Create Account

Or log in with Facebook


Log in

Or log in with Facebook

McCarthy Should Sit Jolly

By Category

McCarthy Should Sit Jolly

Plaxico Burress, Santonio Holmes and Steve Smith have all missed games this year after their head coaches deemed it necessary to send a message to the players in question and to their respective teams regarding their behavior, for various reasons.

Mike McCarthy should send a similar message to his team in general and Johnny Jolly in particular by suspending him for Sunday's game against the Titans after his indictment by a grand jury for felony drug possession. Yes, he has not been found guilty of any crime, but McCarthy needs the team and league to know that even being tangentially involved in this scenario is completely unacceptable to both him and the organization. It would be an especially strong message this week as Jolly would be a major part of any defensive effort against the powerful running game of the Titans. McCarthy's willingness to sit a key contributor would speak volumes.

These are the Green Bay Packers. We don't ask them to be angels. We do ask them to be good citizens and represent the Packers for the few years of their lives they are under contract to the greatest team in professional sports. By putting himself in this position, Jolly has shown he cares far more about himself and his life away from football than he does about his coaches, his teammates or the fans.

Do the right think, Mike. Sit him down.

  • Like Like
  • 0 points

Fan friendly comments only: off Comments (18) This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

Donald's Designated Driver's picture

I disagree. Let the league deal with it. If the league is too soft on him, then the Packers can spank him. But I'm just not ready to rake the guy over the coals for---wait for it---driving around with too much cough syrup in his trunk. But I'm a libertarian, so I digress.

(When I'm sick I enjoy lemon TheraFlu with a shot of tequilla. I call it the NazTea, but I digress even further.)

The Smith and Burress examples are off the mark, too. Those two guys broke team rules, beating up teammates and insubordination.

Holmes is more on the money. The difference there is that Holmes has been a repeat offender.

Here, we are talking about a first offense of driving around with cough syrup in the trunk (or felony DAWCSIT).

As an aside, I have never even once heard a sports fan advocate a suspension for guys (like Ahman Green) repeatedly get popped for DV. Which is worse: driving around with a trunkload of cough syrup or beating up your girlfriend? Yet, whenever a player is accused of DV, "it's a personal matter let's let the courts figure it out." If its a trunkload of cough syrup we're ready to make an example of 'em. /soapbox.

packeraaron's picture

DDD- Couldn't disagree more, as is obvious by my post. And the Ahman Green argument is strawmanny, at best. Where have I ever said anything about Green or DV?

Yes, it's a first offense. So what? That makes it alright? It's about accountability. I completely agree that, in essence, his actions cause no harm. Unfortunately, it's still against the law, a law Jolly willingly broke.

McCarthy would go a long way to snuffing out this kind of BS by making a statement with Jolly.

astyak's picture

If we do not take action on this without waiting for the league then we are no different from any other team in the league. Anyone associated with this team needs to know that they are representing the team. If they don't behave accordingly then they can not represent the team. If we do not hold the line on this you might as well call us the Cowboys or the Raiders.

coreyb's picture

But we really need Jolly. Drug addiction is an illness. Did I mention the fact that we really need Jolly? Btw- this comment published from my iPhone- hotness

Donald's Designated Driver's picture

My point is not to attack a strawman, but rather to illustrate how sports fans tend to hyperventilate about(in the grand scheme of things) the little stuff. I have already outted myself as a libertarian so take it with a grain of salt. But if a guy wants to get a little silly with the Nyquil I honestly couldn't give a shit less.'s against THE LAW. Well, that's why we should just let the legal process work itself out.

And yes, it does matter whether it is a first offense or whether the player is a repeat problem. I don't recall the Packers suspending Favre for his problems (which would have broken the streak). I don't recall the Packers suspending Barnett for his run in wit the law. I don't think Lombardi did anything to the Golden Boy, but left his punishment up to the league. Unless you can find some counterexample, I think that what you are proposing is fairly unprecedented. It doesn't mean that you are not ultimately correct, but it does mean that you are dead nuts wrong if you think it doesn't make any difference that it is a first offense.

