The 2015 NFL Criminals Thread

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

Memento

Your (Somewhat) Friendly Neighborhood Authoress.
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
18,546
Name
Jemma
If Goodell tried, the NFLPA would undercut him so fast it wouldn't even matter.

No matter how many people think Fairley "got off", you can't have anyone punished when found not guilty in the courts... since there's always that chance they are not guilty.

100 mph and at least twice over the legal limit? He did get off. Four times is no accident, and who knows how many times he did that at Auburn? To hell with the NFLPA; if he doesn't come down as hard as he possibly can on this fucking bastard, I'm seriously going to go apeshit. I take drunk-driving extremely seriously.
 

Thordaddy

Binding you with ancient logic
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
10,462
Name
Rich
driving high isn't anything like driving drunk...I'm not saying its okay to do it, but I have my doubts weed is the reason the teenage girls ran a red light (if it were me I'd blame it on them being terrible drivers in general, cell phone, some kinda distraction, etc..)

Bout to play devils advocate here though:
For people who have ADD/ADHD, it does help for driving - some people drive slower, more cautious, pay more attention, etc.

But if you're mentally impaired from anything, you shouldn't drive. Doesn't matter what your vice is; if you even question whether or not you should drive, chances are you shouldn't.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
driving high isn't anything like driving drunk...I'm not saying its okay to do it, but I have my doubts weed is the reason the teenage girls ran a red light (if it were me I'd blame it on them being terrible drivers in general, cell phone, some kinda distraction, etc..)

Bout to play devils advocate here though:
For people who have ADD/ADHD, it does help for driving - some people drive slower, more cautious, pay more attention, etc.

But if you're mentally impaired from anything, you shouldn't drive. Doesn't matter what your vice is; if you even question whether or not you should drive, chances are you shouldn't.
I remember driving high as a teen (18-19 yrs old), and it was nerve-racking. Especially on the interstate, which we had to take to get to some of the good spots like Boomers or Rapids. I remember being so ACUTELY aware of my lane position and speed, that I didn't even pay attention to other cars that much. That was the problem. I was distracted by being high, lol. Should I go 55 mph exactly? What if a cop takes that to mean I'm being too cautious and pulls me over out of suspicion? Because nobody else is going exactly 55. Okay, I'll go 60. But wait. Isn't 60 speeding, and a cop could pull me over for that? What if I pass an undercover going 60 and he's going 55? Okay, let me eases up a little and I'll go 57.5 mph. That should do it. Nobody gets a speeding ticket for 57.5 mph, so all I have to do is keep the needle 3/4 of the way past the second line after 50 mph on my speedometer the rest of the way and we'll be golden.

Friend in the back seat: "Dude, you just passed the exit."

Shit.
 

LesBaker

Mr. Savant
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
17,460
Name
Les
I'll always be amused how the guys charged with drug possession/under the influence, get the stiffer end of the beat-stick than guys with domestic abuse charges, battery charges, sex assault charges, etc.

GoodHell is full of crap.

Still.

Dunno what you mean because the oppostire is what is actually happening.

And remember this is ALL dictated by the CBA.
 

LesBaker

Mr. Savant
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
17,460
Name
Les
I remember driving high as a teen (18-19 yrs old), and it was nerve-racking. Especially on the interstate, which we had to take to get to some of the good spots like Boomers or Rapids. I remember being so ACUTELY aware of my lane position and speed, that I didn't even pay attention to other cars that much. That was the problem. I was distracted by being high, lol. Should I go 55 mph exactly? What if a cop takes that to mean I'm being too cautious and pulls me over out of suspicion? Because nobody else is going exactly 55. Okay, I'll go 60. But wait. Isn't 60 speeding, and a cop could pull me over for that? What if I pass an undercover going 60 and he's going 55? Okay, let me eases up a little and I'll go 57.5 mph. That should do it. Nobody gets a speeding ticket for 57.5 mph, so all I have to do is keep the needle 3/4 of the way past the second line after 50 mph on my speedometer the rest of the way and we'll be golden.

Friend in the back seat: "Dude, you just passed the exit."

crap.

