Wow, many pages and no good reason to sign Tank, outside of "mayne he's changed now." Dude mentions Brees and Payton in the same breath with Tank, but follows it with "save the but they didn't committ a crime" line. The most important point should be irrelevant so we can sign Dirty Harry Johnson. Didn't his bodyguard get killed while in his employ? Lordy, pass already.

my question would be, where did this rumor come from? i mean, are the saints really interested, are is someone else just spectulating? can anyone confirm the saints said they are interested?

It came from John Clayton. New Orleans needs a DT, Tank got cut.

Why was luck not involved? Do you understand how hard it would be for you or me to go out drinking and stop that close to the legal limit without being over? The man had no idea he was that close and could not have known that he wasn't over the limit. He was just plain lucky that he wasn't over.

Close is not irrelevant. This is what I am finding annoying about sentiments such as yours. Whether he can be convicted of a crime or not is irrelevant. The fact is that he has put himself in a position (once again) to get arrested. He was out late while drinking and speeding. This is all evidence that he was not making a lifestyle change away from the things that have gotten him in trouble. Goodell has already made it clear that convictions are not a required event that will lead to suspension. Tank was arrested, wasn't he? That is yet another arrest during his NFL career. I know that not everyone arrested is guilty, but if you're being arrested as often as Tank, there's a problem.

Also, that Tank probably has a higher tolerance being a 300 lb man does not help your point. That is likely true, but all it really means that he drank enough for a 200 or 250 lb person to be legally intoxicated. Regardless of how his tolerance is, he drank himself that close to the legal limit and then got in a vehicle, which was dumb enough, then decided to speed while driving the vehicle. That's just stupid.

Why does it seem my quotes are so frequently reprocessed and hurled back at me from the same two people? Get your own material. Why should I keep listing reasons to sign Tank, after THREE threads about him? You pass. I'lll give him a chance.

Show me his exact blood alcohol content, and we'll go from there. "Drinking and speeding" probably translates up to a couple beers or one shot, then doing 40 in a 20. Not advisable considering his circumstances, (actually, anyones) but not an unforgivable crime. No, I don't believe in luck. I believe in alcohol content, and the law.

Some people just have motives and agenda's. If you read other treads you can figure out the motives and agendas some of them have.

Close doesn't count except in Horse-shoes and handgranades.

I'm painfully aware of that. My thing is I've listed reasons in 3 threads to sign Tank. Still, I get a "Ive seen no good reason to sign Tank." That's when those agendas start to border on sheer folly. That smiley used, and referring to him as Dirty Harry, etc makes agendas glare. Hell, I've seen no good reason to shun him. Like I said.... BB signed Moss, so who are we?

so then, it's just a rumor from clayton and has nothing more, right?

if so, what does everyone think about vick coming to n.o.?

It was close enough to get him arrested.

I hope I'm not being referred to as having some motive here. I can see the potential on field benefit to the Saints, but there is also an off-field negative that could affect the Saints more than just having a suspended player. What if the Saints sign him, he screws up again and the NFL docks the Saints a draft pick?

I'm not saying what happened in AZ alone should warrant cause for concern, but his history of problems including what went on in AZ is.

That's another thread, but I don't really wanna hear Vick's name anymore. I don't care if he takes another snap.

I've been arrested and had charges dropped before....Personally, I wasn't thinking of you as agenda driven. Which draft pick would he cost, should Tank be released?

...arrested but no charges, coming from grandmothers house. Big deal! In a couple of weeks teams will really start talking to him and see where he is. We should be one of the teams seriously checking him out.

He'll be there soon enough he just left my place... I got a 6 game suspension, good luck.

Again, I think the point should be clear that multiple infractions are the issue, not "I've been arrested once in my life". The US Supreme Court ruled a few years back in such a way that would allow you to be arrested for just about anything including speeding. If this episode in AZ had been Tank's only issue, I wouldn't have a problem with him at all. But given his history, I just can't justify him since he seems willing to continue to put himself in bad positions.

I don't know what draft pick a team might be deducted if they sign him and he screws up again. I would have to think it'd have to be high enough to make other teams think twice about making the same mistake. That might be as high as a 4th or a 5th.

It may go higher than that since many teams would probably willingly have traded for him with a higher pick than that. That may influence Goodell's decision too.

