NFL shouldn’t do it to itself.

  86. ” I think colleges need to do a better job with football players before they leave…”

    Ha! You’re funny.

  87. Based on the feedback I think the consensus that if a player is eligible then a team should be able to hire him without threat of penalty if they mess up.

    So that brings it back to the league… if you don’t want trouble makers to in the league then maybe just say the league no longer allows players that have been found guilty of felonies.

    If a player is found guilty prior to joining the NFL, then he’s not eligible and if he is found guilty at any time during his career he is immediately released with no rights to future salary.

  88. I think the posters are missing the point here. Teams are not penalized for drafting a problem child, they are penalized when players on their team cause problems. And Yes if a player has shown in college to be a malcontent player, the team must, and already does, take that into consideration knowing that by taking this player in the draft you are raising the risk for your team. But unless a player acts up while in the NFL, the team is not penalized.

    Also the same can be said of signing a player in free agency and personally why should players continuously get chances. We wouldn’t in our jobs so why is Joe Athlete so much more important?

    As far as I am concerned, it is about time players understand the consequences of their actions and teams start to feel them as well.

  89. “We’re not talking about a second chance, we’re talking about repeat offenders.”

    Actually, and although you may not be referring exclusively to McDonald, we may not be. For example, McDonald has never been convicted of anything as far as I know. The first set of allegations never led to charges being filed and he’s suing the second accuser for falsely charging him.

    Not defending his decision making, or saying a team has to overlook a pattern of conduct if the team doesn’t want to take the risk about the player not getting the conduct message, but he’s not a repeat offender at the moment.

  90. I believe Ben Roethlisberger has just as many accusations of sexual assault against him as Ray McDonald does.
    Should the Steelers lose draft picks for giving him a fat new contract if he gets into hot water again?
    Even if he is not convicted?
    Should any team that trades for Adrian Peterson lose picks if he beats the hell out of another one of his kids or even gets into a scuffle in a club?

    This is a dumb idea and the Bears did just what they needed to do with Ray McDonald even if the charges turn out to be not true. They dumped Cedric Benson when he acted like a fool and embarrassed the team.
    They just did the same to Brandon Marshall when he became no longer worth the drama and after they did everything they could to help him out with his problems.
    Cut yourself out of the drama, nonsense and bad P.R. like any other business would do.

  91. This guy sits around getting a hard one every time he can think of some moral imperative he can try to force on the NFL to prove his superiority.

  92. I got it!

    The NFL should provide each team with a crystal ball to see what every player in the future is going to do or if they are going to even be charged with a crime after being arrested.

    Problem solved……well, it worked in the Minority Report movie.

  93. Explain why there needs to be a change? The self righteousness of some people are sick. I hope your closet is free of skeletons because if someone finds something about you one day, you will be blasted by media & fans.

  94. “I believe Ben Roethlisberger has just as many accusations of sexual assault against him as Ray McDonald does.
    Should the Steelers lose draft picks for giving him a fat new contract if he gets into hot water again?
    Even if he is not convicted?
    Should any team that trades for Adrian Peterson lose picks if he beats the hell out of another one of his kids or even gets into a scuffle in a club?”

    The fact is BR was never arrested and still got 6 games (knocked down to 4). McDonald HAS been arrested multiple times. It’s this ineptness by you and the NFL to be able to take notice of the differences (Ray Rice originally suspended 2 games really?) that makes this a very bad idea. I also don’t think one Commish should be the person that hands out punishment. He has already shown his bias and inability.

  95. “gator2006 says:
    May 26, 2015 6:50 AM
    Ok, if a team earns a bonus pick for a successful rehab.”

    I get where you are going with this.

    But can you imagine what this will do to the cover-up machine in New England? It will go from a couple of lawyers to a full-blown department to land those extra picks.

  96. Everything is risk vs. reward with teams.

    If you want a GM and Owner looking harder at how they sign players, then place a 5 million dollar cap hit on every team that has a player arrested and charged with a felony. 3 million for domestic abuse cases, 2 million for PED violations, and 1 million for drug charges.

    If you want to send a bigger message more than 5 felony convictions over a 5 years period on any team leads to a team forfeiting a first round draft pick.

