Jump to content

  •  

Photo
- - - - -

Good Article for People Who Think Roger Goodell is a Douchebag

goodell douchebag

  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 slats

slats

    9 5/8" hands

  • Moderators
  • 18,175 posts
  • LocationAcross the Universe

Posted 15 December 2012 - 06:08 AM

Roger, Over and Out

Paul Tagliabue rules that the NFL doesn't have a bounty problem, it has a Goodell problem.

By Josh Levin|Posted Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2012, at 7:18 PM ET


Posted Image

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and retired commissioner Paul Tagliabue attend a press conference in New Orleans in 2006.
Photo by Al Messerschmidt/Getty Images.

For the second year in a row, Slate and Deadspin are teaming up for a season-long NFL roundtable. Check back here each week as a rotating cast of football watchers discusses the weekend's key plays, coaching decisions, and traumatic brain injuries. And click here to play the latest episode of Slate’s sports podcast Hang Up and Listen.

When Roger Goodell appointed Paul Tagliabue to hear the Saints’ bounty appeal, the players fought to get the ex-NFL commissioner to recuse himself. There was no way, they thought, that Tagliabue would kneecap his successor, invalidating the suspensions that Goodell had pronounced from his unassailable lair atop Commissioner Mountain. But on Tuesday, Tagliabue sided, amazingly, against the man sitting behind his old desk, vacating the suspensions of four current and former Saints. Though he affirmed many of Goodell’s original findings of player misconduct, this is the equivalent of a teacher writing “nice job” in the margin of a D paper. Goodell got it wrong in every way that matters. He conducted an unfair investigation that reached bad conclusions based on faulty evidence, then crowed sanctimoniously about his findings. Now, at last, this story has the ending it deserves, with the power-hungry commissioner undone by his quest to demonstrate just how powerful he can be.

Viewed narrowly, Tagliabue’s ruling absolves Jonathan Vilma, Will Smith, Scott Fujita, and Anthony Hargrove because NFL players follow orders or get cut. “Coaching legends such as George Halas and Vince Lombardi are not glorified or remembered because they offered players ‘freedom of choice,’ ” Tagliabue writes. In the case of the Saints, it was coaches like Gregg Williams who “conceived, encouraged and directed the program,” destroyed evidence off of team computers, and told players to lie about it to NFL investigators. The players, by virtue of their being employees rather than employers, should not be punished for doing what they’re told to do.

But Roger Goodell didn’t botch this case because he misunderstands the NFL’s chain of command. Tagliabue's write-up reveals, carefully and methodically, that Goodell ignored league precedent during the bounty probe. Rather, he used the investigation as a vehicle to talk tough on gridiron crime and present player safety as an issue of profound concern to the league, imperiled only by the players themselves. Nine months ago, the commissioner wrote that he was “profoundly troubled by the fact that players … embraced this [bounty] program so enthusiastically” and that “while all club personnel are expected to play to win, they must not let the quest for victory so cloud their judgment that they willingly and willfully target their opponents and engage in unsafe and prohibited conduct intended to injure players." These passages, it turns out, offer a better sketch of the NFL boss than the behaviors he was tut-tutting. In parceling out punishments without regard to logic or history, it was Goodell, not the players, who acted over-enthusiastically. It was Goodell, not the players, whose judgment was clouded.

Consider the case of Scott Fujita. On May 2, the league announced that the former Saints and current Browns linebacker was suspended for three games because he “pledged a significant amount of money to the prohibited pay-for-performance/bounty pool during the 2009 NFL Playoffs. … The pool to which he pledged paid large cash rewards for ‘cart-offs’ and ‘knockouts,’ plays during which an opposing player was injured.” Five months later, Goodell reduced Fujita’s suspension to a single game, explaining that while “I have not found that you directly contributed to the bounty pool, there is no serious question that you were aware of the pool and its elements.”