I was able to process what your point was. I'm troubled by this attitude of Tank being arrested, while not charged, as being considered another infraction.

Check this
 

http://nola.com/saints/t-p/index.ssf...370.xml&coll=1

Sunday, July 01, 2007Jeff Duncan
Tank Johnson, Pacman Jones, Chris Henry.

With every embarrassing arrest and head-scratching headline it becomes more clear: The Saints and Hornets are doing things right.

Think about it. When was the last time a player from either of New Orleans' major-league sports teams ran afoul of the law? When was the last time either club even had a player in a negative headline?

The last transgressions I recall were Jammal Brown's arrest on domestic abuse charges last summer and Chris Andersen's 2006 suspension for violating the NBA's drug policy. The state dropped its case against Brown in February.

(It's hard to hold linebacker E.J. Kuale's March arrest on drug and firearm charges against the Saints. He was a fringe player who likely wouldn't have made the final roster, and the club cut Kuale the next day.)

Otherwise, there's been nary a sinner among the Saints and Hornets.

How refreshing. Our politicians might be a bunch of Boris Badenoffs, but our pro athletes are Dudley Do-Rights.

In fact, I'd venture to say New Orleans owns the best collection of good-guy athletes in America. You won't find better ambassadors than Deuce McAllister, Chris Paul, Drew Brees and Tyson Chandler. Take-home-to-momma types, all of 'em.

And these aren't end-of-the-bench extras handpicked to dress up the team photo and pad the charity docket. These are the team leaders. And for the most part, the rest of the rosters are filled with similar class acts.
:handguns:

"Johnson's blood alcohol level was .072, under the presumptive limit in Arizona of .08 percent, police Sgt. Andrew Duncan said Monday."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200....ap/index.html

Like I said, he was only under the limit by .008. Sure, he won't probably won't get convicted of DUI, but that's not because he didn't do anything wrong. He had been out of jail less time than he had been in jail and was (in my opinion) just plain lucky that he didn't test more than the .08 limit. To me, that shows that his attitude is one of complete disregard for trying to live a life that does not involve run ins with the law. Considering his history..that's an infraction. The Bears thought so too.

Hooray for the Bears. Other teams will bid on his services, so there is no concrete right or wrong.

I think the agendas in this thread are pretty clear. Sign a multi-time run in with the police guy :handguns: and forget the image the team has strived to create, or don't sign him. Seems the only agenda is sweeping his multiple run ins with the law under the rug. I am with smitty, has Payton or Loomis said anything about signing him? No? Then the rest is BS. Pass.

Have they said anything about not signing Tank? NO? Well, then it isn't BS. Call him in for a chat...
Gotta jet. Happy 4th.

Um, when teams AREN'T gonna sign a FA, they don't announce they AREN'T gonna sign a FA. Lame. No one in the Saints org has mentioned Tank, and that says enough, and should to everyone else. Pass on the BS.

Bears told Johnson they'd have zero tolerance.

In the wake of Monday evening's revelation that Tank Johnson wasn't legally intoxicated when police in Gilbert, Ariz., arrested him June 22, it had been suggested in some quarters that Chicago Bears officials acted hastily in waiving the veteran defensive tackle just three days after the incident.

The sense from some who weighed in late Monday regarding the treatment of Johnson was that Bears management should have delayed any resolution of his future with the franchise until the results of a blood-alcohol test were completed. The knee-jerk reaction from some of the apologists was that the Bears, in waiving Johnson, assumed he was guilty and opted to simply sever their ties with a problem man-child.

Not so, according to team officials, who adopted a no-comment public stance on Monday, but who privately made it clear that presumption of guilt had nothing to do with the decision to jettison Johnson.

Remember, team officials reminded, this important element: When Johnson was released from the Cook County (Ill.) Jail, where he served two months this spring for violating his probation on an earlier gun charge, he was put on notice by general manager Jerry Angelo and coach Lovie Smith.

Zero tolerance. No more legal entanglements. No more off-field indiscretions. No more screwups permitted, team officials said, acknowledging they were "upset and embarrassed" by Johnson's arrest in Arizona. Walk the straight and narrow and you get to run onto the field again wearing a Bears uniform. Diverge from the very narrow path Chicago management had laid out, and pay the consequences.