    It solves the problem of having the NFLPA having to sign off on the policy and makes enforcement even handed.

  97. It’s time the players took responsibility for the players. The NFLPA needs to be a voice in change too. Not just legal advocates for them when they get in trouble.

  98. Or we could actually come up with a solution that accomplishes the goal of resolving this as a problem in society, not a problem for the NFL’s “image”.

    Step 1: The US needs to adjust its legal system so that any battery charge leads to a minimum of 7 days in jail, with a much higher maximum. Not just man vs. woman, any charged party must serve 7 days at minimum, with no negotiating a decrease in this sentence.

    Step 2: Building on Step 1, we need to make sure these cases are investigated as soon as humanly possible. This will lead into Step 3, but both the victim and the accused should be medically checked out and interviewed as quick as possible so that police can determine what happened exactly, without evidence being compromised.

    Step 3: The NFL needs to form a Player Support & Investigation Unit that assists its players with everything off the field. Not just negative issues and crimes, but they also provide financial support and planning information, and access to necessary medical avenues once their career is over. This group will also determine necessary punishments against players.

    Ruining careers one by one is not going to fix this problem. We need players to learn the consequences of their actions and that support is out there to help them grow. The NFL needs to inform its players and the legal system needs to protect its people.

  99. Before the NFL tries to come up with a deterrent to signing problem players it needs to focus on how it punishes those problem players; right now the handing out of suspensions and fines is basically throwing darts at a board with random numbers of games and fine amounts on it.

  100. There are so many things about this one could respond to this one.

    The one that sticks out to me is you’re suggesting punishing teams for not foreseeing the future.

    “You took a flyer on a guy.. and it didn’t turn out… so now you’re being punished.”

    How are you going to accomplish this?

    Are you going to ‘tag’ potential bad eggs before the draft? ACLU lawyers will have a field day with that one.

    Are you going to have an all encompassing rule? “Any team that has a player that does ‘morally bad’ behavior, will loose the next available 1st round draft pick.” How are you going to determine what is morally bad? You going to have a “Morality Review Board” that decides? (sarcasm on) Yeah, that’ll go well. (sarcasm off)

    I just don’t see how what you’re asking for is going to work.

    Eventually, no matter how talented, bad apples wear out their welcome.

  101. As far as the NFL is concerned “integrity of the game” should be their main concern. They have a responsibility to punish the domestic violence cases and the drunk drivings and the marijuana cases. They do not have a requirement to make a statement by their punishments when it comes to these things. Set a policy and make the parameters flexible enough to “fit the crime’ and offer rehab. Now when it comes to the integrity of the game the NFL must make a statement by their punishment to protect the game itself. Are they doing that now? No not really they are messing a whole lot of things up. No need to mess it up further.

  102. Just what we need, more bureaucratic overhead to “solve” a non-problem that would just make it harder for players to improve their lives and teams to give them a chance to do so.

    Can’t see how this would help the league or society. Seems akin to the “three strikes and you’re out” laws that send minor offenders to jail for life sentences. No one wins.

    Leave it be.

  103. So, what sort of punishment is given out to owners and executives (Haslam, Irsay)?

  104. Cowboys Bashers Beware:

    Almost 15 percent (14.72) of Jerry Jones’ draft picks have been Pro Bowlers (34 players, 14 more than anybody else currently making draft decisions). Among his non-first-round picks who have paid off are RB DeMarco Murray and TE Jason Witten, a third-rounder who has been to 10 Pro Bowls.

  105. What about doing due diligence ? Good screening before hand. GM Ireland got in hot water for an odd question asked to Dez Bryant. When what he really did was repeat the statement Dez had offered up to get Dez to elaborate.

    While Dez is certainly a good player he is also a head case. And buy doing early screening these types can be weeded out. Or at least have a heads up to provide baby sitting.

  106. Why is is ALWAYS on the NFL to do “something”?

    WHY is it NEVER incumbent on the PLAYERS to not get themselves into trouble?

    The NFL should do NOTHING, they are an employer, not a babysitter for immature idiots who just “have” to have that weed, etc.

  107. How would you identify these players? For example, how would you identify Lael Collins, who was not convicted yet of any offense? How do you determine
    where he would have been picked without the ????? on his resume?

