Having grown up in Grenville, SC, there was really only 1 team that was close enough to call a local team, and that was the Falcons. I refused to pull for them, because I never liked them. When the Panthers were announced, I immediately became a fan. I went to the games in Clemson, and still have my ticket stub from the first victory over the Jets.
I will be a fan until the end, and even though I now live in another country, my allegiance remains strong. I watch every Sunday on the internet, and keep up to date mainly through the nice folks (??) here on The Huddle.
I joined The Huddle back when it first started after reading about it on the old Observer boards and on the old Panthers.com boards (what a mess that was). And I have never looked back. The Huddle was the best things to ever happen to a Panthers fan.
I really hate the faith put in Ron Rivera. People think he changed his philosophy or something which frankly isn't true. Someone just showed him some relative value chart of going for it on 4th, or going for TDs deep in opposing territories, etc. These things aren't daring or innovative; they're logical.
And even if he's changed on 3-4 plays a game, he's still letting shula call the most horseshit offense in the NFL for the rest of them.
I hope they implode this year and they bring in Gus Malzahn.
When the visiting team commits a false-start penalty or burns a timeout before the two-minute warning, ostensibly because of crowd noise, the fans attending New York Jets home games will receive "rewards" points that could lead to a seat in the owner's suite or a ticket on the team plane for future games.
The Jets are eliminating paper tickets -- each ticket holder will receive a wallet-sized smart card -- while rewarding fans for attending games, showing up on time and being loud.
They can accumulate points, much like a frequent-flyer program, and the points can be redeemed for fixed-value items or fan experiences such as participating in the pregame "J-E-T-S!" chant on the field. Those that rack up a lot of points can bid for a seat in Woody Johnson's box or Super Bowl tickets.
But if you already believe he's not guilty, aren't you predisposed to question her motives anyway?
I had no opinion before reading the quotes from today's trial, actually. I had my doubts about her story, but reserved my opinion until after I heard some of the testimony.
I formed my opinion based on the fact that her story changed, and her injuries did not seem consistent with her story. For example, if someone chokes you until you cannot speak until they let up, there would be bruises, or marks on you neck, not on your chest.
And what I have said has nothing to do with any predisposition. It has to do with direct quotes from her given under oath. She said it was never about the money. If that is true, then why sue? Why not just be happy with the verdict and get on with your life?
I hope I'm wrong, but from what I've seen coming up to this hearing and during it, this young man was completely railroaded.
And for what? This judge will likely see Holder in her court again for similar reasons.
And in the meantime, Greg's life is forever altered. His career is forever altered. He is now a felon and will be attached to domestic violence for the rest of his life. Saying he got off easy is bull. If the judge really thought he was guilty, the sentence would have reflected it. And that doesn't even take into account that he'll likely end up paying this nut job $1 million for her trouble.
You do not become a felon after being charged with misdemeanor assault.
Some of the same journalists that get ripped on this board for lousy sports reporting?
Pretty much expected that.
Lawsuit being filed doesn't really make anyone more or less credible. Neither does being the one getting sued.
My point is this, she stated that it was never about the money. But was heard saying that she wanted him to pay her rent. Yes that was from a tweet, but it was given in sworn testimony.
Immediately after the verdict, the first thing her lawyer says, is tat they are taking him to civil court. How does that not hurt her credibility?
If she had half a brain, she would not have made such a statement, nor would she start any civil proceedings until after the jury trial. Her lawyer would have to know he was going to appeal, and should have never made that statement. it makes her look like a gold digger, and I am sure will be brought up during the jury trial. At least it would if I were Hardy's lawyer.