So when Johnson was pulled over at 3:30 a.m.. reportedly driving 40 mph in a 25 mph zone, and operating his vehicle in a manner erratic enough to have drawn notice from the police, he had, in the estimation of Bears officials, veered into a margin off-limits to him. A no-margin zone he agreed that he understood when Angelo and Smith apprised him of what he had to do to maintain a spot on the roster.

Yet even though he understood the rules, Johnson was out late, drinking somewhere, and climbed behind the wheel of a car while at least slightly impaired. You can parse degrees of poor judgment any way you want, but even a most accomplished and eloquent orator would have a tough time convincing anyone that Johnson wasn't out of line.

So the Bears contended Monday night that, within their organization, there was definitely no second-guessing about not granting Johnson a third chance to turn himself around. Johnson is history in Chicago and, while that is regrettable, the Bears are conceding no regrets.

Team officials apparently had some inkling of what the blood-alcohol tests would reveal, even before they were announced Monday evening. But in the estimation of the people who own and run the Bears, the results, which indicated that Johnson had a blood-alcohol reading of .072, really didn't matter (the legal limit in Arizona is .08).

That's because, under the NFL's new personal conduct policy, guilt doesn't matter as much anymore as does culpability. At least for players like Johnson who have been branded as repeat offenders.

And when Johnson was stopped by the police on June 22, he was culpable of not keeping his part of the bargain that he had forged with the team. The incident occurred only about 24 hours after the Bears had concluded their offseason conditioning program, when Smith's send-off entreaty to his players, admonishing them to stay out of trouble, should have held cautionary resonance.

If there is any good news for Johnson in Monday's announcement, it is that he now has one less black cloud hovering over him. He is less legally encumbered, so teams interested in signing him will have one less hurdle when assessing the 25-year-old who plays a premium position.

While it is doubtful the league will consider shortening his eight-game suspension to six games, which could have been accomplished if Johnson had avoided trouble, it's also unlikely that commissioner Roger Goodell will extend the banishment based on the June 22 incident. What occurred that night is, or more accurately, was, between Johnson and the Bears.

While a court of law might not convict Johnson, the Bears essentially judged him guilty of betraying their trust and unworthy of any more excuses. And apparently the court of public opinion, at least as it exists among readers of the Chicago Tribune, agreed with the approach. On Tuesday morning, a newspaper poll showed that 68.1 percent of the 5,494 respondents agreed the Bears should have cut Johnson, no matter the results of the blood-alcohol screen.

Almost as significant is the silence from the NFL Players Association, which has been deafening. Not just in the case of Johnson, but also after the releases of several other league players who were cut loose by teams this spring after encountering legal difficulties. In the past, the union would have blindly supported Johnson and the rest.

But no more.

There is an army of attorneys that has argued in the past couple of months that Goodell, and by extension the NFL, has overstepped authority in some of the sanctions imposed under the auspices of the more stringent player-conduct policy. The commissioner, they insist, is on a slippery slope.

But Bears officials said privately Monday that their footing was not made more treacherous by the public results of Johnson's sobriety test. They were just relieved that, no matter the outcome and despite the premature departure of a talented player, Johnson was no longer their problem.

Um, that's false. Just last week, I saw posts linked to teams stating that they would pass on Culpepper, when he becomes available. I wasn't aware that Loomis ran his plans by you. However, I have some lovely parting gifts. Thanks for playing Pass on the BS.

actually boba might be able to shed some light on this.....
hear anything from the front office boba? rumor, fact, nothing?

True or not, my point was that teams do announce when they have no interest in a player. A recent example was the Lions' coach just claimed to pass on Culpepper. This could be a ploy, but he was quoted.

Teams declining to mention interest in a player means nothing. I'm sure everyone in here can name a player that the Saints signed in our history, without the FO making prior statements. The notion of no comment= no interest in every case was just plain silly.

Actually, the Lions coach was ASKED if they had interest in C-Pep, and they said they didn't. Teams don't just issue blanket non-interest statements on a player, and it's silly to suggest they do. Again, pass on the BS. But I am sure when Payton or Loomis are ASKED about Tank, they will supply a response. I am also sure you are probably awaiting 30 other teams putting out statements of non-interest on Tank, without being asked about him. Like I said, silly but good luck with that.

