12 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

I’ll judge him on his actions at the scene where he killed someone through stupidity and gross negligence instead of a rehearsed "I’m so sorry” at his sentencing trying (and succeeding) to broker a lighter sentence.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Ruggs dies before being released from prison, and would prefer it over seeing him play NFL football again 

A couple of thoughts on this.  He hit that other car hard.  He was treated for PTSD.  I have been in two high speed collisions, one in the suicide seat on a smash into a parked car and one into a glancing blow on a guardrail after hitting black ice hard enough to tear off the front wheel.  Both times, I was mildly concussed (bell rung), a bit of anxiety for months after the guardrail crash (probably mild PTSD).  You would have thought I was functioning at the scene of both but I really wasn’t.  Judging Ruggs at the scene is wrong, IMHO based on my own experience and from being involved on thousands of serious claims over the years in my profession.  I do think he is remorseful and contrite.

I say that because he plead guilty.  The prosecutor had issues because of how Ruggs blood was drawn.  No guarantees apparently that was coming in but he admitted fault and plead guilty.  All indications he is a pretty decent sort of guy.  

We as a society can be harsh in judgment and penalties.  Probably why we lead other top tier nations in incarceration and, frankly, a whole lot of gun deaths.  When I was taking courses on crime and punishment back in the 1970s, rehabilitation not retribution was the focus of criminal penalties.  We spent a fair amount of time studying recidivism and DWI not involving alcoholism was on the top of statistics for rehabilitation.  Once Ruggs has served his sentence to the satisfaction of the state, he deserves a chance having paid his debt to society.  Frankly, if more folks were given a chance after serving a sentence, recidivism would go down, IMHO.  But a huge driver for recidivism is poverty.  If Ruggs gets a chance as a pro, poverty may not be a driver for him.  Doubt he is in a maximum security prison.  Good chance he spends his time in prison taking alcohol abuse classes and maybe even finishing his college degree.  All of that may help him and may even assist the victim’s family.  If the mother can take the high road as she demonstrated in her statement at the sentencing hearing, I think we could all stand to join her on that path.

Also what did he do at the scene after the crash that was so bad?  Pretty sure reports were that he was sobbing.

44 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

And... he needs to be prepared for protestors and demonstrations against him.  I believe that he would actually have fewer demonstrations and protestors against him than did Vick.  Sadly, people are actually more motivated to fight animal cruelty than they are to preserving human life.  

Animals, especially domestic animals, can't defend themselves. 
That's why human life is treated differently whether you hurt a child vs. an adult.

I don't know Michael Vick so I can't call him a good or bad person. But I do know he exhibited deplorable person behavior before prison and as far as we know exhibited good person behavior after. Unless you wanna send everyone who's done a bad thing (or a series of bad things) to the electric chair, let them repent.

Ruggs should absolutely get another chance if he learns from this. My gut says he will given he's got people like Devonta Smith in his life, but it's ultimately on him.

Kudos to Devonta for showing his support for Ruggs.

46 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

 

Using Vick as a precedent, let's remember the steps that Vick had to take, and started to take WHILE IN PRISON, just to turn his life around... starting with his mentorship under Tony Dungy.  Ruggs will need serious, serious rehabilitation, and just like Vick had a list of requirements, including community service in the service of animal advocacy organizations, speaking about animal rights, and constant contrition for his previous transgressions...  Ruggs will need to never touch a drop of alcohol again, be a very loud voice against DUI and against speeding.  His license should be withheld until he completes a defensive driving course, and should agree to having a device placed in his car to ensure he maintains proper speeds (This would be a voluntary thing, and something that any team signing him should ask for, not something that I believe judicial system can enforce.) 

 

And... he needs to be prepared for protestors and demonstrations against him.  I believe that he would actually have fewer demonstrations and protestors against him than did Vick.  Sadly, people are actually more motivated to fight animal cruelty than they are to preserving human life.  

I had a friend killed by a drunk driver. It's senseless and horrible but at the same time if people who serve their time according to the law aren't allowed to continue their lives then rehabilitation won't happen. I hope he puts in the work like you mentioned. 

I find it easier to forgive Vick than Ruggs.  But my forgiveness and $1 will get you whatever you can buy for $1.

IMO, the legal system made an example of Vick and put him away for the absolute maximum you’ll see for that crime.  I think Ruggs deserves the same too, which should be a much, much longer time.

