Bring in Smoker!

[Skatt8011]

I already said in another forum I think the Bills should take him 2nd-3rd round and people laughed in my face saying he may not even be drafted.

Well now hes the #5 QB in the draft, so whats everyones opinion now?

[Tatonka]

i like smoker alot.. if they are confident that his off the field problem with alcohol is not an issue, then take him late..

he reminds me alot of rivers.

[Dozerdog]

Being in Boston and watching Vin Baker piss away a career- I say pass on Smoker. Way too many good QB's out there.


As a 3rd QB? Maybe.

[The Spaz]

Yeah lets bring in smoker who has had or may still have problems. Listen he had a hard enough time keeping it under control in college it will be even more temting to get back into it when he has **** loads of money coming in every week. Please no ****ing Jeff Smoker.

[gonzo1105]

My top 5 QB's in my opinion go as Big Ben, Manning, Rivers, Schaub, Losman

[Tatonka]

Originally posted by The Spaz
Yeah lets bring in smoker who has had or may still have problems. Listen he had a hard enough time keeping it under control in college it will be even more temting to get back into it when he has **** loads of money coming in every week. Please no ****ing Jeff Smoker.


he always played well.. he had one issue with drinking.. and it wasnt something that effected his game performance.. he came out during the offseason and stated that he felt he had a drinking problem and wanted to get it treated... then did.. it doesnt make him a bad person or unable to do a good job. my father was an alcoholic for many years.. while he was a police officer for 26 years.. he got help and is 8 years sober... it never made him a horrible father.. he never beat his kids or ignored us or let us down.. he just drank alot.

[Tatonka]

and i was talking about a guy like smoker late.. like van pelt.. either of those guys, to give them a shot in training camp, would be fine with me.. who is to say we cant get 2 qbs this draft.. for a team with a glaring need like us.. and with the probability of a qb being a bust.. hell get two of them and let them prove their worth.. and improve our odds of at least getting one decent player.

[Jeff1220]

:smoke:

[TigerJ]

I think the alcohol issue is one that teams will have to evaluate by sitting down and having a heart to heart with the guy, talking to his college coach etc. I believe that if a guy shows he knows he was in trouble, and is highly motivated to change, he can beat his past. I wouldn't mind if Buffalo was the team to take a chance on him after doing due diligence. Appart from off field issues, I think he might be the fourth best QB in the draft, after Rivers.

[Tatonka]

Originally posted by TigerJ
I think the alcohol issue is one that teams will have to evaluate by sitting down and having a heart to heart with the guy, talking to his college coach etc. I believe that if a guy shows he knows he was in trouble, and is highly motivated to change, he can beat his past. I wouldn't mind if Buffalo was the team to take a chance on him after doing due diligence. Appart from off field issues, I think he might be the fourth best QB in the draft, after Rivers.

he was kicked off the michigan state team, but was such a hard worker and made such an effort to prove to his teammates and coaches that he was past his issues and wanted to be part of the team, they let him back.. then once he was back, he won the starting job back very quickly.

[eyedog]

I like Smoker and would like to see him drafted in around the 5th rd if one of the other qb options does not work out. If they get a qb earlier I don't think they should waste a pick on another though. also stay away from Schaub, the guys a stiff.
Wasn't there a past Buffalo great qb who liked to pound'em ?

[Tatonka]

well, kelly was notorious for the powder in his nose..


not to say that he didnt drink alot too.

[eyedog]

If true, it didn't seem to bother his game any.

I know nothing, hear nothing, see nothing.........

[The Spaz]

Originally posted by Tatonka
well, kelly was notorious for the powder in his nose..


not to say that he didnt drink alot too.

The same stories were said about Marino but neither had to go to rehab.

[Tatonka]

Originally posted by The Spaz
The same stories were said about Marino but neither had to go to rehab.


so they worked it out on their own.. it makes smoker less of a person because he wanted to get helP?

[The Spaz]

Originally posted by Tatonka



so they worked it out on their own.. it makes smoker less of a person because he wanted to get helP?

I'm not saying that but he obviously had more of a problem then then Kelly and Marino supposedly had. The bottom line is I don't want a player who has alredy had serious problems with drugs and or alcohol. He may turn out to be a great person from now on but the risk is always there for him to fall off the wagon again.

