HawkShack.com

http://www.tmz.com/2017/03/27/seahawks- ... -arrested/

Boykin was also taken into custody and now faces drug and public intoxication charges. We're told Boykin is accused of being in possession of more than 2 ounces of marijuana.

I'll refrain from passing judgement until more facts come out, but this ain't good.

Another player that thinks the NFL life is a given.
He might otherwise be a good kid, but he's made some real bad choices about who he continues to hang with, and adding alcohol or MJ in a state where it isn't legal is not a smart move.
We might end up with a QB sometime in this draft, too.

Does anyone think that this means we scoop up a FA QB? Kap, or other?

Hawk Sista wrote:Does anyone think that this means we scoop up a FA QB? Kap, or other?

Wouldn't shock me a bit. Pete is fond of unique skill sets and whatever else you think about Kap he's certainly got a unique skill set.

[/quote]Wouldn't shock me a bit. Pete is fond of unique skill sets and whatever else you think about Kap he's certainly got a unique skill set.[/quote]

I wasn't aware that bicep kissing, & the pledge squat were skill sets.

Vegaseahawk wrote:I wasn't aware that bicep kissing, & the pledge squat were skill sets.

Those come under the "whatever else you think about Kap" heading.

Hawk Sista wrote:Does anyone think that this means we scoop up a FA QB? Kap, or other?

I certainly think we would take a shot at kaep but, IMO the main reason he hasn't signed anywhere yet is because he wants a chance to win the starting job and wants to be paid like a fringe starter/highest paid backup (8-10 mil), so I really doubt it happens. I think he would be a very good backup for us but we don't have the cap room to have a highly paid backup QB. At the same time this situation might create a need that we didn't have a few days ago. Would they be happy to bring Jake Heaps back in? Do they draft a late round QB?

This isn't Boykin's first brush with the law. He was a major red flag risk when we drafted him, so I wasn't shocked when the news broke.

But like Cbob said, I'm waiting until more facts come out. Simply being a passenger in the car isn't enough for me to convict him in my court of personal judgement. And it's way, way too early to talk about picking up Krapperdick.

C

2 ounces?
That's A Lot of weed, folks, and Texas is probably among the worse places to be facing a charge like that.

I dunno. Dumb moves by pro athletes is so common place these days, that it's hard to raise much more than a half brow when I hear about it.

As for Kaep - I doubt very much he ends up here. He wants to have a least a shot at starting, and that ain't happening here.
Local bay area Ca radio says he's still looking for 9-10 mil per along with a legit shot at being #1. Don't think either of those things are gonna happen.

Id rather they wade through Boykins legal troubles if necessary or dig far down the waiver wire than sign the Castro loving police detesting POS who cannot play anyway.
Hell no!!!!!!!!!!!!. I might have to turn the channel for the first time in my life if they sign Krap.

Zorn76 wrote:2 ounces?
That's A Lot of weed, folks, and Texas is probably among the worse places to be facing a charge like that.

I dunno. Dumb moves by pro athletes is so common place these days, that it's hard to raise much more than a half brow when I hear about it.

As for Kaep - I doubt very much he ends up here. He wants to have a least a shot at starting, and that ain't happening here.
Local bay area Ca radio says he's still looking for 9-10 mil per along with a legit shot at being #1. Don't think either of those things are gonna happen.

As is usually the case early reports were in error; at least on the "2 ounces". Two ounce is a demarcation point in Texas between personal use and intent to sell, the actual report reads "less than two ounces" ... it was actually a little over 6 grams.

Not that this excuses anything about the rest of the situation but as usual, the situation becomes clearer as the actual facts of the case come out.

I agree that we aren't going to give Kap his $9M asking price and that he won't have a shot at becoming the starter here, but there's a difference between what one wants and what one gets in the end.

