Jamal Adams offers opposite of an apology after insulting reporter's family

Seattle Seahawks safety Jamal Adams was criticized for his on-field play against the Dallas Cowboys in Week 13's defeat. Adams was on the field for Dallas tight end Jake Ferguson's eventual game-winning touchdown, and played a primary role in coverage.

SNY reporter Connor Hughes, who has a history with Adams dating back to his days with the New York Jets, reposted the original highlight with a simple commentary: Yikes.

While Hughes comment was rather lazy and didn't add much to the conversation, Adams response was even worse. The Seahawks star replied back to Hughes with a picture of the reporter's wife, and the same verbiage.

FanSided's Alicia de Artola summarized why Adams' critique took matters too far at the time of his post:

"It was a classless tweet from Adams, who was 1) overreacting to a fairly benign tweet from the reporter and 2) went low for no apparent reason...Just as the families of players and coaches should be off-limits when applying criticism, the families of reporters should be off-limits as well. If Adams has an issue with Hughes, he can aim whatever criticism he wants at the reporter," de Artola wrote.

It would have been in bounds for Adams to respond directly to Hughes, or criticize his job as a reporter. Yet, he chose wrong.

Jamal Adams doesn't back down from comment about New York reporter's spouse

A week later, and Adams still sees nothing wrong with his tweet.

"It's been personal with him and I ever since I've been with the Jets," Adams said. "... I just got fed up with it, bro. It was just the end of it, and I knew this only thing right here that I was going to tweet was going to hurt him. Anything else I would have said wouldn't have hurt him, but he got my point and he knows not to continue to mess with me...I hate that I had to bring her into the situation, but at the end of the day, the ultimate goal was to get at him."

Adams head coach, Pete Carroll, tried to understand Adams situation while also suggesting he should have gone about his critique differently.

"I don't know if it was a great decision at the time," Carroll said. "I'm not sure about the details of it, but I know that he realized that he needed to take it down -- what he had put up. We don't want to be a part of that."

Clearly, Adams does not think back fondly of his time dealing with the New York media. That is fair, and his criticism of the work of Hughes and other NYC reporters is justified at times. Yet, attacking Hughes outside of that realm -- and entering his personal life -- would be frowned upon if the positions were flipped.