Even as he walked back his initial claims, however, the commissioner mounted a smarm offensive. "I am surprised and disappointed by the fact that you, a former defensive captain and a passionate advocate for player safety, ignored such a program and permitted it to continue,” Goodell wrote to Fujita.

This has been the NFL’s consistent line of attack: If the evidence turns out to be flimsy, wag your finger all the more vigorously. The league suspended Hargrove, NFL general counsel Jeff Pash explained in June, in part because footage of the 2009 NFC Championship Game showed the defensive lineman saying “give me my money.” A month later, when it became clear it wasn’t Hargrove’s voice, Goodell claimed that the "identity of the player who made the statement … did not affect the level of discipline imposed on Mr. Hargrove.”

Tagliabue’s ruling, by contrast, comes from an alternate NFL universe in which the flaws in the case actually matter, and the arbiter’s self-calibrated disappointment level is not determinative of the outcome. Fujita’s actions, as the ex-commissioner explains, were neither surprising nor disappointing. Now that the league has admitted there’s no evidence the linebacker paid cash for “cart-offs,” his behavior is no different than that of other players who reward their teammates off the books. Tagliabue points to similar cases involving the Packers and Patriots in 2007 and 2008 in which the teams, not players, were punished (with small fines, not suspensions) for pay-for-performance pools. “Accordingly, the NFL's decision to suspend a player here for participating in a program for which the League typically fines a club certainly raises significant issues regarding inconsistent treatment,” Tagliabue writes, saying that Fujita’s “actions here were not conduct detrimental.”

Tagliabue also implies that Goodell’s self-righteousness trumped sanity with regard to Hargrove and Smith. The former was suspended eight games (later reduced to seven) for denying the existence of a bounty program—something his coaches urged him to do. But as Roger Goodell saw it, Hargrove was guilty of the worst crime of all: lying to Roger Goodell. Yes, Michael Vick was guilty of leading a dogfighting ring. But as a league source explained to Yahoo’s Jason Cole in 2007, "Where [Vick] is in the most trouble is that he lied to the commissioner.”

More than anything else, his hardline stance on honesty reveals that Goodell sees himself as a parent rather than a jurist. It’s important that a kid tell his mom and dad the truth, and he should be grounded for another couple of days if he doesn’t fess up to breaking that lamp. It’s not always the best strategy for a defendant to say everything he knows, however, and he shouldn’t get put away just because he pleads not guilty. As Tagliabue writes, “In my forty years of association with the NFL, I am aware of many instances of denials in disciplinary proceedings that proved to be false, but I cannot recall any suspension for such fabrication.” (In the document’s most hilarious twist, Tagliabue also notes that Brett Favre was fined, not suspended, for obstructing a league investigation into his sexting practices. As a consequence, Goodell wildly over-punished Hargrove for obstructing an investigation into a bounty on Brett Favre.)

Smith was suspended in part because of his role as a “defensive leader.” Once again, this is a vengeful paternalism masquerading as principle. “I am not aware of previous League discipline that similarly rested on whether or not a player was a team leader,” Tagliabue writes, dismantling the Goodelian precept of “you’re older and you should have known better.”

The NFL is claiming today that Tagliabue’s decision “underscores the due process afforded players in NFL disciplinary matters.” That’s a funny gloss on a process that U.S. District Judge Ginger Berrigan, in hearing Vilma’s defamation suit against Goodell, described as unfair, saying she “believed that the commissioner overstepped his bounds.” To the extent that Vilma, Smith, Fujita, and Hargrove did receive due process, it was in some measure because the league felt threatened by the possibility of having the case heard in a real court rather than its own kangaroo version, one in which real evidentiary rules apply and the judge doesn’t also happen to be the jury and the executioner.