If Jolly doesn't learn his lesson, then let's string him up. But for now: take a deep breath. Every little thing is gonna be alright. (Really.)

dustybricks6's picture

I agree we should sit him. Two weeks from now. Against the vikings.

nc packer backer's picture

Since when did everyone become judge, juror and executioner???? The league will make Jolly pay dearly for his mistake, if proven guilty. Regardless if the Packers need him or not, the legal process will work as it should. Self righteous fans should worry about better things, like crushing Kerry Collins. I heard he's voting for McCain.

dustybricks6's picture

I just watched e:60 which featured deanna favre... man, we had a great thing with favre. the plays, the personal stories. It was great. I'm so happy with Rodgers, but no one should sh*t on what we had with favre. I'm drunk and sentimental, but I stand by it.

packeraaron's picture

DDD - We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. It's about precedent for McCarthy and his tenure as Head Coach of the Green Bay Packers, not the legal system of the nation.

We can find common ground in our shared belief that his actions definitely should NOT be illegal.

Donald's Designated Driver's picture

I agree that it is about precedent. To the best of my knowledge, none of the previous Packer coaches have ever set such a precedent. What makes this case so special?

If you are going to advocate for a brand new precedent you should be able to answer that question.

packeraaron's picture

The reason no coach has been able to make this stand before is because of the change in the CBA that allows teams to discipline players for 'conduct detrimental to the team' - that's why you've seen Coaches benching players this year at an unprecedented rate - did you think it was coincidence? Remember how the NFLPA cried foul when the Eagles suspended Owens? Or when Gruden suspended Johnson? Now the CBA is in the teams favor. I admire coaches like Fox and Tomlin who are not afraid to sit their best players. It sends a clear message. The message from McCarthy so far has been disappointing in regards to Jolly.

Donald's Designated Driver's picture

Sorry. Gotta call you out. Packer coaches have never even *attempted* to suspend players for a first infraction.

There is also a difference between "benching" a player and suspending them. Can the league tell teams what starting roster it must field? I'd like to see them try.

Every coach from Lombardi down the Holmgren has had the power to bench players for whatever strikes their fancy. To the best of my knowledge, none have done so based upon an off-the-field first offense. (I suppose that's because Lombardi and Holmgren were just big old softies?)

I think you are overreacting, here. Big time.

Show me a player---any player for any team---that was suspended based upon one off the field incident.

packeraaron's picture

Wait - so because no ones ever done it, it should't be done? I stand behind my post 1000 percent, as Jay Glazer would say...

Donald's Designated Driver's picture

Now, who's slaying the strawman?

If you are going to set a brand new precedent, should be able to articulate some reason that this case is so damn special. If you cannot, then I think your position should rightly be rejected as a knee-jerk reaction.

packeraaron's picture

How in the WORLD is that a Strawman? You're WHOLE argument is - It's never been done so McCarthy can't/shouldn't do it. My whole argument is - McCarthy SHOULD take a stand and let his team know that finding yourself indicted by a grand jury is unacceptable. Look, like I said, we'll agree to disagree here. (Listen to the podcast to hear Corey berate me as well)

Donald's Designated Driver's picture

That's not correct. My whole argument is that its never been done before so you shouldn't do it ***unless you can articulate some reason that the Jolly case is "special."***

I have never said you can NEVER set a new precedent (strawman), but let's follow the old precedent until there is some actual **need** for a new precedent.

Where's the need, here?

You seem to imply that McCarthy needs to show what a big tough guy like Tomlin and Fox. But those coaches are suspending **repeat offenders.** You seem to be under a misconception that other coaches would frogmarch Jolly out of the lockerroom and thus McCarthy should too. But you are dead wrong on the first part.

packeraaron's picture

Last word freak.


Alex Tallitsch's picture

Wow- how did I miss this. Innocent until proven guilty. Why punish the team?

Log in to comment, upload your game day photos and more!

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.

Or log in with Facebook



"A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall. "
"The Bears still suck!"
"I firmly believe that any man’s finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious."