Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

New Survey Shows Tom Brady's Popularity Reaching Career Low


Recommended Posts

OffenselyPC, dw49 ... You both bring up this most interesting and intriguing point of view. White washing and starting this whole process all over again, certainly would not be the most logical thing to do from an NFL Fan opinionated point of view. The league, the Patriots, Brady, NFLPA, Goodell, Yee, and the entire affiliated personnel would be, in all likelihood, extremely castigated for doing this. Goodell surely has the power to see to it more punishment is doled out. I really do not feel all of this would happen, though. The obvious reasons are laid out right in front of all concerned.

The real questions here, IMO, is how far will the Patriots & Tom Brady take this process? How far will the NFL tolerate it? And to what extent does it cost them all by doing so? I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.

For the love of GOD, I anguish in the meantime, that all parties use their common sense for the benefit of the NFL & it's fans!

He won't increase the punishment just because they lost an appeal.  It wouldn't have a good look.  I'm just saying, he does technically hav that authority - the NFLPA would have gotten it remanded on that argument.  It would, however, be a very hilarious twist with a shot of irony if he did increase the punishment.  "Goodell, you should suspend Brady, not Vincent," the NFLPA said.  Goodell, incredulously with eyebrows raised replied, "Fine... 8 games, $2 million fine, and your next two first round picks."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 147
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

He won't increase the punishment just because they lost an appeal. It wouldn't have a good look. I'm just saying, he does technically hav that authority - the NFLPA would have gotten it remanded on that argument. It would, however, be a very hilarious twist with a shot of irony if he did increase the punishment. "Goodell, you should suspend Brady, not Vincent," the NFLPA said. Goodell, incredulously with eyebrows raised replied, "Fine... 8 games, $2 million fine, and your next two first round picks."

From your point of view as an attorney, do you think the NFLPA will be successful in getting a neutral arbitrator? I found this article in Bloomberg News this morning.

http://www.bna.com/deflategate-update-abritrate-b17179926472/

Quote:

Upon reviewing the parties’ arbitration agreement, the Supreme Court of Missouri found the terms designating the commissioner as sole arbitrator unconscionable and unenforceable.

Because Roger Goodell, as commissioner, “is required to arbitrate claims against his employers,” he “is an individual in a position of bias as the arbitrator.”

The state high court concluded that, under the CBA, Goodell “controls virtually every aspect of the arbitration,” from the establishment of rules and procedures, to the final determination. “Those provisions in the arbitration agreement are unconscionable,” it said.

Accordingly, Goodell is precluded from reviewing, and ruling on the decisions of his employer in arbitration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From your point of view as an attorney, do you think the NFLPA will be successful in getting a neutral arbitrator? I found this article in Bloomberg News this morning. http://www.bna.com/deflategate-update-abritrate-b17179926472/

Quote:

Upon reviewing the parties’ arbitration agreement, the Supreme Court of Missouri found the terms designating the commissioner as sole arbitrator unconscionable and unenforceable.

Because Roger Goodell, as commissioner, “is required to arbitrate claims against his employers,” he “is an individual in a position of bias as the arbitrator.”

The state high court concluded that, under the CBA, Goodell “controls virtually every aspect of the arbitration,” from the establishment of rules and procedures, to the final determination. “Those provisions in the arbitration agreement are unconscionable,” it said.

Accordingly, Goodell is precluded from reviewing, and ruling on the decisions of his employer in arbitration.

Nice found piece, NFLfan! Over the last several years as commissioner, Roger Goodell has found himself between a rock and a hard place where "arbitration" matters are concerned. To me, at the very least, the position laments itself to a virtual lame duck so to speak in a variety of instances after initializing first rulings because of appeals & court battles. If the NFL & NFLPA/players would agree on an independent board of disciplinary members (not the team owners) and implement one, then apply it, the sole duty would adhere to rules & regulations/punishments as do many companies and corporations abide by (board of directors) after the entire ladder of command has been exhausted. Then, the arbitrary question virtually disappears excluding criminality. The team owners would still invoke all rules and regulations of the NFL as it currently stands on vote and continue all of it's maintenance of the NFL in the same manner as present day.

I could be way off base here, but that seems like the sensible thing to do for the NFL/NFLPA/Players. I doubt getting all parties to agree to something as logical as this would ever see the light of day. To me, dragging the rules, regulations, punishments, et.al. into a court of law each time in lieu of disingenuous reasoning to save face is getting absolutely ridiculous. It reminds of 3-4 year olds when they do not get their way and are admonished for doing so, and go into a kicking/screaming/hitting full blown tantrum.

Of course, all of the above would completely dissolve the CBA as we know it today. And man, is that another kettle of fish. OH MY!

Link to post
Share on other sites

He will address it after the legal stuff is done. He has maintained his innocence from day one. At this point, anything he would say to refute the report would hurt his case. I fully expect him to sit down with Peter King when this thing is all over.