Vilma’s attorney Peter Ginsberg declared today that his client’s defamation suit against Goodell will continue. Of all the players, the linebacker’s case remains the cloudiest—though Tagliabue says there’s strong evidence to suggest Vilma made a speech calling for a bounty to be placed on Brett Favre, he makes a distinction between off-field rhetoric and on-field action, saying “there is no evidence that a player's speech prior to a game was actually a factor causing misconduct on the playing field."

This is the kind of shaded analysis that reflects the reality of a sport in which there will never be a clear demarcation between sanctioned and unsanctioned violence. From the earliest stages of the bounty case, though, Roger Goodell has acted as if blurry lines are clear ones. When he first announced the Saints’ transgressions, Goodell noted that he was most concerned with “player safety and competitive integrity.” But what Paul Tagliabue’s ruling reveals, as the Saints look back at the wreckage of their season, is that there’s a much bigger threat to the NFL’s competitive integrity than a bounty program: It’s a commissioner who’s out to make examples of people for defying his authority.
  • 3
back in my room
wish you were dead
you bawl like the baby
in Eraserhead

#2 JoeC36

JoeC36

    JetNation's Keeper Of The Anals

  • Moderators
  • 10,772 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 08:01 AM

This can't go over we'll with Goodell at all. To kind of use the same analogy that the Article used, it's like if your father came to your house and told you that you don't know how to raise your kids. I would love to be a fly on the wall during a recent conversation between Tags and goodell
  • 1

289 Time Post of the Week Loser


#3 neckdemon

neckdemon

    Franchise Player

  • Members
  • 7,613 posts
  • LocationNJ

Posted 15 December 2012 - 08:06 AM

goodell might be an idiot but anyone who participated in this bounty should have a lifetime ban from the game imo. give me a ****ing break with the "they are employees and have to do what they are told" crap. they are grown men and capable of making a decision on what is right and wrong. lawful orders. i am an electrician and i fmy boss told me to wire things up so that they could possibly cause fires i wouldn't do it
  • -1

#4 JetsFanInDenver

JetsFanInDenver

    Transition Player

  • Members
  • 6,869 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 08:21 AM

All this was used as a ruse to show players are their own worst enemy when it comes to safety and thats why we will clean this out and then have 18 games a season. Too bad it backfired!

But Goddell has no worries about his job. The owners know he was working to make them money. So Goddell is not going away!
  • 0

#5 T0mShane

T0mShane

    From devil to Bevell, '15

  • Members
  • 24,693 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 08:28 AM

This can't go over we'll with Goodell at all. To kind of use the same analogy that the Article used, it's like if your father came to your house and told you that you don't know how to raise your kids. I would love to be a fly on the wall during a recent conversation between Tags and goodell



Tagliabue: "I dunno. Screw it. You made your point."

Goodell: "The Times called me a 'hard-nosed sherriff'."

PT: "There you go."


  • 0
Well, that's the internet, man: 9 billion tough guys who secretly want to touch your pee-pee.

#6 HessStation

HessStation

    FightThePower

  • Members
  • 23,254 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 09:26 AM

goodell might be an idiot but anyone who participated in this bounty should have a lifetime ban from the game imo. give me a ****ing break with the "they are employees and have to do what they are told" crap. they are grown men and capable of making a decision on what is right and wrong. lawful orders. i am an electrician and i fmy boss told me to wire things up so that they could possibly cause fires i wouldn't do it

ewww, no.
  • 0

#7 Bugg

Bugg

    Of counsel whack job

  • Members
  • 13,943 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 10:44 AM

goodell might be an idiot but anyone who participated in this bounty should have a lifetime ban from the game imo. give me a ****ing break with the "they are employees and have to do what they are told" crap. they are grown men and capable of making a decision on what is right and wrong. lawful orders. i am an electrician and i fmy boss told me to wire things up so that they could possibly cause fires i wouldn't do it

Whether you know it or not bounties (which sounds more dramativc than it really is) have been part of football forever. But I have yet to hear anyone was hit any harder or illegally to collect any money as opposed to doing thier job. We don't like acknowledging that the NFL is a collision sport and probably cannot be made safe.

