Mitchell was legitimately good last year. I'd have loved for us to be able to keep him, but not at the price the Steelers offered.
Agree. Not sure why everyone thinks he was so overrated. Mitchell set the tone in the defensive backfield. There were a few games last season where WRs were intimidated by him. Huge asset to any secondary.
Domestic violence is a reoccurring issue in the NFL......and no, all the women don't look like a 6 yr old that tangled with The Incredible Hulk. So saying the chicks should look mangled if it "really" happened isn't worth getting into.
Also, the chick being sketchy doesn't mean you can disregard his guilty verdict as bogus
No that makes him guilty based on a single judge's verdict. That doesn't mean he actually committed the act, thus being guilty of what he was convicted.
I don't really care about her sketchy past, only her actions on the night of the offense. And domestic violence in the NFL should not factor in this case either. Based on what was presented, I can not agree that Greg Hardy is guilty of assaulting this woman.
And if you don't think she should have more than a few bruises on the chest and arms after being beaten by Greg Hardy, then not sure what else to say. No swelling, no scars. Even if he just slapped her, her face would be swollen for days - at least.
Guilty by a court of law is guilty. What other definition do you have? Or are you one of those conspiracy theorists who think that he was innocent and only found guilty because of some kind of bias because the judge was a woman?
For every innocent person who is found guilty, another 20 are guilty and are getting what they deserve. I think he wasn't given more of a penalty because she wasn't exactly totally innocent at all. She provoked him but he still showed poor judgement and overreacted.
How do you think the marijuana issue will play with the comissioner. Anyone think he gets drug tested regularly from now on.
Guilty means having committed an offense.
He's been found guilty by a judge, and that's a completely different thing. I am no conspiracy theorist, but I don't think he's guilty of the crimes he's been convicted. I do think there was a huge injustice based on what I've seen. And I don't think Holder provoking him would have any impact on the sentencing. Would it have mattered if he had killed her, or handicapped her, or permanently injured her in some way?
Anyone following this case, without a predetermined verdict, would find it difficult to believe Hardy was guilty. Rather he is or not, we don't know. But based on what we've been shown, he looks pretty vanilla. Not completely innocent. But surely he didn't attack this woman like she testified. Maybe he and his assistant were a little rough while detaining her, but they did not attack this woman with malice.
And yes I think Hardy should be regularly tested for the rest of his career.