But when he is out, he’ll have served his debt.  So there’s no reason he can’t be given a chance at that time.  

32 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Eh... I can't look back at that now.  Frankly, I can't understand the logic of having 3 QBs on the roster and not having the 3rd QB active.  The odds are low that the 3rd QB will be needed, and probably even lower that the 3rd QB could step in and lead the team to a victory if the team wasn't able to protect the top 2 from being injured... BUT the benefit of having one more ST player, versus having that last ditch hope for a victory with the 3rd QB isn't worth that cost to me.   Way back when, the 3rd QB dressed, but was on the inactive list while 45 other players dressed.  And there were some rather weird rules for when the 3rd QB could or couldn't enter the game.  That was a good rule.  The 3rd QB option was available to any team that had a 3rd QB on their roster, and it cost them nothing to do so.  Then the league changed the rules so that teams could just activate 46 players (45 + 1, which used to be the emergency QB).  And teams got greedy by dressing a 46th player that wasn't the QB.  Then they cry about not having a 3rd QB active.  But, see... that was a decision made by the team.  I personally HATE the new rule, because it is just going back to what used to be, but with an extra dressed player.  If we are going to do all these things, then just eliminate the inactive players, and just have the full roster of 53 active on game day.  If some can't play because of injury, but not severe enough to need to sit... they can still be inactive, and a PS player can be elevated to the empty spot on the 53 for the day... just as they are doing now with the 46+.  

But, I'm not going to complain about the rule when it was 46 dressed players, because teams made the deliberate choice to dress another non-QB, rather than have an option for the emergency QB.  That's on them.  The added roster spot, wasn't worth the risk to me when the rule changed, and teams pay for their short sightedness.

Frankly, why all 53 aren’t active is a mystery.  Let’s take Sills as an example.  Barely active last year, so no accrued year.  Basically, the only major impact of the inactive list (besides injured but not IR level players) is ERFA and RFA status.  That directly impacted OL the most of any position.  So the NFL and NFLPA negotiated the weird new wrinkle of 47 and 48 but only if 48 is an OL (who have less value on STs).  That means 47 is likely another position like DB that might not be active enough for an accrued season otherwise and also accrual for OL.  Bet that was to address a sticking point for the union to lessen the impact of accrual requirements.  Interesting, that 49 is the return of the 46th 3rd QB with the rules on when he can play and how the 3rd QB impacts the other QBs.  Note the third QB is "inactive” if not called upon.  I didn’t read the new rule to see if accrued games are earned or not by merely being dressed as the third QB.  I don’t think they do away we inactive status with the two game/two raised status for PS player rule at this point, but allowing 53 active is doable and probably the next chip at roster restrictions to be knocked away.

20 minutes ago, RLC said:

Animals, especially domestic animals, can't defend themselves. 
That's why human life is treated differently whether you hurt a child vs. an adult.

I'm going to disagree with this statement completely, but leave it there.

14 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

Frankly, why all 53 aren’t active is a mystery.  Let’s take Sills as an example.  Barely active last year, so no accrued year.  Basically, the only major impact of the inactive list (besides injured but not IR level players) is ERFA and RFA status.  That directly impacted OL the most of any position.  So the NFL and NFLPA negotiated the weird new wrinkle of 47 and 48 but only if 48 is an OL (who have less value on STs).  That means 47 is likely another position like DB that might not be active enough for an accrued season otherwise and also accrual for OL.  Bet that was to address a sticking point for the union to lessen the impact of accrual requirements.  Interesting, that 49 is the return of the 46th 3rd QB with the rules on when he can play and how the 3rd QB impacts the other QBs.  Note the third QB is "inactive” if not called upon.  I didn’t read the new rule to see if accrued games are earned or not by merely being dressed as the third QB.  I don’t think they do away we inactive status with the two game/two raised status for PS player rule at this point, but allowing 53 active is doable and probably the next chip at roster restrictions to be knocked away.

History.  Back in the day, the roster was only 45.  So, as the roster expanded they kept the history of the number of players dressed... then expanded it for the emergency QB, but if we are expanding it more... just make it the full 53.  The benefits are that more players would have a chance to show their skills, and some would play fewer snaps, meaning less wear and tear.  The NFLPA should have been pushing more for active expansion and less on practice contact and access in the offseason.  