I suspect that we'll let this one play out in the courts before we toss him under the bus. But it would only be prudent to look for a veteran that can come in and at the very least, compete for the backup job. There are still a number of QB's available that have NFL starting experience besides Kaepernick. Here's a few names to think about:

Jay Cutler, Ryan Fitzpatrick, RG3, Chase Daniel, Case Keenum, Shawn Hill, Matt McGloin, Blaine Gabbert, Christian Ponder.

we definitely will need to be picking up a back up QB now. this is his 2nd run in with the Law and he had weed in his bag which means if nothing else he will be suspended by the league. as for Kaep he isn't a bad QB numbers wise BUT 1. he doesn't want to be a back up 2. he will be asking way more than we can afford for a back up 3. half the team would have zero confidence in their ability to win with him if Wilson was to go down

I don't think we have enough details on what actually happened. I agree he needs to make better choices with who he is hanging out with.

First of all, as for the public intoxication, as far as everything I've read he wasn't just kicking it in public, causing a nuisance. He was in public because his friend crashed the car and he was waiting at the scene cooperating.

As for the marijuana. Was that actually on his person, or in the vehicle? If it was in the vehicle than the guy driving will ultimately be help responsible, and if he doesn't have weed in his actual system, I don't see how the league can suspend him for substance abuse. I honestly don't even think this should be an issue, the league has no issue passing out Vicodin like candy but considers weed to be the devils plant (guess this is a different topic altogether though.)

We need more details before we can judge what actually happened. That being said, boykin definitely needs to make better decisions with who he is hanging out with and what he is doing.

EmeraldBullet wrote:I don't think we have enough details on what actually happened. I agree he needs to make better choices with who he is hanging out with.

First of all, as for the public intoxication, as far as everything I've read he wasn't just kicking it in public, causing a nuisance. He was in public because his friend crashed the car and he was waiting at the scene cooperating.

As for the marijuana. Was that actually on his person, or in the vehicle? If it was in the vehicle than the guy driving will ultimately be help responsible, and if he doesn't have weed in his actual system, I don't see how the league can suspend him for substance abuse. I honestly don't even think this should be an issue, the league has no issue passing out Vicodin like candy but considers weed to be the devils plant (guess this is a different topic altogether though.)

We need more details before we can judge what actually happened. That being said, boykin definitely needs to make better decisions with who he is hanging out with and what he is doing.

I don't know where the weed was or anything like that, but what if he owned the car and they found it in the glove compartment or something. Would that put him in possession? I would be shocked if he were actually holding it on 'his person' but could definitely see it being in the vehicle.

On the TV shows like "cops" -- if they find it on the passenger's side of the car and the driver won't cop to it, the passenger gets charged. But, seriously, he lives in Seattle...he went home for a visit and had some stash on him. Big deal... but it's just not legal in Texas. The NFL might suspend him but the team can't do anything except cut him, can they?

Feez wrote:we definitely will need to be picking up a back up QB now. this is his 2nd run in with the Law and he had weed in his bag which means if nothing else he will be suspended by the league. as for Kaep he isn't a bad QB numbers wise BUT 1. he doesn't want to be a back up 2. he will be asking way more than we can afford for a back up 3. half the team would have zero confidence in their ability to win with him if Wilson was to go down

Kaep may end up having to lower his expectations on your 1st and 2nd criteria. He would have been picked up by now if he was viewed as a starter, and there are several teams, namely Cleveland, that have plenty of room in their budget to bring him in if they really wanted him. At least financially speaking, he was a fool to have opted out of his contract with the Niners.

As far as your third criteria goes, you can say that about all of the other quarterbacks that are not currently under contract.

There's a 4th criteria that you didn't mention, and that is his baggage. Whether you agree, disagree, or are neutral regarding his protests and various other antics (the cop piggy socks, Castro tee shirt, etc), it will be something that every team will factor into their decision. They can't afford not to. If it weren't for that baggage, he in all likelihood would have been picked up by now as his high ceiling would have made him far superior to every quarterback not under contract.

EmeraldBullet wrote:I don't think we have enough details on what actually happened. I agree he needs to make better choices with who he is hanging out with.

First of all, as for the public intoxication, as far as everything I've read he wasn't just kicking it in public, causing a nuisance. He was in public because his friend crashed the car and he was waiting at the scene cooperating.

As for the marijuana. Was that actually on his person, or in the vehicle? If it was in the vehicle than the guy driving will ultimately be help responsible, and if he doesn't have weed in his actual system, I don't see how the league can suspend him for substance abuse. I honestly don't even think this should be an issue, the league has no issue passing out Vicodin like candy but considers weed to be the devils plant (guess this is a different topic altogether though.)

We need more details before we can judge what actually happened. That being said, boykin definitely needs to make better decisions with who he is hanging out with and what he is doing.

Great post and I agree 100% Even the punching a cop thing was overblown as the cop was off duty and part of the problem himself. I'm not going to be a sucker for a chronic bad actor but I'm not crucifying a guy for being a passenger in a car driven by an impaired incompetent person.

I particularly agree on the sentiment regarding marijuana, particularly in a league that has been handing out opioids and toradol like candy to the point of breaking the law themselves.
Pot should be legal in 50 states IMO.
You want to make america great? employ hundreds of thousands of people paying billions of dollars in taxes over the table and put the gulf cartel and Canadian growers and smugglers completely out of the weed business.
It makes too much sense I guess....

Hawktawk wrote:Great post and I agree 100% Even the punching a cop thing was overblown as the cop was off duty and part of the problem himself. I'm not going to be a sucker for a chronic bad actor but I'm not crucifying a guy for being a passenger in a car driven by an impaired incompetent person.

I particularly agree on the sentiment regarding marijuana, particularly in a league that has been handing out opioids and toradol like candy to the point of breaking the law themselves.
Pot should be legal in 50 states IMO.
You want to make america great? employ hundreds of thousands of people paying billions of dollars in taxes over the table and put the gulf cartel and Canadian growers and smugglers completely out of the weed business.
It makes too much sense I guess....

I realize that we're veering off topic, but it's the offseason and we're still weeks ahead of the draft, so what the heck.

I voted against the pot law here in WA, but not because I didn't think it should be legalized. I voted against it because I felt that the federal government should be the first to de-criminalize it. It's still illegal to smoke it here in WA, just that you are not in violation of state law. Additionally, employers in WA and everywhere else in the country can still fire or refuse to hire you if you have it in your bloodstream. The advocates of the pot initiative did a very poor job of explaining these very important details. I tell employees that they can still get fired for smoking pot and they drop their jaws and look at me with these big eyes. We're in a big hiring mode as we're expanding yet many of those we want to hire are failing the drug screen.

As far as Boykin's first "strike", he got the benefit of the doubt by being given a second chance. That's one of the reasons why second chances are given, that is to account for the possibility of an unjust conclusion.

But it is what it is. Boykin knew all about the NFL's substance abuse policy, or if he didn't, he should have, and shouldn't have come within a country mile of the stuff, especially given that he was on probation at the time. If it comes out that he actually had it on his person or tested positive for it, then I don't have a damn bit of sympathy for him.

That's funny to me, River. I'm not sure why people who partake of that plant don't realize that employers don't have to be okay with it. No different than anything else viewed as a detriment or potential law suit for the company. Down here, the oil, gas, and chemical business doesn't play. Even if it was made legal at the state and federal levels, they still wouldn't allow it because of the hell they'd have to pay for a man getting injured/killed and/or injuring/killing someone else while under the influence. We had an intern that resigned because she came up for a random drug test and, if you get popped, it stays in the system for all potential employers to see.

I am for making it legal, even though I don't use it myself. The benefits outweigh the costs. You are absolutely right, River; put all the information out there so it is known this isn't a free-for-all situation. Your employment potential could take a serious hit.

It's surprising how people can't look at the whole picture in relation to changes in society like this and realize that there are still consequences for their actions be it Federal or job related.
Regarding the Feds being first to legalize it, I doubt it would happen for quite a while. The only way i think it will eventually be legalized will be when most if not all States legalize it thus marginalizing the opposition to it.
When that happens and the Feds see they are behind in public opinion and billions of dollars are being made, they will follow suit and probably much to the chagrin of those few that remain opposed.

NorthHawk wrote:It's surprising how people can't look at the whole picture in relation to changes in society like this and realize that there are still consequences for their actions be it Federal or job related.
Regarding the Feds being first to legalize it, I doubt it would happen for quite a while. The only way i think it will eventually be legalized will be when most if not all States legalize it thus marginalizing the opposition to it.
When that happens and the Feds see they are behind in public opinion and billions of dollars are being made, they will follow suit and probably much to the chagrin of those few that remain opposed.

I have to agree, at least to a point. The states have a referendum process where these issues can be brought up. WA would have never legalized it if it were dependent on the legislative process because even liberal politician don't want to be seen as being soft on drugs. However, the federal government does not have a referendum process, so the only way it can change is through legislative action.

But even still, I did not want WA to be the first state to legalize it. I didn't like the idea of us sticking a big sign at the border saying "We love pot heads!" Just because I don't think it should be illegal doesn't mean I like the general clientele that use the stuff. When I was in Amsterdam, I went into one of their infamous coffee shops and saw the type of people it attracted, and I was less than impressed.

RiverDog wrote:
I have to agree, at least to a point. The states have a referendum process where these issues can be brought up. WA would have never legalized it if it were dependent on the legislative process because even liberal politician don't want to be seen as being soft on drugs. However, the federal government does not have a referendum process, so the only way it can change is through legislative action.

But even still, I did not want WA to be the first state to legalize it. I didn't like the idea of us sticking a big sign at the border saying "We love pot heads!" Just because I don't think it should be illegal doesn't mean I like the general clientele that use the stuff. When I was in Amsterdam, I went into one of their infamous coffee shops and saw the type of people it attracted, and I was less than impressed.

Easy RD you are starting to sound like good old boy Jeff Sessions, Chumps pick for Atty General. "Good people don't smoke marijuana". F##ck him. I've smoked more than Willie Nelson. There was a time in my younger life when 75% of my friends smoked out. They are doctors, lawyers, managers, medical professionals etc now. As a supervisor in a non test industry give me a guy who smoked a joint the night before over a guy who killed a fifth the night before anyday and twice on monday. I'm sorry but its a damn plant that grows in the ground and is consumed in a fairly close derivative of its natural state in most instances.Yet a society that peddles booze and taxes it at 100% clings to their vapid stupid mindset. Its a control issue that has nothing to do with common sense.

States with legal pot are seeing decreases in opioid dependence, hundreds of millions in taxes.tens of thousands employed and a reduction in gang oriented drug dealing. Sorry I'm a little bit passionate about the issue even as one who doesn't partake of smoking anymore. But prohibition on Weed with all the other stuff we have to worry about is stupid and counterproductive.

Hawktawk wrote:Easy RD you are starting to sound like good old boy Jeff Sessions, Chumps pick for Atty General. "Good people don't smoke marijuana". F##ck him. I've smoked more than Willie Nelson. There was a time in my younger life when 75% of my friends smoked out. They are doctors, lawyers, managers, medical professionals etc now. As a supervisor in a non test industry give me a guy who smoked a joint the night before over a guy who killed a fifth the night before anyday and twice on monday. I'm sorry but its a damn plant that grows in the ground and is consumed in a fairly close derivative of its natural state in most instances.Yet a society that peddles booze and taxes it at 100% clings to their vapid stupid mindset. Its a control issue that has nothing to do with common sense.

States with legal pot are seeing decreases in opioid dependence, hundreds of millions in taxes.tens of thousands employed and a reduction in gang oriented drug dealing. Sorry I'm a little bit passionate about the issue even as one who doesn't partake of smoking anymore. But prohibition on Weed with all the other stuff we have to worry about is stupid and counterproductive.