  108. NFL is just handing off all the responsibility to the teams.
    Instead the NFL should be a ZERO TOLERANCE business. If you’re dumb enough to get yourself in trouble when you have a million dollar job. You should be DONE!!!
    If you feel that is unrealistic.. I work for a major company and if we get ourselves into trouble or even caught lying. It reflects as lack integrity and released. It is a low 6 figure job. but I keep my nose clean knowing my actions can lose me a good job.
    Protect the shield???

  109. I don’t agree with taking away draft picks. People need to remember that these are grown men who are responsible for their own actions, good/or bad, and it is not the responsibility of the Teams to play babysitter.

    If the NFL has a problem with players who seem prone to making bad personal, then the NFL should either ban them from the league coming out of college, or if they’re new or current players (and assuming this is mainly in regards to domestic violence), have their contracts limited to a 1 year incentive-only based contract for a period of 3 years not to exceed 5 million. If they mess up anytime during or after that period, they’re banned for life.

    Best that I could think of on the spot…

  110. mikermiker says:
    May 26, 2015 7:20 AM
    But yet with Brady’s inevitable reduced suspension, there is no downside to stonewalling and covering up the (second) biggest cheating scandal in the history of the NFL? First was obviously Spygate

    You are quite the student of NFL history. Please take a moment to elaborate on why Spygate was the biggest cheating scandal in NFL history. Feel free to reference events prior to 2007.

  111. These idiot players should have been taught by their:
    1) PARENTS – clearly they didn’t listen
    2) Family – clearly they didn’t listen
    3) School – clearly they didn’t listen
    4) Coaches – clearly they didn’t listen

    5) idiot weed smoking “friends – they LISTEN to these fools

    Tell me again about second chances. These idiots had EVERY chance to get their stuff straight and they CHOSE to not listen to responsible people. These idiot kids already used up at least 4 chances, they DO NOT deserve any more chances.

    The bottom line should be if a kid does illegal drugs, gets arrested, puts himself in a compromising situation due to whom he CHOOSES to hang out with, then he is ineligible for the NFL draft.

    Think about it. This idiot kid played for a school for a free education, got himself into trouble even though the school tried to guide him to stay out of trouble. The kid negatively affects the schools brand and apparently has no problem with it since he thinks it gives him “street cred”.
    If he is drafted by an NFL team, do you think this idiot will give a second thought about how his behavior will affect his team or the NFL? No he won’t care at all.

    No second chances, smarter life decisions make for a better life.
    Stupid life decisions SHOULD result in a sucky life. This way MAYBE other people will learn to make smarter life decisions.

  112. If the owners could help themselves, this would not even be an issue. I mean really look at baseball, Barry Bonds in his last season had a OPS (On base and Slugging percentage combined) of over 1000…but yet after the season ended nobody picked him up, you can’t tell me he couldn’t of helped a team. But the perception/reality of the situation was he was a cheater, malcontent, not worth the media (1000? – I would say he was worth it), …but the reality is that more than likely the owners made a pact to get this guy out of the league. Same could happen in the NFL on repeat offenders…there is no need to allow guys to continuously tarnish the shield and that includes Goodell, Vincent, NFLPA, …along with the players.

  113. Tell me, if there was a rule like this in place, what would happen if I called the local PD and said that I was just involved in a hit and run and I believe the person who hit me was a drunk Marshawn Lynch? Lynch has had previous DUI’s and hit and runs. Now keep in mind that I would be totally fabricating this story. Does the claim ( i.e. where the previous two issues facing McDonald died for lack of evidence ) result in Marshawn Lynch getting suspended and the Seahawks losing draft picks? This idea would be beyond stupid and lead to a much higher case of false reports from psycho fans once they realize they can control the future of any player and team with a claim, false or otherwise.

  114. The threat of losing a draft pick is not the ONLY way!

    In extreme cases, the forfeiture of a game (recorded as a loss) would be much more of a major deterrent. So would banning ticket sales to a home game and forcing the team to play a scheduled game in an empty stadium.