Maintained his innocence? All he has said is "I don't think so". Peter King? The ultimate Patriot fan IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the union allowed him to be the judge.

That's what some Patriots fans keep overlooking. In the collective bargaining agreement the union gave the right for fines and suspensions to Goodell. I think that alone is what is going to be upheld no matter what Kraft tries to do. The ironic thing is Kraft himself was one of the main owners who wanted Goodell to have that power when the CBA was negotiated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After thinking about this I was curious as to the power of Goodell. Patriot fans keep bring up Peterson and Rice and how their punishments were reversed  or lightened. Those cases were criminal in nature not football related. The Brady case is not a criminal case just a NFL infraction. Goodell has full power over the penalties according to the contact the players signed. Kraft taking this to a higher court should be useless IMO. Kraft was all ready to accept the punishment before he knew what it was. When the hammer fell he now backtracks. Kraft himself was one of the owners who wanted Goodell to have that power when the CBA was written and accepted by both the players and owners. We all know lawyers will collect money for anything. So will courts systems. The bottom line is who really knows what will happen. Fans certainly don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol.

 

Brady has been the most hated athlete since he started winning rings out of the gate. This poll is wrong. No way 53 percent of people like Brady.  But he really is not interested in popularity. He is after all, Lord of the Rings:

 

super-bowl-xlix-memes_28.jpg?itok=0rJsJd

 

He's more like this my precious ..

My-Precious-13-665x498.jpg

 

A sneaky lil liar who will do anything for a ring ..

Link to post
Share on other sites

From your point of view as an attorney, do you think the NFLPA will be successful in getting a neutral arbitrator? I found this article in Bloomberg News this morning.

http://www.bna.com/deflategate-update-abritrate-b17179926472/

Quote:

Upon reviewing the parties’ arbitration agreement, the Supreme Court of Missouri found the terms designating the commissioner as sole arbitrator unconscionable and unenforceable.

Because Roger Goodell, as commissioner, “is required to arbitrate claims against his employers,” he “is an individual in a position of bias as the arbitrator.”

The state high court concluded that, under the CBA, Goodell “controls virtually every aspect of the arbitration,” from the establishment of rules and procedures, to the final determination. “Those provisions in the arbitration agreement are unconscionable,” it said.

Accordingly, Goodell is precluded from reviewing, and ruling on the decisions of his employer in arbitration.

I'd say that it's possible, but I really doubt it.  To explain why, I have to give you a more in depth analysis of what happened in the Hewitt case you cited.  First of all, the big win for Hewitt in that case wasn't the determination that the NFL Commissioner acts as judge, jury, and executioner.  The big win for them was that the agreement to arbitrate was not valid because there was no mutual assent ot the terms of arbitration.  The contract only referenced the "Ruels and Regulations of the [NFL]."  The court said that, under state law (and this is important, because other states my have different rules for interpreting these provisions), if there wasn't any way for Hewitt to obtain those terms (which is the responsibility of the drafter, or the Rams/NFL in this case), and as such, the terms were ambiguous and therefor not properly incorporated.  Because they were not incorporated properly (again, under state law), the terms of the Missouri Uniform Arbitration Act (MUAA) are used to fill in the gaps, which basically meant that in this case, the MUAA rules were used entirely by default and Missouri state law says that those unconscionability terms in the MUAA are thereby incorporated.  Apparently, in Missouri, having an arbitrator who is designated to arbitrate claims against his employers (i.e. paid by them) puts Goodell is tantamount to putting "an individual in a position of bias."

 

In fact, the opinion even said that this alone would not have been unconscionable.  In other words, had the NFL referenced and perhaps incorporated the arbitration terms into the agreement (or simply handed him those terms and stated so in the employment contract), the review by the commissioner probably would have been okay.  It's kind of like when you say you agree to the terms of the employee handbook or internet policy and you initial or sign somewhere saying that you have received them.  The effect would be that because they are referenced in your employment contract and you signed the statement saying you received them, you are therefore bound by them.  However, because the NFL/Rams did not do that, it substituted the MUAA and its unconscionability provision, which those terms as stated in the previous paragraph would hold the Commissioner's position as "an individual in a position of bias."

