Packers DE Johnny Jolly signed his tender before the deadline, agent Brian Overstreet told the Journal Sentinel.
At least his agent was smart enough in this situation,still took to long to get the picture. Would have been better if he hadn't signed it though.
I just can't say I am happy with this, just indifferent.
Any word as to whether Jolly was wearing a suit and tie for the signing?
Define suite? If you mean baseball cap on sideways, baggy pants with the overall appearance of having just crawled out of a dumpster, then probably he was wearing a suite.
No suit or tie,but I heard he did have an orange jumper in a garment bag. LOL
Man, haters come out of the woodwork in the off-season. Didn't hear too much of this during the season when he was ballin'... fickle MoFo's. Don't be shocked if this court date gets pushed back (AGAIN)and this dude produces like he did last year... kid was a stud last year. PERIOD.
GBP 4 LIFE
Agreed. Except when rushing the passer. Then he was a non-factor.
Fitz, I am all for Jolly getting his stuff together and playing football because you're right, he did a great job last year. But come on, the guy is going in front of a judge looking like he just robbed a convenience store. I don't know who is more stupid Jolly or his attorney that let him walk into a court room looking like that. Perception is the true reality. Why do "white collar" criminals get off so easy? Because they don't look like criminals when they appear in court. Especially with the kind of money that guy is making, I don't understand why he not just play the game and "dress for success". That just seams like common sense.
That's such a discriminating policy. I work as a lawyer in Brazil, and, sure, I expect from my clients that they dress accordingly. And it's not Jolly's case. But there's a reason a suit is not mandatory in court. It corelates financial stability with behavioral problem.
Moreso, if a man doesn't care to dress in a formal fashion, it just proves that he doesn't care to dress in a formal fashion, not that he's guilty of anything, and should not influence the magistrate's decision regarding the case.
"and should not influence the magistrate’s decision regarding the case."
I agree it 'shouldn't' but no way do I think it 'doesn't'.
Never said it didn't.
Just saying I can't condemn him for not following a stupid, pointless etiquette rule, that was formed in the Victorian era, where, curiously, people had to put tons of perfume because they didn't bathe...
But I digress...
Whether or not that is supposed to make a difference or not, it does. As it stands, every picture you see of this guy he's wearing the same clothes as he was wearing in the photos the prosecutor is using against him. It might not be bad idea to look like you cleaned up your act. Nobody is saying that he needs to wear a three piece suite. Hell, a decent pair of slack and a shirt without printing all over it would be a step in the right direction. The man is making a 7 figure salary, I think he could spring for the new threads and throw them away later. Come on PackerRS if you're an attorney, you must have had to study some Latin. What's the famous quote? "Vestis Virum Reddit", translation, "the clothes make the man". Pretty simple to do. Isn't that part of putting on the best possible defense?
Never studied latin, outside of the famous legal references...
As for the clothing, like I said, I recognize it's influence, behave myself accordingly, and expect any client that I represent to do so, but I cannot condemn him for not following something that's fundamentally wrong... Just that.
Ok, you must have been absent the day they taught Latin in Latin class. The quote is a famous quote from Marcus Fabius Quintilianus who was a lawyer and considered one of the best orators of his day. The reason it has hung around for 2000 years is because of another word you should have picked up in law school, "veritas" translation, truth.
The whole argument you make about protecting those with less financial means forcing them buy clothing they can't afford to appear in court kind of goes out the window for a guy who is pictured on this website wearing a $10,000 diamond encrusted watch. I think everyone knows that he has money.
My whole point is the guy is doing very little to change people's perception of him and judge in Houston must agree because they tightened his bond restrictions.
Getting back to Packer football, I really want to see this guy back on the field, not it jail.
Nono. Latin isn't included in the Law School program, in Brazil.
And "data venia", my point is that the way a person lives shouldn't interfere in the way his case is judged, and that's what happens... "quod non est in actis non est in mundo", or at least it should be that way.
And as for Packer football, I think he's a great guy to have, but he doesn't add nothing in pass rush...
Yeah, you should dress like you are going to a job interviem, for your freedom. He's definitely not a jeeneeus, that much is clear.
By my count someone needs to be released.
Nope - they were at 77 before Jolly signed, at 78 now. 80 is the limit.
Went through the math - you are right.
Fitzcore1252,the DA knew exactly what he was doing and succeeded.C'mon,opening day of training camp,even if Jolly gets off,the DA nailed his ass and the Packers.Cowboy revenge?Postponement-Vegas books won't put odds on that one.
We shall see. Look how many times it's been pushed back already. Same with the Williams girls, they've been dragging that out for years. Not saying it will, just won't be the least bit surprised if it does.
Don't get the "Cowboy revenge", they're in Houston?
And I can get you odds on anything, just lemme know... I got a guy. 8-)
I live in Vegas. But please don't waste your money.
Better Thought- TT, trade for Logan Mankin, OG for the Patriots, 2 time Pro bowler drafted in 05. Unhappy and wants out.
Trade a 2nd & 4th and give Rogers a free out of jail card - Hey a first--look at Harrel! at least you got something! Starts up front boys! Gotta be a big Dog, to Piss in the tall weed's!
You don't pay a guard more than 7 millions a year (and that's what the Pats have offered Mankins according to the press). For a very good tackle I can see this kind of money, but not for a guard.
Are the Packers that desperate anyway for a guard? I would rather spend it on a corner.
In the end TT won't pay this kind of money anyway.
On the issue of Jolly: Someone talked some sense into him. He got the better part of the deal.
Good stuff Chris. Agreed. As for your last bit - the team loves Jolly's talent and seem to be blinded by that love. Not sure why.
I can see why the Packers love the kid.
Jolly had a really good season last year. Blocking passes, getting into the backfield, setting the edge for passrushers to get to the QB. He made a pretty smooth transition from DT in the 4-3 to DE in 3-4.
What alternatives do the Packers have anyway? One is playing Raji at DE. But was he really drafted for that and paid the big bucks? I don't think so. Harrell? Unlikely that they can count on him.
Who else? Anyone? Anyone? Buehler? :-)
Well, obviously that's why Neal and Wilson were drafted. The thinking most likely is they will watch how they both do in camp. If both show that they're players, they may move on from Jolly. I like Jolly's game - but, much like Jenkins, he was asked to play way. way too many snaps last year. I would love to see what this defense could do with him IN the lineup and with reduced snaps.
Agree with all of that.
Perhaps it could be that when you cut through all the "Packer People" bullshit; all that REALLY matters is if the kid can ball. Period.
Can he make a difference? YES.
Can he help bring home the next Lombardi? YES.
Do we have a better option? NO.
It's pretty clear the GBP think the kid can ball (I concur), at the end of the day that's what it all boils down to. If they're choir boys AND can ball, GREAT! But if not... What do you expect a franchise to do?
Just wanted to comment on Jolly’s choice of attire.
I don’t think it’s about etiquette; it’s about Jolly showing that he has respect for the court and the law of the land, and that he takes the charges seriously. He has to at least give the impression he gives a shit about the gravity of the situation. I’ve seen judges in action and although it shouldn’t, things like this can really piss them off. You just don’t turn up to court dressed like you've just finished a drug run!
Look I'm not saying he should be condemned for dressing like a fool, it's only a small mistake but it’s an annoying one.
Not a member yet? Join free.
If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you.
Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.