[Tatonka]

but if the investment is low, i am willing to take that risk.

when kelly and others were playing around with drugs, it was not nearly as acceptable to go "get help"... they would have definately faced league suspension.. smoker did it at the right time, before it really could have ruined his life... maybe i have more faith that he can get past his issues, because i have seen people close to me do it.. but if the kid never had any problems he would be rated much higher due to his production and dreaded "potential".

[Tatonka]

if we are able to snag him in the 5th or 6th round.. who else are we going to get that could possible help as much?

[Bert102176]

if we can't get Eli or Ben then I want Rivers, no if's and's or but's.

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The Spaz

The bottom line is I don't want a player who has alredy had serious problems with drugs and or alcohol.

I really think you're going to have a hard time fielding a competitive team if you're staying away from people that have problems with drugs or alcohol.

IMO, fans and media really overplay the importance of off-the-field character when discussing individual players away from the game. Once the game starts, almost everyone cheers for Marino, Kelly, Romanowski, etc.

I don't pay to see these guys take care of their kids, I don't pay to see them be nice neighbours - I pay to see them play football. If they can do that (and Smoker has shown that he can do that IMO), then I could care less what they do away from the field. It's none of my business and I'd like to keep it that way.

[The Spaz]

I said already you still have a chance to avoid the problems.

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The Spaz
I said already you still have a chance to avoid the problems.

You can avoid it ... but I don't see the point. If he can play, which I think he can, then go for it. I don't think he belongs up there with the top 3 or 4 QB's cuz I don't think he's as good, but if it comes to the 3rd or 4th round, we haven't drafted a QB yet, and Smoker's our highest rated prospect, I think passing on him because of this issue would be a mistake.

Assemble the best talent on the field and we'll have the best chance of winning. If we limit ourselves from certain players because of their character, we've already shortened the field of available players, giving an immediate advantage to other front offices. It's a similar situation to only drafting players from Div. 1. Yes, if everything else is equal, it could be a good tie-breaker, but if you automatically remove someone from consideration, you're putting your team in a bad position right off the bat.

[The Spaz]

I'm sorry if I want good players an dgood people something must be wron with me. It may be hard to nowadays but I still want it like that and I won't change my mind.

[Dozerdog]

Smoker as a day 2 pick, or the second of 2 QBs selected, would be cool in my book! :up:

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The Spaz
I'm sorry if I want good players an dgood people something must be wron with me. It may be hard to nowadays but I still want it like that and I won't change my mind.

This isn't meant as an attack the poster comment, it's meant against your post.

I do think that something is entirely wrong with your point of view that you want good players <i>and</i> good people on the team.

The sole criteria for getting a job should be whether or not you can do the job better than anyone else. People on these boards have often complained when others get rewarded at work due to politics or other criteria unrelated to their performance, and what you are suggesting is no different at all from rewarding someone for something unrelated to performance.
I'm not implying that things like showing up on times for meetings, his ability to get along with coaches, etc. should not be considered - those relate to his ability to the job. However, to blanket someone as unworthy of being on this team because of something unrelated to his ability as a football player is incredibly wrong.

I don't expect my boss to reward me because I volunteer at a high school on the weekend, and I don't expect that to be a bonus in my consideration when I apply for a promotion or another job ... at the same time, I would not expect it to be detrimental to my relationship with my boss if I had a gambling problem away from work, nor would I expect it to be a problem in my next application. I know that, unfortunately, many people feel the same way as Spaz, so maybe "expect" is not the right word to use ... maybe "hope" would be better.

[The_Philster]

Problem with that is that Pro Football players are public figures and, like it or not, role models. Having troublemakers and convicts on the team may be fine in Oakland or Miami but not in Buffalo. The Bills have a history of shying away from low-character people for the most part. Public opinion of John Butler when he actually suggested going after Lawrence Phillips was so low that I was surprised I didn't see requests for public lynchings in the paper.

[The Natrix]

Smoker's off the field problems don't concern me. What concerns me is he stinks

I'll be happy with Manning, Roethlisberger, Rivers, and to a lesser degree Losman or Henson.

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The_Philster
Problem with that is that Pro Football players are public figures and, like it or not, role models. Having troublemakers and convicts on the team may be fine in Oakland or Miami but not in Buffalo. The Bills have a history of shying away from low-character people for the most part. Public opinion of John Butler when he actually suggested going after Lawrence Phillips was so low that I was surprised I didn't see requests for public lynchings in the paper.

It was wrong when most fans cheered RJ getting injured and it is wrong when fans care about player's off-field issues.

Popularity does not change the correctness of a decision.

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by HenryRules
It was wrong when most fans cheered RJ getting injured and it is wrong when fans care about player's off-field issues.

Popularity does not change the correctness of a decision.
2 completely separate issues
One deals with rooting against your own team just because you don't like the player that's in
The other deals with allowing miscreants represent your team and into your community :cynic:
No wonder the world is going to hell in a handbasket when people think that troublemakers should be allowed to become role models. :shakeno:

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The_Philster

2 completely separate issues
One deals with rooting against your own team just because you don't like the player that's in
The other deals with allowing miscreants represent your team and into your community :cynic:
No wonder the world is going to hell in a handbasket when people think that troublemakers should be allowed to become role models. :shakeno:

When did I say they should be allowed to become role models?

I think the only people who think athletes are role models are either in the media, have never been around kids, and are over the age of 40. Young athletes may model themselves after a style of play, but there's a lot more places that young people look for guidance in life than athletes. If athletes were role models, then why is it that the percentage of people completing university is actually increasing, while at the same time, the percentage of athletes completing their degrees is plummetting? The "role model" thing is something that is completely blown out of proportion and ridiculous.

Now, onto saying that the problem with people cheering for RJ getting injured was just "rooting against your own team". I don't know how to state this without attacking the poster ... you're sick and just as bad as the people that cheered. You are implying that cheering for an opposing player getting injured (a la Michael Irvin) would be acceptable. That's disgusting. You're basically implying that it's acceptable to rejoice in someone else's serious physical pain. Ugggh.

And as far as miscreants coming into your community ... we have the courts to administer justice - lynching went out of style a long, long time ago.

[Tatonka]

drew bledsoe being a "good father and good person" has really helped us out alot.

[The Spaz]

You are right that's why I want a good player ad a good person!:up:

[Dozerdog]

Originally posted by HenryRules
This isn't meant as an attack the poster comment, it's meant against your post.

I do think that something is entirely wrong with your point of view that you want good players <i>and</i> good people on the team.

The sole criteria for getting a job should be whether or not you can do the job better than anyone else. People on these boards have often complained when others get rewarded at work due to politics or other criteria unrelated to their performance, and what you are suggesting is no different at all from rewarding someone for something unrelated to performance.
I'm not implying that things like showing up on times for meetings, his ability to get along with coaches, etc. should not be considered - those relate to his ability to the job. However, to blanket someone as unworthy of being on this team because of something unrelated to his ability as a football player is incredibly wrong.

I don't expect my boss to reward me because I volunteer at a high school on the weekend, and I don't expect that to be a bonus in my consideration when I apply for a promotion or another job ... at the same time, I would not expect it to be detrimental to my relationship with my boss if I had a gambling problem away from work, nor would I expect it to be a problem in my next application. I know that, unfortunately, many people feel the same way as Spaz, so maybe "expect" is not the right word to use ... maybe "hope" would be better.

I take one's charachter into acccount when I hire and promote. There are always times when honesty, leadership, and self discipline come into effect on the job. If the guy is an a-hole or a clown in real life, that eventually crosses over into one's work.

[The_Philster]

As far as the role model thing, fine...we'll just agree to disagree but I guess that means that Charles Barkley, a real professional athlete who made a point to deflect anyone from thinking he was a role model, had no clue what he was talking about.
I'm not implying that rooting for anyone to get injured is right. Michael Irvin disgusts me but the people who booed him when he was injured are far worse. :puke:
As far as the cop-out about courts, I'd rather see the court cases get lighter, not fill the courts up with athletes committing crimes. But I guess that's just me...I think a low crime rate is a good thing. :idunno:

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by Dozerdog


I take one's charachter into acccount when I hire and promote. There are always times when honesty, leadership, and self discipline come into effect on the job. If the guy is an a-hole or a clown in real life, that eventually crosses over into one's work.

I was not saying that character shouldn't be taken into consideration (when I was talking about showing up on times for meetings, getting along with others, etc. - I meant that character can be considered) ... but only in the sense that it relates to one's performance at work.

[The Spaz]

SO if a peron goes otu and smokes crack after works it's ok if he performs well while he's at work or if he beats his wife but he performs well at work it's ok?