    IF teams (and the league) are really interested in having only high-character players on the roster. Which they are not. The whole situation is an example of the typical NFL way: Mealy mouths, forked tongues and broken moral compasses. Bad decisions, heavy spin, and abject apologies, until the next opportunity arises to sign a player who would be far more at home pumping iron in a prison exercise yard. Guess what folks – it ain’t gonna change!

    I’m surprised the Bears didn’t go with the old Adrian Peterson defense and say “He was only trying to discipline her.”

    If it took any of us this long to learn, at our own jobs, we’d be on the street begging for quarters!

  115. The more the NFL tries to regulate this, the worse it makes the problem. It may be the NFL has to give up trying to regulate this and simply let teams sign players and have to deal with off-field problems themselves.

  116. The fact that a team has to deal with the misguided public embarrassment of said players ordeal, not to mention losing the talent cash isn’t punishment enough? If anything they should have tightened the rules that if convicted of certain crimes the player never plays again. I certainly agree with that in regards to beating a women or child.

    However what this article is suggesting is just plain silly. Teams do pay and you want a harsher penalty?! Punish the players not the teams.

  117. Typical statist mentality — always trying to impose a heavy-handed one-size-fits-all rule to legislate (their version of) morality and protect people from themselves

    (and as soon as I saw the title, I KNEW who the author would be!)

    People ought to eat green veggies, too – does that mean we need a universal law to enforce it?

    This horrible and confused idea also fails to distinguish:
    1. “problem players” in the draft, or
    2. “problem players” released by one team, being picked up by another, or
    3. “problem players” who have only BECOME problems on the teams who drafted them, or
    4. “problem players” who turn their lives around and never have another issue again
    5. What the actual standard is for someone to be a “problem player” – (media) perception or (legal) reality?

    I can also think of two HOFers off the top of my head (Chris Carter & Michael Irvin) who would’ve never made it in the NFL if this were being enforced…how many more players would lose the opportunity they need (and in many cases deserve?)

    This is a dumb idea in every way imaginable. Self-righteous, reactionary, sweeping knee-jerk changes – it’s the same mindset that brings about the worst possible laws and policies in our country (see post-9/11 ridiculousness of all sorts).

    It amounts to slamming the barn doors closed and forever locking in all the animals AFTER only one or two cows have escaped.

  118. The threat of losing future draft picks will basically eliminate the chance of any college player who has one arrest/conviction from ever proving that he may have actually turned his life around and thus, be worthy of playing in the NFL.

  119. Threats of losing a draft pick is too harsh. While NFL players have done horrible things, its impossible for teams to predict the future. Some guys have had one issue and then gotten their life straightened out. Other guys just have one issue after another and never figure it out. But players should not be blackballed by the league because they screwed up once and now teams are scared to take them because they might lose draft picks. For the most part the PR issues from signing a troubled player already limits them to just a few teams. Look at Greg Hardy and Ray Rice, talented players over their careers, but with few (or no) teams that want to deal with the PR issues from signing them.

    The only thing I think you could fairly change is that if a team signs a player who has a violation of the NFL conduct policy on their record and the player is released due to another violation of the conduct policy, then the players salary and bonus continues to count against the cap for the remainder of the players deal.

  120. Last season, I remember the 49ers took criticism from nearly all angles when they said they were not releasing Ray McDonald after his first offense but instead were going to wait and allow Due Process. He was later cleared of those matters, I believe that was Harbaugh standing up to the FO at that time. Then after Harbaugh had lost all say and McDonald was charged again, he was cut and once again all angles hit them but now it was what a bunch of hypocrites to cut him and not wait. My point is that everyone believes players are victim of false reports, everyone believes players should have multiple chances but when things happen the teams are held to an impossible standard.

    Personally I do not think an arrest, an accusation should be held against the player/team and/or get them cut, but a conviction, no-contest plead, parties agreed outside of court, or whatever the solution, outside of not guilty, should be considered a strike against the player/team.

  121. Real simple solution is to change entrance requirements for eligibility to be employed as a football player out of college by an NFL team. If the minimum entrance requirement was successful completion of a college diploma, many of the bad apples would be weeded out. The actual goal of achieving a college degree could have the affect of teenagers actually focusing on their studies to achieve something other than athletic elitism and exceptionalism. As an alternative to the acquisition al a college degree, you could require that players without a degree be a minimum of 25 years old prior to being eligible to sign a contract. Basically, put a professional in professional football.