I had a friend way back in the day that could very, very quietly imitate a police siren so it sounded like it was coming up behind you.

He effed with everyone, even when HE was driving. He got me a few times LOL.
 

LesBaker

Mr. Savant
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
17,460
Name
Les

As far as I know the suspensions for all transgressions are written into the CBA, fines also.

The NFLPA dodges scrutiny while people call the commissioner names. And not just Goodell, Tagliabue was given a ton of unwarranted crap too.
 

Mackeyser

Supernovas are where gold forms; the only place.
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
14,491
Name
Mack
Don't care what someone uses to ease their pain when they're in the privacy of their own home. But if they get behind the wheel of their car and they're mentally impaired because they've been smoking weed, then they need to be dealt with by the law. Last year my son had his car totaled by two stoned teenage girls who ran a red light. They got off with a slap on the wrist. This happened in Indiana where weed is still illegal. So yeah, I have a bias when it comes to this topic.

I'm guessing that NFL players have enough money to hire a driver but in some cases not enough maturity or intelligence to do that. So if they get busted that's on them.

I'm glad you brought this up.

Just because weed should be legal does NOT mean it shouldn't, isn't and won't be regulated. It's still a drug and as such, "under the influence" laws still apply. Professional conduct rules still apply such as for Surgeons, Pilots and Police and Firefighters...

Legal weed isn't an excuse to break the law...

So, we totally agree that they shouldn't have gotten a slap on the wrist. DUI, no matter the impairment, be it booze, pills or pot, is unacceptable. Frankly, even extreme fatigue isn't acceptable.

I just think that Pot shouldn't be a Schedule I drug anymore seeing as it clearly as medical benefits (which is the very definition of a Sched I drug: no medical benefit... which is funny... heroin, the other drug is basically prescribed in other forms... Oxycontin, so it IS still used even though the FDA says it has no medical benefit...)

Removing the Schedule I designation wouldn't remove the responsibilities any more than the repeal of Prohibition removed the requirement for citizens to obey liquor laws...
 

Amitar

Pro Bowler
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
1,096
Name
Amitar
"And Warren Sapp was fired as an NFL Network analyst after his arrest on suspicion of soliciting a prostitute and allegedly assaulting two women."
That is so wrong as that it should be illegal. So what happens if charges are dropped, if the DA decides not to prosecute, if he is found innocent? Does he get his job back with back pay and a public statement of apology from the network? Imagine getting arrested for something, your employer fires you, and the next day they drop charges and say "oops we had the wrong person." Do you really think you're employer is going to hire you back? That's how wrong it is. I still cannot believe it is allowed to happen and some people actually think its OK.
 

Prime Time

PT
Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
20,922
Name
Peter
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #52
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...dent-highlights-perils-of-new-conduct-policy/

Nate Allen incident highlights perils of new conduct policy
Posted by Mike Florio on February 17, 2015

nypdcrimescene_g_120420_420_1.jpg
Getty Images

Soon-to-be free-agent Eagles safety Nate Allen escaped charges on Monday after the 16-year-old who accused Allen of indecent exposure outside a Red Lobster began to tell inconsistent stories to police. That’s good news for Allen, but possibly bad news for the NFL’s renewed zeal when it comes to policing the off-field lives of players.

False charges are made — and not abandoned by a nervous teenager — all the time. Currently working in the league office is a man who spent five years in jail for something he didn’t do, thanks to a victim who told a lie that enough people believed.

That’s the risk the NFL has assumed with its new approach to players facing allegations of violent crime. Unlike the false rape accusations against Brian Banks, which were eventually accepted beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury, the vetting process that will make charges stick long enough to derail a player’s career is a lot less strenuous, thanks to the NFL’s woefully misguided belief that benching a player with pay pending the resolution of his legal case doesn’t amount to any type of discipline on the player.

It does, and now all it takes is someone who has the desire to make trouble for the player and the ability to tell a persuasive lie with a straight face to create major problems — and possibly to extract a major cash settlement — from a player. But as Panthers defensive end Greg Hardy has learned, even a major cash settlement may not be enough, if it comes after testimony and other evidence has been generated to allow the NFL, under a far lower standard of proof, to determine that the guy did something he shouldn’t have done, even if the allegations are false. Which, in turn, creates an incentive for players to make major cash settlements as early in the process as possible; preferably, before anyone even knows about the allegations.