I understand the benefits, Hawktalk. But there are drawbacks, too. The issue is a thorny one for a lot of cities that are forced to deal with business zoning and where to permit sales and use. Other businesses, particularly small businesses, don't want weed shops to be located near them as it tends to deter potential customers of theirs for the same reasons I've expressed, ie that they don't want to have anything to do with the type of clientele marijuana tends to attract, particularly if they have a young family in tow. That's why all 4 of the municipalities in my area have either passed a moratorium on the sale and use of it or banned it altogether. It's a legitimate, business related problem.

Again RD I absolutely reject the premise of "the type of people marijuana tends to attract". It attracts all type of people. A good portion of the people down at the local bar look just like the people in the weed store. Some are scruffy but there are some very upscale consumers of both as well.

The same tight assed control freaks that zone grow operations out of existence to avoid the smell are sitting right next to a cattle yard WTF?In our community there have recently been several shootings and a couple of murders outside bars but there has not been one violent incident outside or inside the 3 cannabis retail stores in our community in the 3 years their doors have been open.

There is no empirical evidence of business or social issues to back up the phobias of these redneck Trump loving neanderthal cretins making policy in your community. Fortunately Moses Lake has no such prohibition. Its discrimination based on misinformation and bias plain and simple. I guess they would rather have the gulf cartel supplying the weed to the people who will never stop smoking it, reaping the profits and paying 0 taxes.

Last of all 71% of all americans favor legalization. The train has left the station and it aint coming back as long as the idiot Sessions is sweating his own freedom over colluding with Russia. I couldn't be happier.

No only is Pot not a bad substance, but it has a lot of good qualities for a potentially large segment of the population who are afflicted with injuries or disease.
From stopping or lessening seizures, relieving pain, all the way to in some cases help people get off heroin.
The heroin angle is somewhat ironic as MJ may turn out to be the gateway drug for some after all - the gateway off of heroin. But the large pharmaceutical corporations can't patent it so they are against the legalization.

In any event, it was still a dumb move by Boykin to risk his NFL status by being associated with it in a non legal state and the NFL policies.

You can say what you want about how irrational the phobia regarding the "type of people marijuana tends to attract" is, but it's a real fear that a large number of people harbor.

It's going to take some time before pot overcomes the social stigma attached to it. Until then, I'm afraid their businesses are going to be located in places like light industrial parks or in tucked away corners of buildings so as not to attract attention, kinda like what porno videos were back when video rentals was a big business.

Back to the original topic: There's still a large number of veteran quarterbacks without homes. It will be interesting to see if the Hawks sign one of them before the draft. I thought that might be a strong possibility even before Boykin was arrested, now it looks like a foregone conclusion.

RiverDog wrote:You can say what you want about how irrational the phobia regarding the "type of people marijuana tends to attract" is, but it's a real fear that a large number of people harbor.

It's going to take some time before pot overcomes the social stigma attached to it. Until then, I'm afraid their businesses are going to be located in places like light industrial parks or in tucked away corners of buildings so as not to attract attention, kinda like what porno videos were back when video rentals was a big business.

Back to the original topic: There's still a large number of veteran quarterbacks without homes. It will be interesting to see if the Hawks sign one of them before the draft. I thought that might be a strong possibility even before Boykin was arrested, now it looks like a foregone conclusion.

It's amazing how the Reefer Madness crowd clings to their fears regardless of the information to the contrary.

Other than Kaep, are there other mobile QBs out there that might work in our system? You know, those that can run for their lives and not make big mistakes?

NorthHawk wrote:Other than Kaep, are there other mobile QBs out there that might work in our system? You know, those that can run for their lives and not make big mistakes?