To carry your faulty electrician analogy; your job is not to rig things to go wrong. In the NFL their job is in fact to hit the other team's players as hard as possible.If the other player goes out of the game, it may not be the idea, but it's expected. Goodell is the same guy who until recenly peddled highlight DVDs of exactly the kind of thing he pretends is now so awful.


What is scary is the players know that they are taking serious risks with their health short-term and long-term and yet they still do it. They know Mike Webster despite a HoF career was a derelict living in his car; Junior Seau and Dave Duerson were popping medication like chicklets; Earl Campbell and Jim Otto are in wheelchairs for life; John Unitas has his throwing arm rendered useless and was blackballed by the NFL for the high crime of playing golf with casino high rollers: Dennis Byrd and Mike Utley walk with canes, and Darryl Stingley never walked again.And despite all that the NFL has no problem filling rosters.

This is merely Goodell looking to head off lawsuits, to be able to say he made the game safe. Which is laughable; plyaing NFL football will probably cause every player to sustain injuries that will impact their health badly. At tht end of all this almost all of these players know the risks and will still trade off some or all of their health to play and to get paid. Perhaps like anyone in their 20s their quality of life at 60 or 70 isn't something they care about.
  • 1
Objective-Glendale, Arizona

Super Bowl 49-February, 2015

#8 dbatesman

dbatesman

    Vulgar Yankee Mannerisms

  • Members
  • 7,812 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 11:19 AM

Roger Goodell is a craven sh*theel. Tagliabue's decision is the best thing to happen to the NFL since The New Sheriff was installed as chancellor.
  • 0

This is like having a cat with leukemia.


#9 Blackout

Blackout

    Circle Of Bosses

  • Banned
  • 32,203 posts
  • Locationhome

Posted 15 December 2012 - 11:31 AM

fire roger fidel
  • 3
"i'll rock forever....or at least until the Jets win the Superbowl" - Chino XL (1995)

#10 FloridaJetsFan

FloridaJetsFan

    Hail Caesar

  • Members
  • 2,236 posts
  • LocationNavarre, FL

Posted 15 December 2012 - 12:23 PM

tl;dnr
  • -1

#11 neckdemon

neckdemon

    Franchise Player

  • Members
  • 7,613 posts
  • LocationNJ

Posted 15 December 2012 - 05:15 PM

Whether you know it or not bounties (which sounds more dramativc than it really is) have been part of football forever. But I have yet to hear anyone was hit any harder or illegally to collect any money as opposed to doing thier job. We don't like acknowledging that the NFL is a collision sport and probably cannot be made safe.

To carry your faulty electrician analogy; your job is not to rig things to go wrong. In the NFL their job is in fact to hit the other team's players as hard as possible.If the other player goes out of the game, it may not be the idea, but it's expected. Goodell is the same guy who until recenly peddled highlight DVDs of exactly the kind of thing he pretends is now so awful.


What is scary is the players know that they are taking serious risks with their health short-term and long-term and yet they still do it. They know Mike Webster despite a HoF career was a derelict living in his car; Junior Seau and Dave Duerson were popping medication like chicklets; Earl Campbell and Jim Otto are in wheelchairs for life; John Unitas has his throwing arm rendered useless and was blackballed by the NFL for the high crime of playing golf with casino high rollers: Dennis Byrd and Mike Utley walk with canes, and Darryl Stingley never walked again.And despite all that the NFL has no problem filling rosters.

This is merely Goodell looking to head off lawsuits, to be able to say he made the game safe. Which is laughable; plyaing NFL football will probably cause every player to sustain injuries that will impact their health badly. At tht end of all this almost all of these players know the risks and will still trade off some or all of their health to play and to get paid. Perhaps like anyone in their 20s their quality of life at 60 or 70 isn't something they care about.


there's nothing faulty about the analogy. their job is not to go out and try to intentionally injure the other players.

anyway my main point in the analogy was that you can't blame someone else when you do something wrong and use the excuse of "they told me to do it". this is basic sh*t you learn as a child. idk if you have raised any children but you hear "so and so told me to do it" alot. to which the reply "if they told you to jump off a bridge would you do it" is very common.