Which, in turn, creates even more of an incentive for someone to make false claims against the player, especially if the objective is simply to score a payday.

The NFL either doesn’t understand this concept or regards it as an acceptable risk in light of the intense scrutiny the league has faced in the aftermath of the Ray Rice situation. Either way, the table has been set for NFL players to be set up.
 

Boffo97

Still legal in 17 states!
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
5,278
Name
Dave
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...dent-highlights-perils-of-new-conduct-policy/

Nate Allen incident highlights perils of new conduct policy
Posted by Mike Florio on February 17, 2015

nypdcrimescene_g_120420_420_1.jpg
Getty Images

Soon-to-be free-agent Eagles safety Nate Allen escaped charges on Monday after the 16-year-old who accused Allen of indecent exposure outside a Red Lobster began to tell inconsistent stories to police. That’s good news for Allen, but possibly bad news for the NFL’s renewed zeal when it comes to policing the off-field lives of players.

False charges are made — and not abandoned by a nervous teenager — all the time. Currently working in the league office is a man who spent five years in jail for something he didn’t do, thanks to a victim who told a lie that enough people believed.

That’s the risk the NFL has assumed with its new approach to players facing allegations of violent crime. Unlike the false rape accusations against Brian Banks, which were eventually accepted beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury, the vetting process that will make charges stick long enough to derail a player’s career is a lot less strenuous, thanks to the NFL’s woefully misguided belief that benching a player with pay pending the resolution of his legal case doesn’t amount to any type of discipline on the player.

It does, and now all it takes is someone who has the desire to make trouble for the player and the ability to tell a persuasive lie with a straight face to create major problems — and possibly to extract a major cash settlement — from a player. But as Panthers defensive end Greg Hardy has learned, even a major cash settlement may not be enough, if it comes after testimony and other evidence has been generated to allow the NFL, under a far lower standard of proof, to determine that the guy did something he shouldn’t have done, even if the allegations are false. Which, in turn, creates an incentive for players to make major cash settlements as early in the process as possible; preferably, before anyone even knows about the allegations.

Which, in turn, creates even more of an incentive for someone to make false claims against the player, especially if the objective is simply to score a payday.

The NFL either doesn’t understand this concept or regards it as an acceptable risk in light of the intense scrutiny the league has faced in the aftermath of the Ray Rice situation. Either way, the table has been set for NFL players to be set up.
This is the trick, I suppose... not wanting to punish an innocent player vs. not wanting to let some guy who probably is guilty play for possibly years while the legal process runs its course (and even then, settlements do not mean the guy wasn't guilty. Greg Hardy most certainly was probably guilty.)

That said, the article really didn't make a case that being benched with pay was punishment beyond simply saying it was.

I did like the approach mentioned by someone over at SI. Appoint an independent commission to review case by case to determine if there's enough merit to charges against someone to warrant removing them from the game temporarily. With that approach, I don't think we'll see mass false charges against people just to remove them.
 

Dieter the Brock

Fourth responder
Joined
May 18, 2014
Messages
8,196
I remember driving high as a teen (18-19 yrs old), and it was nerve-racking. Especially on the interstate, which we had to take to get to some of the good spots like Boomers or Rapids. I remember being so ACUTELY aware of my lane position and speed, that I didn't even pay attention to other cars that much. That was the problem. I was distracted by being high, lol. Should I go 55 mph exactly? What if a cop takes that to mean I'm being too cautious and pulls me over out of suspicion? Because nobody else is going exactly 55. Okay, I'll go 60. But wait. Isn't 60 speeding, and a cop could pull me over for that? What if I pass an undercover going 60 and he's going 55? Okay, let me eases up a little and I'll go 57.5 mph. That should do it. Nobody gets a speeding ticket for 57.5 mph, so all I have to do is keep the needle 3/4 of the way past the second line after 50 mph on my speedometer the rest of the way and we'll be golden.