I don't think it matters whether the team is actually interested in Tank or not for this to be a relevant discussion. We could just as easily remove his name and be discussing a player in his situation. That's as valid as any other conversation fans can have about sports. If you try to draw a line that says there should be no discussion about a player unless the Saints actually say they are interested, then there are hundreds of threads that will be abolished by such a rule.

We are fans here discussing the mights, the maybe's and the shoulda, coulda, woulda's of the team as well as the actual happenings. In the end if you think it is a waste of time to discuss Tank, then don't read it or reply to it.

Actually, my problem is more with the suggestion there is an agenda cause someone DOESN'T want to sign Tank than it is with Tank being discussed. I don't see where it says anyone should not discuss Tank. I do see where I said it's BS to me until the team says they are interested. This stemmed from one man, John Clayton, saying we should be interested in Tank cause it appears we have a need at DT, and Tank is a DT. That's it. No one from the Saints camp has mentioned Tank one time that I am aware of. But when the line was taking an agenda is why folks didn't want Tank to be signed, I said signing him was BS until the team says something. I don't see how that should stop anyone from discussing Tank though. Can you point out where I said I felt no one should discuss Tank?

While they are at might as well try to get Ricky Williams back too signing Tank would end up being a disaster he can't stay out of trouble and doesn't seem to be smart enough to learn from his mistakes whichever team ends up signing him will regret it

No, I can't. I wasn't directing my statements at you as much as just making my point that it doesn't matter whether the team expressed any interest or not as far as our discussing it goes. It did seem like you were brushing off the whole discussion calling it "BS" because Loomis hasn't mentioned getting Tank and that he hasn't mentioned it is irrelevant. They might sign Tank without any metion of him before hand.

Exactly. We just had a thread on LJ, in about the same circumstances. Some yahoo blurted out the Saints and Deuce being a trade issue, and we ran with it for entertainment. I respond to these types of threads with the same mentality that I do cranking up my XBOX.

When someone calls me lame due to my opinion of some event that isn't even official, my mentality changes.

Oh, now I get it...You assumed I was implying that teams would call some sort of press conference to announce who they wouldn't be interested in. Honestly, how much sense did that make? I'm sorry, but you have yet again failed to make me appear to be an uninformed fan. My scenario was pretty simple, at least to me.

KW: Hey Coach, any interest in Tank?
Payton: Hell, no
KW: Back to you, Jim

You'll have to buy another ticket and get in line again to get on my ride. You're starting to bore me.

"You're starting to bore me."

THAT'S OK...........THIS WHOLE THREAD IS BORING ME!!!!!

Actually, I was brushing the scenario off as BS since it only came from Clayton. That still doesn't mean anyone and everyone who wants to can't discuss it. It's BS TO ME cause no one but Clayton has made this leap. But when people start throwing the word "agenda" around "throwing stuff up against the wall" reports, well, I call BS. But it being BS would be my opinion, and doesn;t mean it can't be discussed. just that I don't have to buy what's being sold.

*sigh* Try again. Unless you didn't say the bolded words. Again, teams don't "announce" anything about NOT being interested in a player unless asked, and most times they don't answer directly when they are asked. In YOUR example of Marineli, he was ASKED. So exactly like said, teams don't go around just making it known who they AREN'T interested in. Just FYI also, people called BS on that LJ nonsense too. Back to the drawing board. :rolleyes:

As far as trying to make you look like an "uninformed fan," you're taking yourself too seriously. It's a message board. I don't know you, and don't need to form an opinion of you. Ease back.

Geez, this is looking alot like a thread from that 'other' site!

da bears speak up...............

Bears | Test results didn't influence decision on T. Johnson
Thu, 5 Jul 2007 11:42:46 -0700

Larry Mayer, of ChicagoBears.com, reports Chicago Bears general manager Jerry Angelo said the results of the blood test to see if unrestricted free-agent DT Tank Johnson (Bears) was driving under the influence had no impact on their decision to release Johnson. "We weren't basing it off the police report because we made the decision prior to that. We had a zero-tolerance policy and he crossed the line. That line was very clear to everybody and it was made very clear to him. We made it very clear to him that he had no room for error. It's unfortunate, but we did the right thing for our football team," Angelo said.

if there was anything else to talk about, this one would be locked. At least they are acting like gentlemen. LOLOLOLOLOLOL