Edited by neckdemon, 15 December 2012 - 05:29 PM.

  • 0

#12 jetsjetsjetss

jetsjetsjetss

    3rd Year Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,610 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 06:11 PM

there's nothing faulty about the analogy. their job is not to go out and try to intentionally injure the other players.

anyway my main point in the analogy was that you can't blame someone else when you do something wrong and use the excuse of "they told me to do it". this is basic sh*t you learn as a child. idk if you have raised any children but you hear "so and so told me to do it" alot. to which the reply "if they told you to jump off a bridge would you do it" is very common.


its a lot different if a "parent" tells you to do it though
  • 0

#13 RutgersJetFan

RutgersJetFan

    Open the pod bay doors, HAL.

  • Members
  • 14,654 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 06:33 PM

Lol @ the thread tags.
  • 0

(Chandler)'s a nice piece as long as he's the 7th most important player on your roster....I think they're going to be disappointed when they see he's just a pumped-up Drew Gooden.


#14 BroadwayJoe12

BroadwayJoe12

    JN's Rust Cohle

  • Members
  • 8,271 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 07:23 PM

there's nothing faulty about the analogy. their job is not to go out and try to intentionally injure the other players.

anyway my main point in the analogy was that you can't blame someone else when you do something wrong and use the excuse of "they told me to do it". this is basic sh*t you learn as a child. idk if you have raised any children but you hear "so and so told me to do it" alot. to which the reply "if they told you to jump off a bridge would you do it" is very common.


You'd be very surprised what the human population is capable of doing when they think they are following the orders of their boss and or leader. Go check out Miligram's Shock Experiment and you may get a different perspective on it.
  • 0

#15 Bugg

Bugg

    Of counsel whack job

  • Members
  • 13,943 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 07:58 PM

there's nothing faulty about the analogy. their job is not to go out and try to intentionally injure the other players.

anyway my main point in the analogy was that you can't blame someone else when you do something wrong and use the excuse of "they told me to do it". this is basic sh*t you learn as a child. idk if you have raised any children but you hear "so and so told me to do it" alot. to which the reply "if they told you to jump off a bridge would you do it" is very common.

If you are going to slam into another man at full force and full speed with the intention of stopping him,each of you in equipment designed to blunt impact including a mean ass rock hard helmet. The intent is very much in fact to cause intentional blunt force trauma. We don't like acknowledging that, but its' the reality. Until the whistle blows on every play every player is trying to hit hs opponent as hard as he can to complete his assigned block or tackle.
  • 0
Objective-Glendale, Arizona

Super Bowl 49-February, 2015

#16 neckdemon

neckdemon

    Franchise Player

  • Members
  • 7,613 posts
  • LocationNJ

Posted 16 December 2012 - 09:09 AM

If you are going to slam into another man at full force and full speed with the intention of stopping him,each of you in equipment designed to blunt impact including a mean ass rock hard helmet. The intent is very much in fact to cause intentional blunt force trauma. We don't like acknowledging that, but its' the reality. Until the whistle blows on every play every player is trying to hit hs opponent as hard as he can to complete his assigned block or tackle.


big difference between that and listening to a coach who is telling you to try to wreck someone's acl

Edited by neckdemon, 16 December 2012 - 09:09 AM.