Friend in the back seat: "Dude, you just passed the exit."

crap.

hahahahahah
i think we've all been there

this reminds me of paranoia you're talking about

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcgp3EakgoA
 

Prime Time

PT
Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
20,922
Name
Peter
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #55
http://mmqb.si.com/2015/02/19/greg-hardy-nfl/

hardy-960.jpg

Grant Halverson/Getty Images

The Hardy Conundrum
His court case ultimately dismissed, Greg Hardy must now face NFL justice for a domestic violence conviction that the North Carolina legal system overturned. How will he be punished? And who’s making that decision?
By Andrew Brandt

Five months after that fateful week in September when domestic violence issues propelled the NFL into the national discourse, the third in a troika of high-profile cases is now reaching the disciplinary stage. After watching the missteps involving Ray Rice and ongoing litigation from Adrian Peterson against the NFL, we now await the league’s decision regarding Greg Hardy.

The complicating circumstances surrounding this case make it the hardest of the three to forecast discipline, and they illustrate the league’s difficult task of “normalizing” discipline when every case and every jurisdiction is different.

Settle in for another round of NFL justice, likely with little regard for the court’s resolution. Let’s examine:

Guilty, then innocent
Many following the Hardy case, including attorneys such as myself, have learned about an oddity of the criminal justice system in North Carolina. Hardy was found guilty of domestic violence charges in a bench (judge) trial but was able to appeal his conviction and have a trial by jury. But as that trial was set to begin last week, prosecutors were unable to locate the alleged victim who, we have learned, received a civil settlement. The case was dismissed and Hardy’s earlier conviction was vacated. As the NFL evaluates discipline, it does so with the legal case having been dismissed.

The dismissal of charges, however, may not mean much to the NFL. For that, Hardy can thank the failings of the Ray Rice investigation, which led to both Judge Barbara Jones in the Rice appeal and Robert Mueller in his report chastising the league for too much deference to the judicial outcome (Rice received only pre-trial intervention from prosecutors). In response, the NFL has pledged to step-up its internal investigations and to be less reliant on the legal system. Thus, the dismissal of charges may not have the impact that Hardy was hoping for.

As for the NFL’s investigators interviewing Hardy’s alleged victim, well, good luck with that. If prosecutors couldn’t locate her for months, the NFL’s investigators—with no subpoena power or official authority—are certainly not going to gain her cooperation. Thus, the NFL will rely on police reports, 911 calls, media accounts and any other information it can gather.


Furthermore, the Adrian Peterson precedent doesn’t bode well for Hardy. The NFL paid little regard to Peterson’s no contest plea to a misdemeanor (with no reference to family violence or violence against a minor) and instead focused on the disturbing facts of the case: that Peterson used a switch to discipline his child, and Peterson’s apparent “lack of remorse.”

Despite the light penalty under Texas law, Peterson received an indefinite suspension under NFL law. That has since been appealed, arbitrated, and is now awaiting decision in federal court. After the missteps of handling Rice’s punishment, the NFL disciplined Peterson with little regard to judicial outcome.

Paid leave
There is one certainty in the pending penalty of Hardy, which is also true with the Adrian Peterson case: his four months on the commissioner’s exempt list will not be seen as discipline or “time served.”

Within a crazy eight-hour span one day in September, the NFL, along with the Vikings and Panthers, created an inventive use of that list—it’s traditionally used for players coming off a suspension to acclimate with their team—to remove the radioactive Peterson and Hardy as expediently as possible.

In Hardy’s case, his placement on this list was the product of negotiation between the NFL, the Panthers, the NFLPA, and Hardy’s agent, Drew Rosenhaus. The deal was for the toxic Hardy to take a leave of absence yet still receive his franchise tag salary of $13.1 million.

As the NFL considers disciplining Hardy, it will clearly not view the time on the commissioner’s exempt list as anything but a negotiated settlement for 2014.

New policy
The Hardy case will be the first test of the NFL’s new personal conduct policy (one imposed without NFLPA input) that was unveiled in December. And, although it has been underreported, the new policy does not call for Roger Goodell to apply initial discipline on a player for misconduct (although he retains appeal power). In a marked change from the old policy, that initial discipline now comes from a Chief Disciplinary Officer. He or she now has the power to impose discipline on cases such as Hardy’s.