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by The Spaz
SO if a peron goes otu and smokes crack after works it's ok if he performs well while he's at work or if he beats his wife but he performs well at work it's ok?

If he rushes for 100 yards a game it must be. :puke:

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The_Philster
As far as the cop-out about courts, I'd rather see the court cases get lighter, not fill the courts up with athletes committing crimes. But I guess that's just me...I think a low crime rate is a good thing. :idunno:

Now I'm completely lost ... miscreant basically has 2 definitions - one is someone that is a villain or evildoer, the other definition is someone that is basically a heretic. Now, I didn't think that you meant to imply that a person had to hold certain religious beliefs in order to be a Buffalo Bills football player, so I assumed you meant a villain or evildoer - thus someone who broke the law.

Now, if someone that breaks the law should not be punished by the courts, you have to be implying that lynching or vigilante justice is acceptable. That's ridiculous as well.

So, please clarify for me cuz I'm getting a bit lost in your posts ... what sort of athletes are not welcome in Buffalo?

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The Spaz
SO if a peron goes otu and smokes crack after works it's ok if he performs well while he's at work or if he beats his wife but he performs well at work it's ok?

Beating your wife is illegal and the man should go to jail.

Being in jail normally prevents someone from doing their job.

I do think that athletes get light sentences and that is something I vehemently disagree with ... however, I just as strongly disagree with vigilante justice, so once the courts have had their day, I think the guy should be able to go back to find employment(assuming that he performs his job well and does not disrupt the others at work, as you seemed to imply). Returning to his previous job would probably not be possible because getting along with his previous co-workers would probably pose a significant difficulty.

[Dozerdog]

Originally posted by HenryRules
So, please clarify for me cuz I'm getting a bit lost in your posts ... what sort of athletes are not welcome in Buffalo?
In my book, drunks, druggies, and disciplinary problems. If he can demonstrate contrition and prove that he's rehabilitated, then I'd consider him.

[The_Philster]

:rofl: I'll type slowly...a miscreant as in a troublemaker. And where did I say that I thought lawbreakers shouldn't be punished by the courts? I'd just rather we cut down on the number of criminals and other troublemakers we have to deal with in Buffalo. You have to read my posts before you reply. I'm not in favor of bringing in troublemakers...I don't want them in Buffalo. I've said that a few times in this thread yet you seem to think I'm all for bringing them in if we distribute vigilante justice? :scratch:
If they are troublemakers, keep them out of Buffalo...simple as that. I thought that by answering your points and giving reasons, you might understand. :hitself:

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The_Philster
:rofl: I'll type slowly...a miscreant as in a troublemaker. And where did I say that I thought lawbreakers shouldn't be punished by the courts? I'd just rather we cut down on the number of criminals and other troublemakers we have to deal with in Buffalo. You have to read my posts before you reply. I'm not in favor of bringing in troublemakers...I don't want them in Buffalo. I've said that a few times in this thread yet you seem to think I'm all for bringing them in if we distribute vigilante justice? :scratch:
If they are troublemakers, keep them out of Buffalo...simple as that. I thought that by answering your points and giving reasons, you might understand. :hitself:

First, speaking of reading a post ... I did not say that you were all for bringing people in to distribute vigilante justice ... your act of denying people the ability to work in Buffalo is an example of vigilante justice.

Ok ... let me walk you through this and tell me where I'm wrong.

You think that once an athlete has been convicted of his crime, he is no longer welcome to play for the Buffalo Bills. This means that you are not taking into consideration his rehabilitation or his current status, you are saying that by breaking the law, he is not welcome in Buffalo. Well, you may not like to admit it, but that is vigalante justice. Vigalante justice is not restricted to violence. Vigilante justice is taking law enforcement into your own hands. That means that any punishments for a criminal not distributed by the courts is vigilante justice. Sorry, but refusing to admit someone right off the bat without talking to them, regardless of their qualifications, well, that's punishment beyond the courts. It may not be romantic vigilante justice like shooting a man or beating him up, but it's still vigilante justice.

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by Dozerdog

In my book, drunks, druggies, and disciplinary problems. If he can demonstrate contrition and prove that he's rehabilitated, then I'd consider him.

That's fine and I have no problems with that.