Both RG3 and Blaine Gabbert would fit IMO. Not sure how RG3's wheels are nowadays. Here's what Brock Huard had to say about the backup QB situation:

" Robert Griffin III has the running ability to be a candidate, but that move might be too adventurous. Chase Daniel is a viable option. Some of the others are Ryan Fitzpatrick, Case Keenum, Blaine Gabbert, Ryan Nassib, T.J. Yates and Christian Ponder.

http://sports.mynorthwest.com/258170/clayton-4/

A bit more news on the Boykin situation, and it sounds encouraging. Pete's dropping hints that Boykin's situation may not lead the team into cutting him. Here's part of what he said to John Clayton yesterday:

“We’ll see. We’ll see what happens here. We have some information to get through,” Carroll said. “There’s plenty of time to figure this out. Early indications are that everything will give him an opportunity to be back with us. We’ll see what happens, though."

http://sports.mynorthwest.com/259361/pe ... er-arrest/

Hawktawk wrote:Again RD I absolutely reject the premise of "the type of people marijuana tends to attract". It attracts all type of people. A good portion of the people down at the local bar look just like the people in the weed store. Some are scruffy but there are some very upscale consumers of both as well.

The same tight assed control freaks that zone grow operations out of existence to avoid the smell are sitting right next to a cattle yard WTF?In our community there have recently been several shootings and a couple of murders outside bars but there has not been one violent incident outside or inside the 3 cannabis retail stores in our community in the 3 years their doors have been open.

There is no empirical evidence of business or social issues to back up the phobias of these redneck Trump loving neanderthal cretins making policy in your community. Fortunately Moses Lake has no such prohibition. Its discrimination based on misinformation and bias plain and simple. I guess they would rather have the gulf cartel supplying the weed to the people who will never stop smoking it, reaping the profits and paying 0 taxes.

Last of all 71% of all americans favor legalization. The train has left the station and it aint coming back as long as the idiot Sessions is sweating his own freedom over colluding with Russia. I couldn't be happier.

The more I have looked in to this - The more I am convinced that the illegalization of Marijuana has to do with the following:

1. Remarkable Disease Fighting potential - therefore the Pharmaceutical companies would be hurt. For you lazy peanuts - here is a link full of facts that support this:

https://dailyhealthpost.com/cannabis-cancer-studies/


2. Alcohol and cigarettes industry - Multi billions in annual sales - would be severely impacted by Legal Marijuana.


3. This article is potent evidence that leads me to believe that there is more than likely a vast conspiracy to keep the potential of Marijuana as a potent disease fighter and potential cure of many different ailments including some forms of cancer. See if you can figure out why I am saying this on your own.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/13/government-marijuana-looks-nothing-like-the-real-stuff-see-for-yourself/?utm_term=.11cb570d22a4


Don't believe the hype riverdog - just examine the facts and think for a bit.

I can see it having an effect on the Alcohol industry, but I'm not convinced the tobacco industry would be much affected. The nicotine (and a bunch of other addictive chemicals) in tobacco aren't present in MJ which makes it far less addictive if it is at all. As well, some people who smoke tobacco seem to think the smell of the cigarettes mask the smell of MJ to an extent. I think they're dreaming, but I've heard some of my friends who smoke tobacco say that upon occasion.

In any event, legalization would keep a lot of people out of jail and provide an economic shot in the arm for the economy at the very least. The potential is huge for positive impacts on a wide range of health issues.
Drug companies hate it because they can't patent a weed and different strains provide different results for individuals. That in my mind is the key to this with the innovation of cross breeding different strains to develop medicines for different health needs. If it becomes enough of an issue or demand by the people, the federal politicians will eventually try to jump in front of the parade and claim leadership. That's why I think the states being at the forefront is the key. When 75% (my guess) of the states permit recreational sales and have created billions of dollars of economic activity, they won't be ignored and the Feds will take note.

savvyman wrote:Don't believe the hype riverdog - just examine the facts and think for a bit.

I'm not arguing that point, savvy. If local businesses think that locating pot shops in certain areas interferes with their businesses, then they have a right to petition their city councils to restrict pot shops to certain areas. They do the same thing with strip clubs and other business activity they deem as not appropriate for certain areas. For example, many cities have ordinances restricting such businesses away from schools and churches. As long as they're not banning them outright, give them a decent place to operate, I don't have a problem with those restrictions.