15 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I'm going to disagree with this statement completely, but leave it there.

Can we at least agree that we shouldn't hurt kids?

Just now, RLC said:

Can we at least agree that we shouldn't hurt kids?

Absolutely.  I just don't think that they are as protected as you posited.

I want Dennis Kelly playing as much in the preseason as possible. I think it's clear that Steen and Driscoll are the top backups at tackle. Dennis Kelly has starting experience in the league. If he shows out, could Howie work magic for a team desperate for OL help?

1 minute ago, bpac55 said:

I want Dennis Kelly playing as much in the preseason as possible. I think it's clear that Steen and Driscoll are the top backups at tackle. Dennis Kelly has starting experience in the league. If he shows out, could Howie work magic for a team desperate for OL help?

Probably not. A team desperate for OL help would have just signed him 2 weeks ago.

Just now, LeanMeanGM said:

Probably not. A team desperate for OL help would have just signed him 2 weeks ago.

It would likely have to be an injury situation.

1 minute ago, bpac55 said:

I want Dennis Kelly playing as much in the preseason as possible. I think it's clear that Steen and Driscoll are the top backups at tackle. Dennis Kelly has starting experience in the league. If he shows out, could Howie work magic for a team desperate for OL help?

Very possibly. Driscoll might get a conditional third+.

10 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

It would likely have to be an injury situation.

Even still, he's been mostly a backup his career, including the last 2 years. Colts felt fine enough cutting him last year at the end of PS and re-signing him later. I don't see teams trading anything for him given his age and career. I certainly don't see any GM thinking he's the savior to their O-line. 

17 hours ago, ManuManu said:

 

It's amazing how they're stuck on that with all of these what ifs as if they had any chance to beat us. Even if they did somehow beat us they'd lose to Chiefs

14 hours ago, SkippyX said:

That's a crazy good deal. They did this in part because they were able to work it into the new Sunday Ticket / Red Zone package.

I usually pay about 46 a month for Sling Blue + Sports for Sept-Feb at a cost of about 275 bucks.  80 bucks is peanuts.

I get all the NBC/FOX/CBS games on HD antenna.  The MNF game usually streams in the NFL App.

I lose out on MLB Network, NHL Network, and NBA TV so its not a 1 for 1 but that is dirt cheap for Red Zone.

I will watch channels like AMC and FS1 but they are not worth 195 bucks to me.

 

I also like access to all the game films so its a fantastic deal.

Used to be just $20 or $25 to get all live preseason games and all regular season games after they've aired

12 minutes ago, just relax said:

Very possibly. Driscoll might get a conditional third+.

I highly doubt that any team would give that for a backup (albeit versatile) lineman who would be headed for free agency in a year. Even a fourth is unlikely. A fifth seems more reasonable, but at that price I'd rather keep him on the roster...and eventually try to re-sign him for whatever the going rate is for an experienced, generally competent backup.

10 minutes ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

I highly doubt that any team would give that for a backup (albeit versatile) lineman who would be headed for free agency in a year. Even a fourth is unlikely. A fifth seems more reasonable, but at that price I'd rather keep him on the roster...and eventually try to re-sign him for whatever the going rate is for an experienced, generally competent backup.

I can remember saying this last year at this time -- I can't believe folks want to trade away OL depth.  

35 minutes ago, just relax said:

Very possibly. Driscoll might get a conditional third+.

So, trade Driscoll and slide Kelly into the Driscoll back-up OT slot?  Interesting idea.

I do agree with @FranklinFldEBUpper that a conditional third+ may be a bit optimistic.

25 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Even still, he's been mostly a backup his career, including the last 2 years. Colts felt fine enough cutting him last year at the end of PS and re-signing him later. I don't see teams trading anything for him given his age and career. I certainly don't see any GM thinking he's the savior to their O-line. 

He may have the most value for the Eagles out of all the NFL teams.

42 minutes ago, just relax said:

Very possibly. Driscoll might get a conditional third+.

 

No chance 

 

 

 

17 minutes ago, Alphagrand said:

I can remember saying this last year at this time -- I can't believe folks want to trade away OL depth.  

2019 has taught us very little.

53 minutes ago, just relax said:

Very possibly. Driscoll might get a conditional third+.

Driscoll a conditional 3rd or better?  I'd trade him today if that is the compensation.