[The_Philster]

Did you even read this? It should apply to any job. Would you feel safe or comfortable at work with someone who's a known troublemaker who has shown no signs of rehabilitation? I sure wouldn't....and I wouldn't want him in my community either. None of us have any say in who the team picks up...but we are perfcetly within our rights to ***** and complain if a criminal is even talked about being brought in because it's a poor reflection on our community. Maybe you don't understand that but it's just the way it is.


Originally posted by Dozerdog
I take one's charachter into acccount when I hire and promote. There are always times when honesty, leadership, and self discipline come into effect on the job. If the guy is an a-hole or a clown in real life, that eventually crosses over into one's work.
or this?

Originally posted by Dozerdog
In my book, drunks, druggies, and disciplinary problems. If he can demonstrate contrition and prove that he's rehabilitated, then I'd consider him.
People like Lawrence Phillips, whom John Butler wanted to bring in, do not fit the bill as far as the type of players we want in our community

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The_Philster
Did you even read this? It should apply to any job. Would you feel safe or comfortable at work with someone who's a known troublemaker who has shown no signs of rehabilitation?

You have never once, until now, mentioned rehabilitation. You have never once, until now, mentioned the comfort zone of co-workers. No, the only thing you have mentioned, until it was pointed out that it was vigilante justice, was that lawbreakers should not be employed in Buffalo.

You mention this should apply to any job ... so does that mean that as soon as someone commits a crime, they should be banned from entering Buffalo?

You mention that we have the right to ***** and scream about employing a criminal - you sure do ... you also have the right to cheer RJ getting injured, the right to yell at old ladies, the right to cuss in front of children, and the right to act like an ******* pretty much anywhere you want ... it doesn't mean it's correct, it just means you have the right. That's what's good about America, we don't (often) legislate morals (although unfortunately it's becoming more frequent). However, it should never be confused that because you have the right to do something, it is a moral and correct act.

I could care less if you have the right to perform that sort of vigilante justice ... it doesn't mean it's a good idea.

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The_Philster

People like Lawrence Phillips, whom John Butler wanted to bring in, do not fit the bill as far as the type of players we want in our community

What about Doug Gilmour? He committed rape in St. Louis and did an ok job with the Leafs.

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by HenryRules
You mention this should apply to any job ... so does that mean that as soon as someone commits a crime, they should be banned from entering Buffalo?

Where did I say that? I just think that having troublemakers representing the Bills is a bad idea. One, it disrupts the team. Two, it sends a bad message to the community. (I really don't wanna go through the reasons again and again) The job thing was brought up to show that some employers don't like having troublemakers in their employ. Shouldn't the Bills have the right to have that same view? Ralph has always seemed to have that view
Originally posted by HenryRules
What about Doug Gilmour? He committed rape in St. Louis and did an ok job with the Leafs.
and he also bashed Buffalo and the Sabres after he left. I've never thought that highly of him...try again.

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The_Philster
Where did I say that?

You said, "Did you even read this? It should apply to any job." As these were the first sentences in your post, I assumed "this" and "it" referred to your previous writings, which stated that anyone who commits a crime should not be a Buffalo Bill. By stating that someone who commits a crime should not have a job in Buffalo (treating any job as if it were a Bills job), that, to me, means that anyone who commits a crime should not be allowed to live in Buffalo. I'm sorry if I mistakenly interpreted your writings.



I just think that having troublemakers representing the Bills is a bad idea. One, it disrupts the team. Two, it sends a bad message to the community. (I really don't wanna go through the reasons again and again) The job thing was brought up to show that some employers don't like having troublemakers in their employ. Shouldn't the Bills have the right to have that same view? Ralph has always seemed to have that view

Quit comparing rights to morals - it doesn't help your case at all. Just because you have the right to do something does not make it a good decision. If the best thing you can say about your idea is that it shouldn't be illegal, then it's not a very strong idea.



and he also bashed Buffalo and the Sabres after he left. I've never thought that highly of him...try again.

Ok, I was referring to his time with the Leafs, but if you want Bills - Jim Kelly and Travis Henry have some checkered pasts. If you want football players in general, Ray Lewis has won a Super Bowl and a fair amount of awards, same goes for Warren Sapp, Michael Irvin, and many others.

[elltrain22]

Smoker could be a great late round draftee.

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by HenryRules
You said, "Did you even read this? It should apply to any job." As these were the first sentences in your post, I assumed "this" and "it" referred to your previous writings. I'm sorry if I was mistaken.
Being banned from entering Buffalo and not wanting him to play as a Bill are two different things.