There is one minor detail missing here, however: that person has not yet been hired.While the NFL has hired a search firm and is conducting a national search, we still await the appointment of the new disciplinary officer. Thus, we are back to where we have always been: Goodell will likely levy Hardy’s discipline, with any appeal headed right back to him. Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.

Teams wait
Since I have had teams calling me to ask what I think Hardy’s discipline will be, there is certainly interest in signing him once his contract expires with the Panthers. As to the Panthers retaining Hardy with another franchise tag—they paid him $13.1 million to play in one game last season—I sense that ship has sailed.

Hardy presents as a premium player at a premium position, which is the recipe for a lucrative, long-term contract absent his off-field circumstances. Some teams will steer clear of Hardy no matter the punishment, yet as I always say: it doesn’t take 32 teams, it only takes one. There will be a team for Hardy.

Signing Hardy requires a C-level decision, with all facets of the organization aware and prepared for the potential backlash: from ownership to corporate sponsorships to marketing to public relations, etc. I remember a similar decision situation when I was consulting for the Eagles in 2009, when they signed Michael Vick following his release from federal prison.

The team has to expect that the unseemly details of Hardy’s domestic violence incident will be in heavy rotation when he signs (the same will be true for the team that signs Rice). However, despite heightened tension for a short while, eventually those emotions will fade and the focus will turn back to football. They always do.

As for Hardy’s discipline, I expect it will be strong, perhaps up to six games. Once that happens, of course, the NFLPA will have its grievance ready and make the argument that Hardy’s misconduct occurred before the new guidelines were implemented. Get ready for Law & Order: NFL, Part 3: The Hardy File. The disciplinary drama continues.
 

Prime Time

PT
Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
20,922
Name
Peter
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #56
http://deadspin.com/police-report-warren-sapp-said-he-paid-600-for-oral-s-1686746212

Police Report: Warren Sapp Said He Paid $600 For Oral Sex, Filmed It
Barry Petchesky

fxjcw02tkqegxfcckxaj.jpg


NFL Hall of Famer Warren Sapp faces charges of assault and soliciting prostitution, after a dispute over money with two women in a Phoenix hotel room after the Super Bowl. Police have released their report on the arrests of Sapp and the two women (on prostitution-related charges), and it sheds more light on what each side says happened that night.

According to the report, Sapp met the two women, ages 23 and 34, at the bar of the downtown Renaissance Hotel, and they told him they were dancers at a Las Vegas strip club. Sapp then invited them up to his room, the report says.

The report describes what allegedly happened in Sapp's room, as summarized by the Arizona Republic:

The women told police they were dancing for Sapp inside his hotel room and he threw $100 bills at them.

But investigators say Sapp reported giving each woman $300 in exchange for a sex act. The 23-year-old complied by giving him oral sex, which Sapp recorded on his cellphone and later showed police, while the 34-year-old hid in the bathroom and didn't emerge until she heard the pair arguing, according to the report.

Sapp told police that the 23-year-old asked for additional money for intercourse and began yelling when he refused to pay her more.

"He told her several times that she needed to leave but she was irate," the report said. "At one point, she used Warren's phone to call security to his room."


According to the report, Sapp says one woman spit in his face; the women say he shoved them to the ground. The report notes that one woman had bruises on her arms, while the other had abrasions and swelling on her legs.

"I do what I do, but that doesn't give him the right to put his hands on me," the 23-year-old told police.

Sapp, who was fired from his NFL Network job the day after his arrest, is due back in court next Monday.

[Arizona Republic, KSAZ-TV]
 

Prime Time

PT
Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
20,922
Name
Peter
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #57
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...s-junior-galette-of-physical-emotional-abuse/

Civil suit in Louisiana accuses Junior Galette of physical, emotional abuse
Posted by Josh Alper on February 19, 2015

cd0ymzcznguwzdbhnduynddiytjhm2yyzthlmtjjotqwyyznpwq4mzdiowe3owrmmdc0ymnimjewmzq2mtdlmtdjmgjj.jpeg
AP

Saints linebacker Junior Galette was arrested earlier this year on a misdemeanor battery charge after an incident with a woman at his home in Louisiana and now a civil suit has been filed by the same woman alleging physical and emotional abuse over a two-year period.