  122. The NFL would be inviting controversy every offseason by tagging which incoming draft participants are on the “tainted list”.
    They really, Really don’t know how to avoid negative press.

  123. What crimes has he been convicted of, having a gun pulled on him, having a women claim rape, when in fact she is serial liar. Get real, what crime has he ever been convicted of…the closest you can come up with is a poor choice in friends.

  124. One way to make the owners/GMs more careful is to not give the salary of the players that get cut because of legal issues back. If the teams know they wont get the money back they may be more careful.

  125. It is ridiculous to say that NFL teams should be punished for signing players in a “second (or third, or fourth) chance” scenario.

    Ray Lewis was accused of murder and convicted of obstruction of justice. He turned his life around, became an inspiration and a leader, and had a HOF career.

    Brandon Marshall was involved in 27 incidents ranging from theft to assault between 2004 and 2012. He was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, got treatment, and is now not only well out of trouble but also is an activist for taking the stigma out of mental illness issues.

    Adam “Pacman” Jones has had a notorious history of run-ins with the law, domestic violence, and assorted assaults. Now the NFL has him speak to incoming rookies about how not to stray from the path.

    It is easy to forget all of the redemption stories because we are pre-programmed to recall negatives. But if Dallas doesn’t take a chance on Rolando McClain, does he turn his life around? If Seattle doesn’t give Bruce Irvin a chance, what happens to him?

    All penalizing the teams for taking chances on players accomplishes is ensuring that teams cover things up to protect talented players rather than allowing things to come to light and having players take responsibility for themselves.

  126. The players are punished enough after these suspensions because they know they have to go play for Oakland.

  127. clickablecontent says:
    May 26, 2015 3:26 PM
    How about creating and mandating programs to educate, council, and guide players through life changes instead?

    The NFL already has it in place. It is called college. But the NFL does not require its future multi-millionaires to even complete the schooling.

  128. mattisaname is RIGHT ON. The Bears have been punished sufficiently for this already. How could they OR ANYONE know if someone really has turned a new leaf. I would hate to see an environment where teams are reluctant to give young men a second chance.

  129. Florio’s plan is ridiculous but all of you conservative, anti-regulation, small government loving football fans do a 180 when it comes to your NFL team. Most of you want to implement more regulation and require more investigations.

    What a joke. Let’s let players play and coaches coach.

    The team has an option to cut a player if he doesn’t meet their culture or ethical requirements. If he doesn’t play (for something other than an injury) he doesn’t get paid.

    If a player commits a crime he faces the same criminal justice system we all do. Why does the NFL need an idiot like Goodell suspending and fining players for their conduct? Fine the team if anyone associated with it harms the NFL and let the team and player resolve it internally.

    Why isn’t that good enough?

    Guys could force their way out of town, you say? So what? Maybe everyone would be better off if lousy franchises couldn’t force players to stay with them.

    Let’s get football back and ship Goodell and his minions out.

  130. This seems kind of weird. If the NFL is going to punish teams for taking a chance on a high-risk player, shouldn’t the NFL be at least as culpable, if not moreso? Since the NFL apparently knows about problem players in advance, and does nothing about it, Roger Goodell should be punished.

  131. I am not defending the people who commit crimes, or are accused of them, but if you push the talent around enough, they will walk away.
    There are other sports out there that don’t force you to apologize for a tweet, and dont ban you for being accused of a crime. Heck, some sports let you do hard time and schedule you right back up for a next big pay day (ie boxing or ufc) when you get out.
    Talent will walk…

  132. And, when the union tells you it ain’t gonna happen… THEN WHAT? Next, define “problem player” and tell us where you draw the line, what “offenses” warrant the tag and which ones are exempt? All this amounts too is yet one more meaningless PR move by the league. They KNOW that this is NOT going to happen but they feed the fantasy so as to mollify the TV networks, sponsors and advocates.

  133. If I were to commit a felony, I’d lose my job and not be able to re apply for it….for 15 years! No reason nfl players can’t be treated the same.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.