  • 0

#17 neckdemon

neckdemon

    Franchise Player

  • Members
  • 7,613 posts
  • LocationNJ

Posted 16 December 2012 - 09:36 AM

You'd be very surprised what the human population is capable of doing when they think they are following the orders of their boss and or leader. Go check out Miligram's Shock Experiment and you may get a different perspective on it.


i just read the wiki on it. one problem i have with this experiment is that most people do not even know what voltage levels really mean or what could be considered a fatal shock. if i told all my customers that they had 240,000 volts going through their electrical systems a majority would just nod their heads. besides the fact that these people were assured that what they were doing could not cause permanent damage. another thing is that it seems that in a majority of thse experiments the "teacher" was seperated from the "learner" and that creates a dissociation from what could actually be happening. i would like to make one point though. it seems these experiments were done in part to try to understand why so many people seemed to become willing participants in the holocaust. i have a feeling that any of the nazis who were put on trial for theuir parts in the holocaust were not too successful with a "hitler told me to do it" defense.

Edited by neckdemon, 16 December 2012 - 09:39 AM.

  • 0

#18 neckdemon

neckdemon

    Franchise Player

  • Members
  • 7,613 posts
  • LocationNJ

Posted 16 December 2012 - 09:37 AM

...repost

Edited by neckdemon, 16 December 2012 - 09:38 AM.

  • 0

#19 CrazyCarl40

CrazyCarl40

    3rd Year Veteran

  • Members
  • 11,115 posts

Posted 16 December 2012 - 09:39 AM

Are we seriously comparing the Saints to Nazis now? Really?
  • 0

#20 Bugg

Bugg

    Of counsel whack job

  • Members
  • 13,943 posts

Posted 16 December 2012 - 09:45 AM

big difference between that and listening to a coach who is telling you to try to wreck someone's acl

Operationally what is really the difference. Football players are trained and told by coaches to hit their man whether blocking or tackling as hard as they can every play. If a coach. That's the idea. "Tackle or block efficiently" is really no different that 'KILL'EM!". As they tell kids the first day of Pop Warner, every place else in the world (spare the military) you are discouraged from using your hands and from hitting people. In football at even that low level the very idea is to hit the other guy as hard as you can. Again, I only played organized football at that level, but for even a 12-year old suicide drills where about clobbering the other guy.And we did that every practice.

I have yet to hear any player hit any other player any ahrder because of any bounty. Every player on every play(sapre Albert Haynesworth perhaps) if he is doing his job properly is going to hit his guy or tackle the ballcarrier as hard as he can.In instances where they go too far they are almost always penalized. No NFL coahc is giving anyone a bonus for costing his team 15 yards of field position.

I think you are a good poster, but you are here buying a party line that isn't true and blurs the reality that football is a violent and often brutal game. It's not safe. Goodell is pretending otherwise.

Edited by Bugg, 16 December 2012 - 09:50 AM.

  • 0
Objective-Glendale, Arizona

Super Bowl 49-February, 2015

#21 neckdemon

neckdemon

    Franchise Player

  • Members
  • 7,613 posts
  • LocationNJ

Posted 16 December 2012 - 09:55 AM

Operationally what is really the difference. Football players are trained and told by coaches to hit their man whether blocking or tackling as ahrd as they can. If a coach. That's the idea. "Tackle or block efficiently" is really no different that 'KILL'EM!". As they tell kids the first day of Pop Waner, every place else in the world (spare the military) you are discouraged from using your hands and from hitting peo[le. In football at even that low level the very idea is to hit the other guy as hard as you can. Again, I only playe organized football at that level, but for even a 12-year old suicide drills where about clobbering the other guy.