According to the suit, the 22-year-old woman lived with Galette for two years in “open concubinage” and that he forced her “to undertake certain acts of employment and to perform certain acts that were demeaning, degrading and against her will.” Galette has denied living with the woman, who claims that Galette and other unnamed members of the Saints groped her when she was drugged among other offenses.

Galette’s attorney Ralph Whalen shared a letter with the New Orleans Times-Picayune that was sent by the woman’s attorney Joe Raspanti offering to keep the case out of the courts in exchange for $2 million, an overture that Whalen termed a “shakedown.” Raspanti took issue with the public release of “settlement negotiations” and called Whalen’s response “an attempt to distort” the real issues at play.

The Saints had no comment on the lawsuit and General Manager Mickey Loomis said in January that the team plans to let the case run its course before taking any action.
 

Prime Time

PT
Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
20,922
Name
Peter
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #58
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/23/nate-allen-is-fully-cleared/

Nate Allen is fully cleared by Florida authorities
Posted by Mike Florio on February 23, 2015

allen.jpg
Getty Images

Last week, Eagles safety Nate Allen was detained but then released by authorities after an allegation of indecent exposure. This week, Allen fully has been cleared.

Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the Office of the State Attorney for the 20th Judicial Circuit in Fort Myers, Florida has found that Allen “could not have been the perpetrator” that triggered the allegations.

Last Monday, a 16-year-old girl called 911 to inform police that “she saw a man in a large black two door or four door pick-up, most likely a Ford, with his window down masturbating in the truck.” She said the man was in his mid-40s to early 50, with a gray/white goatee. She also said the man was wearing a red shirt and a white visor.

Police later saw Allen driving a black Ford F-250 truck, and wearing a red T-shirt and white cap. He was stopped and detained while the girl came to the traffic stop for the purposes of identifying Allen. It’s unclear whether she positively identified the 27-year-old Allen; the State Attorney’s memo exonerating Allen notes that this method of identification is “inherently suggestive and leads to potential misidentification.”

Other evidence confirmed that Allen was not the man the girl saw, including evidence regarding his whereabouts at the time and a surveillance video showing a different black truck next to the SUV the girl was driving at the time she called 911.

So it’s a complete and total exoneration of Allen. This isn’t a case of the prosecution believing it may not have enough proof to obtain a conviction; it has no proof. It wasn’t Allen.

A second-round pick of the Eagles in 2010, Allen is due to become a free agent on March 10.
 

LazyWinker

Pro Bowler
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
1,662
Name
Paul
paralegal and made big bucks.
On the topic of paralegals. A gay cowboy at a Chili's bar told me about his life as a paralegal working for the toughest lawyer in Tulsa, OK. He mentioned that his brand new Mercedes was at the dealership because the locks weren't working. He also told me that Katy Perry's E.T. is the best song ever.

Sorry that this doesn't add anything to the topic of NFL players being criminals.
 

Zaphod

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
2,217
Whenever some low character/off-field red flags guy comes up for discussion as to whether the Rams should pick or sign him, there's almost always someone who proclaims that it'll be okay because Fisher "knows how to handle these guys". And that with Fisher's leadership, the bad character guy is naturally just going to fall in line and never be a problem on this level.

If Fisher was the Blockhead Whisperer or something who could magically keep all these guys under control, then Pacman Jones would have been a great pick for the Titans.

Of course, I've always been insistent that character is vitally important, and for every 1 guy who grows up when he reaches this level, there's 100 or more that don't.
That's an excellent point. Every time someone with a major character flaw comes up, someone brings up that Fisher can reign that individual in.

But that generalization is just not so. I think they know well who their head coach is, and if a player is questionable, I'm sure they'll run him by Fisher to find out if he can work with him before drafting the kid.

It took me a bit to think of his name, but Vince Young comes to mind as well. It's just not as simple as saying that Jeff Fisher can work with anyone.