Originally posted by HenryRules
Quit comparing rights to morals

Who was doing that? I was just say that the Bills, like every employer, should have the right to use moral judgement when selecting employees
Originally posted by HenryRules
Ok, I was referring to his time with the Leafs, but if you want Bills - Jim Kelly and Travis Henry have some checkered pasts. If you want football players in general, Ray Lewis has won a Super Bowl and a fair amount of awards, same goes for Warren Sapp, Michael Irvin, and many others.

I'm in the Buffalo region. When I think Doug Gilmour, I think of the ex-Sabre. His time in Toronto doesn't affect me. Same goes for Irvin, Lewis, and others. As far as Kelly, he straightened out his act and is a pillar of the community (don't really remember drugs being a problem nor rape or murder in his case...excessive partying was his biggest vice if I remember correctly).Travis got busted for being with a dishonest girl.

[BuffaloSkyMaster]

Now correct me if I'm wrong (and you probably will) but wasn't there a QB from the Falcons that liked to tip em back pretty regularly. Brett somthing. The name slips my mind, but I think he was O.K. after he got some help. I think he even went on to do great things in Wisconsin. Won a trophy with an MVP or somthin like that.

Oh well, if Smokers an alchaholic then the heck with him. No use seein if he's good or not. Ship him off to Wisconsin. Maybe that Brett guy can help him. :boozer:

[The Spaz]

Originally posted by BuffaloSkyMaster
Now correct me if I'm wrong (and you probably will) but wasn't there a QB from the Falcons that liked to tip em back pretty regularly. Brett somthing. The name slips my mind, but I think he was O.K. after he got some help. I think he even went on to do great things in Wisconsin. Won a trphy or somthin.

Oh well, if Smokers an alchaholic then the heck with him. No use seein if he's good or not. Ship him off to Wisconsin. Maybe that Brett guy can help him. :boozer:

You might want to read the whole thread.

[BuffaloSkyMaster]

I read the whole thread, and believe me it was very boring. All this talk of morals and laws and blah blah blah. All I was merely tring to do was inject some humor to an otherwise bland thread. Grow a sense of humor.

Fine. Give smoker a shot. You'll never know, if you don't try.

[Dozerdog]

Henry-

I'm suprised you're not beating him sensless with OJ Simpson.


What's you're point? Phil has no power in who the Bills or Sabres bring in, yet he can register his opinon on their moral charachter. I beleive Kelly has managed to show he's reformed from whatever hideous crimes you think he's comitted - He's raised millions for charity.

[Tatonka]

thurman thomas was an alcoholic.. who got help AFTER he left the game.. he sucked at his job.

:rolleyes:

[The Spaz]

Originally posted by Tatonka
thurman thomas was an alcoholic.. who got help AFTER he left the game.. he sucked at his job.

:rolleyes:

That's true T but I think everyone was in shock when they found out Thurman had a problem I sure in the hell was, who knew?

[Tatonka]

Originally posted by The Spaz
That's true T but I think everyone was in shock when they found out Thurman had a problem I sure in the hell was, who knew?

that is my point.. you guys are all getting into a conversation about beating wives.. and law breakers ect...

the guy didnt break the law.. he was convicted of no crimes.. he had a problem with drinking, and decided that he wanted to get it taken care of... and he did.. he earned back the trust of his coaches and teammates.. made it back to be the starter again, and did well.

there are tons of people like thurman, like my father, like many others, that were functional alcoholics that never hurt anyone and always did their job... they got help and moved on.

he is 6-3, 225.. he is good under pressure. his bio is alot like philip rivers. i think that he could end up being a good qb. if the bills dont have a qb by late in the draft, i would be happy to see them take a chance on smoker.. and that is the way i feel..

[The Spaz]

I uderstand and agree if he is ther in the later rounds that is fine but by no means is he in my top choices for QB's.:beer:

[The_Philster]

Honestly, I don't even know that much about Smoker...but it sets me off when someone suggests that character means nothing when it comes to bringing in players for the Buffalo Bills. It's attitudes like those that are the reason that athletes get away with so much. They've got the same feeling...." as long as i do my job, what does it matter what crimes I commit"?

[SABURZFAN]

Originally posted by HenryRules


What about Doug Gilmour?

gilmour is a scumbag.