Want to say I think you are a good poster, but you are here buying a party line that isn't true and blurs the reality that football is a violent and often brutal game. It's not safe. Goodell is pretending otherwise.


thats like saying, whats the difference between manslaughter and first degree murder.

i think my point of view might be being misunderstood. i do not like goodell my point of view is that everyone who commits a crime needs to be held accountable. some obviously more than others. but i don't buy a "he told me to do it" defense as a means of being acquitted and being held blameless. and, imo, the fact that the players know full well the risks they take when playing the game "ethically" should be all the more reason for them to be unwilling to go out there and try to intentionally end their fellow players' careers. again its just my opinion. but let me ask a question......lets say wayne chrebet was playing and jonathan vilma launched a dirty hit to his knee sideways and wrecked his acl and ended his career. a year later we find out that he was part of "bounty program" where the coach was telling him that he was gonna get a bonus for going out there and taking chrebets acl out, and we have audio proof of this. how would you feel about vilma getting off basically unpunished because he said "but my coach told me to do it" meanwhile chrebet is busy in rehab trying to build up his knee and muscles to the point where he can just walk normally again

Edited by neckdemon, 16 December 2012 - 10:03 AM.

  • 0

#22 PFSIKH

PFSIKH

    Patriots' Paradigm CEO

  • Members
  • 19,085 posts
  • LocationClarksville, TN by way of New England

Posted 16 December 2012 - 10:07 AM

Whether you know it or not bounties (which sounds more dramativc than it really is) have been part of football forever. But I have yet to hear anyone was hit any harder or illegally to collect any money as opposed to doing thier job. We don't like acknowledging that the NFL is a collision sport and probably cannot be made safe.

To carry your faulty electrician analogy; your job is not to rig things to go wrong. In the NFL their job is in fact to hit the other team's players as hard as possible.If the other player goes out of the game, it may not be the idea, but it's expected. Goodell is the same guy who until recenly peddled highlight DVDs of exactly the kind of thing he pretends is now so awful.


What is scary is the players know that they are taking serious risks with their health short-term and long-term and yet they still do it. They know Mike Webster despite a HoF career was a derelict living in his car; Junior Seau and Dave Duerson were popping medication like chicklets; Earl Campbell and Jim Otto are in wheelchairs for life; John Unitas has his throwing arm rendered useless and was blackballed by the NFL for the high crime of playing golf with casino high rollers: Dennis Byrd and Mike Utley walk with canes, and Darryl Stingley never walked again.And despite all that the NFL has no problem filling rosters.

This is merely Goodell looking to head off lawsuits, to be able to say he made the game safe. Which is laughable; plyaing NFL football will probably cause every player to sustain injuries that will impact their health badly. At tht end of all this almost all of these players know the risks and will still trade off some or all of their health to play and to get paid. Perhaps like anyone in their 20s their quality of life at 60 or 70 isn't something they care about.


Definitely on the latter.

On the former, this will not prevent players from getting in on the lawsuit.

In order to lessen the damage from the lawsuit, whenever it might come forth, Goodell has to show he has tried to save the players from themselves by enacting these rules.

I have to disagree with one of your points. If you have not heard anyone hit harder or illegally to collect money, than why have a bounty/pay for performance program?

On some level it works.
  • 0
Eagle Honors
"Our two most painful Patriots' losses ever, are sandwiched between two Manning family Superbowl victories. Talk about being the book of squandered opportunities between two butt hole bookends."
"I just wish they didn't get lucky when they selected that arrogant cleft-chinned, super-modeling banging prick in the sixth round out of Michigan. It's amazing how much I hate Mo Lewis now."

#23 neckdemon

neckdemon

    Franchise Player

  • Members
  • 7,613 posts
  • LocationNJ

Posted 16 December 2012 - 10:15 AM

Definitely on the latter.

On the former, this will not prevent players from getting in on the lawsuit.

In order to lessen the damage from the lawsuit, whenever it might come forth, Goodell has to show he has tried to save the players from themselves by enacting these rules.

I have to disagree with one of your points. If you have not heard anyone hit harder or illegally to collect money, than why have a bounty/pay for performance program?

