Quote:This actually makes me worried that 

 

A) The Jags don't think Dante and Yannick are going to provide enough pressure

 

or

 

2) There is a pending issue (injury or suspension) that they know about

For myriad reasons, I concur with the above.

 

Traditionally, I have not been particularly moralist when it comes to signing players with off field issues.  As Hurricane and others have observed, having players with off field issues are not necessarily anathema to winning a Super Bowl.  NFL history is replete with teams having a winning atmosphere and having winning results while having players deemed as "cancers."  The Oakland Raiders won three Super Bowls taking teams' castoffs and rejects and problem children.  Lawrence Taylor was notorious for cocaine use and missing practice, but the Giants won two Super Bowls with him and contended for most of the 1980s.  The Cowboys were known as much for off field dysfunction as they were for their on field dominance in the 1990s.  The Green Bay Packers won Super Bowl XXXI after signing Andre Rison, who burned bridges in Indianapolis, Atlanta, Cleveland and Jacksonville.  The San Francisco 49ers endured locker room dissonance from the likes of Charles Haley, and signed Tim Harris, who had well documented alcohol issues to win multiple Super Bowl titles.  More recent examples include Seattle winning with Percy Harvin and the Patriots with Randy Moss.  As a general rule, I think history has shown that teams tend to err on the side of talent when it comes to character issues.  In the interest of full disclosure, when he became a free agent last year, I initially advocated signing him.

 

However, Hardy presents more off field issues than I am comfortable dealing with.  First off, there are usually whispers that a player is a locker room cancer, but usually these whispers come from sports writers who relay the information.  Rarely do former teammates speak publicly and derisively about their former teammates.  But Hardy's former teammates in Carolina and Dallas both disparaged his locker room presence before and after he left.  While there are sides to every story, and while I am not privy to the happenings inside the Jaguars' locker room, the sense I get is there is not a lot of acrimony there despite the losing, turnover, and youth.  The last thing this young and talented team needs is someone to fracture the locker room.  Were this team an established winner, with a strong head coach and lots of veteran leaders to offset a potentially negative influence, I might be more inclined to take a chance on him.  But while Bradley remains a favorite with his players, I can't imagine him having the clout with a new guy like Hardy to control him, nor has anyone in the locker room reached superstar status, especially on the defense, to earn Hardy's respect enough to keep him in line. 

 

Furthermore, the considerable negative publicity surrounding his off field issues, particularly the domestic violence, has made him largely radioactive to the rest of the league.  He represents one of the most important commodities a football team could have-a potentially great pass rusher.  Yet in spite of teams tending to err on the side of talent, teams have eschewed Hardy, including Dallas, who has a desperate need for a pass rusher and still let him walk after barely half a season on field.  For a team struggling to have more than a small, regional following/fan base, it seems to me signing a guy with such highly publicized and egregious off field conduct (with pictures of the aftermath) would bring a lot of negative attention to this team and defeat the team's efforts to broaden its appeal.

 

The fact the team is considering signing him in light of the above brings the concerns voiced by High Score into focus.

 

Presumably, Hardy would play LDE in our scheme.  Hardy racked up his high sack totals as a LDE in Carolina.  While we don't have a proven dominant pass rusher at that position, it is considered a position of good depth, especially when you consider Jackson, Ngakoue and perhaps even Sheldon Day could slide over there in certain situations.  Signing Hardy within the context of the depth and flexibility we have at the position seems kind of odd.  This brings to mind another consideration:  how would Hardy's presence affect the development of young DEs like Fowler and Ngakoue? Sure you want as much playmaking talent as possible along the DL, and neither Fowler nor Ngakoue are sure things at this point in their careers.  But assuming the team actually hit on Fowler and Ngakoue, how many reps-both in practice and in games- would Hardy's presence take away from them?  I share High Score's concern (paranoia?) that the team is having second thoughts about the immediate viability of Fowler and or Ngakoue, or has information regarding their availability for this season.  

 

Perhaps this is a manifestation of this team's strong desire to win and erring on the side of talent as many winning franchises have done before.  Perhaps it's possible that Hardy, in their estimation, has genuinely changed for the better in terms of how he relates to teammates, coaches and paramours.  But to me, such a signing is fraught with risk, too much for a team with such a young roster looking to take the next step beyond mere respectability but into contention.

---