[DraftBoy]

Originally posted by The_Philster

Travis got busted for being with a dishonest girl.

May wanna rethink that comment. In no way whatsoever do I think that Travis Henry had no idea those girls were not 18, regardless of how they looked. It almost sounds like your making an excuse for him.

"Its not his fault he had sex with a minor, she lied about her age. Its her fault..."

Im not saying your making excuses for him but it damn well sounds like it.

As for players with character issues, what about eric moulds we brought him in, and he was touted as a lazy player with character issues.

As for the original topic: Jeff Smoker. Admitted alcoholic. Went to rehab got clean. Came back and had a stellar 2003 season. Id take him in rd 6 or 7. Not before though. Id also want another QB b.c while he may be clean now you would always be thinking what if he has a horrid game and relapses??

[HenryRules]

Originally posted by The_Philster
Honestly, I don't even know that much about Smoker...but it sets me off when someone suggests that character means nothing when it comes to bringing in players for the Buffalo Bills. It's attitudes like those that are the reason that athletes get away with so much. They've got the same feeling....&quot; as long as i do my job, what does it matter what crimes I commit&quot;?

Athletes getting away with so much? Athletes get away with a lot in the courts because they are rich and the rich get away with a lot. They get punished much more severely outside the courts than most other professions though (or did you not know that Kobe has already lost an endorsement contract - before his guilt has been established in court).

I'm talking about treating athletes like normal people ... you're the one who brought up things like "role model" and "public eye". That indicates that you think they should be treated especially harsh and different from a normal person.

Do you ask your bartender about their criminal history?
Do you ask your accountant if he or anyone he works with have been convicted of a DUI?
Do you refuse to shop at any store that offers the pay-cash-for-no-tax discount, regardless of whether or not you accept it?
Do you refuse to drink/eat at a bar/restaurant if it has previously lost, but now regained, its license?

And onto people in the public eye:
Do you refuse to watch movies involving Robert DeNiro, Martin Sheen, Francis Ford Coppola, or Robin Williams to name a few?
Do you refuse to watch tv shows involving people like Kelsay Grammar?
Do you refuse to listen to music by the likes of Johnny Cash, Frank Sinatra, Rolling Stones, Beatles, or any of the numerous musical groups that have been arrested on various charges?

See, in most aspects of life, once someone has been punished by the courts, we let them go on living a normal life and try and do the best they can ... however, when it comes to athletes, people like you think that they should continue to be punished, regardless of what happened with the legal system.

[TigerJ]

On the whole issue of bringing in players with "baggage," my feelings in sports are informed by my religious beliefs. I am not in favor of bringing in players who show no real remorse for actions that are harmful to themselves or others, particularly if they are repeat offenders. I believe that when offenders show what appears to be genuine remorse both by their words and their actions it is appropriate to give them a chance. To show such remorse takes at least a little time. I'm not going to hire a guy the day after he says he's sorry. Regarding Smoker, as near as I can determine, not only has he consistently maintained that he regretted the things that he did centering around alcohol abuse, he conducted himself on and off the season for Michigan State in a manner that suggests he meant it. Frankly, that's enough for me.

[Tatonka]

good post, tiger.

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by Winfield_26
May wanna rethink that comment. In no way whatsoever do I think that Travis Henry had no idea those girls were not 18, regardless of how they looked. It almost sounds like your making an excuse for him.
I go by what I heard. And I do know that girls look older at younger ages nowadays. I'm not excusing him...just stating the facts. She lied about her age. Did she look older? I don't know...I wasn't there.

[DraftBoy]

Come on Phil. People lie everyday and were supposed to allow that now to excuse wrong actions. Thats like me telling a foreign to go and shoot somebody. He can say i said it was ok and I lied so should he get off? Hell no. Henry did what he did, and he should of known better should he have done time? yea.

You can call for harsher punishments on criminals in one post and then make excuses for him or turn a blind eye on it in another. Thats being two sided.

[Tatonka]

the thing with henry is not even relivant to this discussion, but i will chime in..

did i ask every girl that i banged when i was in college how old she was? nope...

i think it is ridiculous to assume that henry should know how old they were... especially after they lied and told him they were of age.. he was supposed to assume they were liars?

the courts obviously didnt think he did anything wrong.. so i dont either.. it is not an excuse to me.. it sounds more like the truth.