On some level it works.


except it wasn't even just pay for performance. it was pay for intentional injury and using illegal unethical means to accomplish this. williams clearly stated to take out someones acl, to take out another guy even if you had to hit him out of bounds (when the player would obviously be more defenseless) and even to make sure you hit a guy who was known to have a couple of concussions in the head. i can understand wanting to go out there and legally hit the opponents as hard as you can but these types of things where you are going out and trying to intentionally inflict what can be life changing injuries on guys by hitting them illegally then i thtink thats a boundary the players should know better than to cross. and i think that if you participate willingly in anything illegal that the defense of "well most people are sheep who can't think for themselves and will listen to whatever an authority figure tells them, wrong or right" just doesn't cut it.

Edited by neckdemon, 16 December 2012 - 10:18 AM.

  • 0

#24 Bugg

Bugg

    Of counsel whack job

  • Members
  • 13,943 posts

Posted 16 December 2012 - 11:41 AM

thats like saying, whats the difference between manslaughter and first degree murder.

i think my point of view might be being misunderstood. i do not like goodell my point of view is that everyone who commits a crime needs to be held accountable. some obviously more than others. but i don't buy a "he told me to do it" defense as a means of being acquitted and being held blameless. and, imo, the fact that the players know full well the risks they take when playing the game "ethically" should be all the more reason for them to be unwilling to go out there and try to intentionally end their fellow players' careers. again its just my opinion. but let me ask a question......lets say wayne chrebet was playing and jonathan vilma launched a dirty hit to his knee sideways and wrecked his acl and ended his career. a year later we find out that he was part of "bounty program" where the coach was telling him that he was gonna get a bonus for going out there and taking chrebets acl out, and we have audio proof of this. how would you feel about vilma getting off basically unpunished because he said "but my coach told me to do it" meanwhile chrebet is busy in rehab trying to build up his knee and muscles to the point where he can just walk normally again

The NFL is combat by consent. The intent is in fact to kick the crap out of the other guys and take their land. Your entire scenario is total conjecture and speculation. Either way, even conceding it, Vilma's job is to hit Chrebet as hard as he can, to knock him down and possibly dislodge the football. Evem the cleanest wrapup tackle involves some serious force. But the NFL moves too fast usually for anyone to form the specific vile intent you presume beyond the intent for Vilma to hit Chrebet as hard as possible. Nobody hit Mike Utley, Dennis Byrd or Darryl Stingley with the intent to make sure they never walk, but they definitely had the intent to hit them as hard as they possibly could.

Edited by Bugg, 16 December 2012 - 11:42 AM.

  • 0
Objective-Glendale, Arizona

Super Bowl 49-February, 2015

#25 neckdemon

neckdemon

    Franchise Player

  • Members
  • 7,613 posts
  • LocationNJ

Posted 16 December 2012 - 03:59 PM

The NFL is combat by consent. The intent is in fact to kick the crap out of the other guys and take their land. Your entire scenario is total conjecture and speculation. Either way, even conceding it, Vilma's job is to hit Chrebet as hard as he can, to knock him down and possibly dislodge the football. Evem the cleanest wrapup tackle involves some serious force. But the NFL moves too fast usually for anyone to form the specific vile intent you presume beyond the intent for Vilma to hit Chrebet as hard as possible. Nobody hit Mike Utley, Dennis Byrd or Darryl Stingley with the intent to make sure they never walk, but they definitely had the intent to hit them as hard as they possibly could.


did you listen to the audio clip of gregg williams instructing his players to intentionally attempt to tear crabtree's acl? its not conjecture its a hypothetical scenario based on what was proven to be true....i just used chrebet because he is a fan favorite. maybe they never were able to tear crabtree's acl, or give the other guy another concussion. but that is what they were being told to do and that is what they were buying into and agreeing to attempt. i understand you don't agree with my opinion on the matter, which is fine, but i still believe all of the participants deserve punishment.

going for players heads intentionally is disgusting imo. especially given what they are continuing to find out about the lingering effects of concussions.......for williams to be instructing his players to go for the head, and for the players to be willing to do this for a few extra dollars is ****ed up and just plain scumbag behavior

Edited by neckdemon, 16 December 2012 - 04:07 PM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users