[The Spaz]

Well what the hell are we supposed to check I.D.'s?:dizzy: If she said she was legal why wouldn't he beleive her especially if she looks old enough at least nowadays.

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by Winfield_26
Come on Phil. People lie everyday and were supposed to allow that now to excuse wrong actions. Thats like me telling a foreign to go and shoot somebody. He can say i said it was ok and I lied so should he get off? Hell no. Henry did what he did, and he should of known better should he have done time? yea.

You can call for harsher punishments on criminals in one post and then make excuses for him or turn a blind eye on it in another. Thats being two sided.
Not two-sided at all. Henry supposedly didn't know she was underage and was remorseful about it when he found out according to all I've heard. When have people like Michael Irvin and Leon Lett ever shown any remorse? Rehabilitation is what punishments are supposed to help with, isn't it? I'm certainly not excusing what Henry did and, had it happened before he was drafted by the Bills, I might be hesitant to draft him. He didn't come in here as a troublemaker and I can't think of anything else he's done to cause trouble since that incident. If a guy is known as trouble, we shouldn't bring him in...that's my opinion on the subject.
I don't even remember exactly what he did, but I was very disappointed we brought in Shannon Clavelle many years ago from Colorado. He caused problems at college yet was drafted by the Bills. He was cut and went to the Packers briefly but I don't think he caused problems after he got out. And even if that's true...that he was a model citizen once he got out of college, I'm still peeved we drafted him as he was a problem child, so to speak. If they're already here...I certainly am upset if they are causing problems again and again..but why do people think bringing in these troublemakers in the first place is a good idea?

[THATHURMANATOR]

Being a Wolverines fan I have seen him play quite a few times. He never has impressed me all that much.

[Tatonka]

Originally posted by THATHURMANATOR
Being a Wolverines fan


i always liked cyclops and nitecrawler myself.

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by Tatonka
i always liked cyclops and nitecrawler myself.

Colossus was cool as well.

[Tatonka]

they screwed colossus in xmen 2.. he got the part of an extra basically.

[The_Philster]

Originally posted by Tatonka
they screwed colossus in xmen 2.. he got the part of an extra basically.

I agree....but I expect him to be a bigger part of X3, due out in 2006
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0376994/

[Dozerdog]

Originally posted by TigerJ
On the whole issue of bringing in players with "baggage," my feelings in sports are informed by my religious beliefs. I am not in favor of bringing in players who show no real remorse for actions that are harmful to themselves or others, particularly if they are repeat offenders. I believe that when offenders show what appears to be genuine remorse both by their words and their actions it is appropriate to give them a chance. To show such remorse takes at least a little time. I'm not going to hire a guy the day after he says he's sorry. Regarding Smoker, as near as I can determine, not only has he consistently maintained that he regretted the things that he did centering around alcohol abuse, he conducted himself on and off the season for Michigan State in a manner that suggests he meant it. Frankly, that's enough for me.

If Smoker has learned from his mistakes and becomes a stronger, better man- then I'll give him a pass. It will be interesting to watch what becoming a millionaire will do to him. Will he do the right things? Fall off the wagon?


I wouldn't be adverse to getting a Rivers or Loseman day 1, and this guy day 2

[TigerJ]

I agree it will be interesting, Dozerdog. We can't absolutely know that Smoker will stay clean. I can only hope if the Bills draft him that he does. Of course, we can't know absolutely that anyone in the draft will be a successful NFL player or will keep his nose clean once he becomes an instant millionaire.

[ShadowHawk7]

Originally posted by Dozerdog



I wouldn't be adverse to getting a Rivers or Loseman day 1, and this guy day 2

So wuts the deal on Losman? He's said to be a late first rounder. Cud w/ trade down, grab him, and that center Jeff sumthing?

[The Spaz]

Jake Grove.:beer:

[Dozerdog]

Originally posted by ShadowHawk7
So wuts the deal on Losman? He's said to be a late first rounder. Cud w/ trade down, grab him, and that center Jeff sumthing?

New England, Carolina, Eagles, Colts, Chiefs, Rams, Titans basically make up the end of round 1, and none of them need a QB. I can see him going in Rd 2

[DraftBoy]

depends on if GB and MIA get a qb before the draft or whether they want one in rd 1. If they pass expect Losman to be there in rd. 2. If they bite we may be looking at a rd. 3 or 4 QB

[hemi13]

RIVERS - need I say more.