 

So back to your question.  I don't think that Goodell's power alone would give the NFLPA a good argument, at least based in contract law, to dethrone Goodell as the designated arbitrator in player discipline cases for a couple of reasons.  One, this was specific to Missouri law.  I'm not sure what other state statutes say, so even if all the facts are the same between Brady and the NFL from a contractual standpoint, if that case is heard in, say, New York, it could result in a different outcome.  Second, the main thrust of this case was that Hewitt was ruled to not have assented to the terms.  While Hewitt's personal contract with the team and league were under question, the document that would be reviewed in Brady's case would be the Collective Bargaining Agreement.  That agreement, as it refers to player discipline, includes its own set of provisions as to how certain matters are arbitrated - i.e., injury grievances, non-injury grievances, player discipline, etc.  Unlike Hewitt's case, which simply refers to the aribtration rules in the "Rules and Regulations of the National Football League," the CBA (specifically Article 46) includes its own set of rules, who will hear, notification, appointment, rules and procedure for the hearing as well as for appeals, and so on and so forth.  The players, merely by its union signing this agreement have assented to those terms.  So I don't see a situation where, like Hewitt, he couldn't have assented to the terms of arbitration.  I think the only way the arbitration is deemed unconscionable is if the state law says something like, "even if there are rules of arbitration and the employee has agreed and assented to those terms, a provision of that agreement is deemed illegal and therefore invald where the designated arbitrator is in a position of bias."  That hasn't been an issue that's been argued that I am aware of, but if it has (and hte NFLPA has tried several times to remove Goodell as arbitrator, such as BountyGate), it clearly has not been a winning argument since the 2011 CBA has been in effect.  The winning arguments against the NFL have been procedural ones in which the NFL didn't properly follow the CBA, not because the sole fact that Goodell being judge, jury, and executioner is unconscionable.

 

PS - here's a link to the court's decision.  http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=86195

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say that it's possible, but I really doubt it. To explain why, I have to give you a more in depth analysis of what happened in the Hewitt case you cited. First of all, the big win for Hewitt in that case wasn't the determination that the NFL Commissioner acts as judge, jury, and executioner. The big win for them was that the agreement to arbitrate was not valid because there was no mutual assent ot the terms of arbitration. The contract only referenced the "Ruels and Regulations of the [NFL]." The court said that, under state law (and this is important, because other states my have different rules for interpreting these provisions), if there wasn't any way for Hewitt to obtain those terms (which is the responsibility of the drafter, or the Rams/NFL in this case), and as such, the terms were ambiguous and therefor not properly incorporated. Because they were not incorporated properly (again, under state law), the terms of the Missouri Uniform Arbitration Act (MUAA) are used to fill in the gaps, which basically meant that in this case, the MUAA rules were used entirely by default and Missouri state law says that those unconscionability terms in the MUAA are thereby incorporated. Apparently, in Missouri, having an arbitrator who is designated to arbitrate claims against his employers (i.e. paid by them) puts Goodell is tantamount to putting "an individual in a position of bias."

In fact, the opinion even said that this alone would not have been unconscionable. In other words, had the NFL referenced and perhaps incorporated the arbitration terms into the agreement (or simply handed him those terms and stated so in the employment contract), the review by the commissioner probably would have been okay. It's kind of like when you say you agree to the terms of the employee handbook or internet policy and you initial or sign somewhere saying that you have received them. The effect would be that because they are referenced in your employment contract and you signed the statement saying you received them, you are therefore bound by them. However, because the NFL/Rams did not do that, it substituted the MUAA and its unconscionability provision, which those terms as stated in the previous paragraph would hold the Commissioner's position as "an individual in a position of bias."

So back to your question. I don't think that Goodell's power alone would give the NFLPA a good argument, at least based in contract law, to dethrone Goodell as the designated arbitrator in player discipline cases for a couple of reasons. One, this was specific to Missouri law. I'm not sure what other state statutes say, so even if all the facts are the same between Brady and the NFL from a contractual standpoint, if that case is heard in, say, New York, it could result in a different outcome. Second, the main thrust of this case was that Hewitt was ruled to not have assented to the terms. While Hewitt's personal contract with the team and league were under question, the document that would be reviewed in Brady's case would be the Collective Bargaining Agreement. That agreement, as it refers to player discipline, includes its own set of provisions as to how certain matters are arbitrated - i.e., injury grievances, non-injury grievances, player discipline, etc. Unlike Hewitt's case, which simply refers to the aribtration rules in the "Rules and Regulations of the National Football League," the CBA (specifically Article 46) includes its own set of rules, who will hear, notification, appointment, rules and procedure for the hearing as well as for appeals, and so on and so forth. The players, merely by its union signing this agreement have assented to those terms. So I don't see a situation where, like Hewitt, he couldn't have assented to the terms of arbitration. I think the only way the arbitration is deemed unconscionable is if the state law says something like, "even if there are rules of arbitration and the employee has agreed and assented to those terms, a provision of that agreement is deemed illegal and therefore invald where the designated arbitrator is in a position of bias." That hasn't been an issue that's been argued that I am aware of, but if it has (and hte NFLPA has tried several times to remove Goodell as arbitrator, such as BountyGate), it clearly has not been a winning argument since the 2011 CBA has been in effect. The winning arguments against the NFL have been procedural ones in which the NFL didn't properly follow the CBA, not because the sole fact that Goodell being judge, jury, and executioner is unconscionable.

PS - here's a link to the court's decision. http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=86195

Thank you for the detailed explanation and the link. It does not seem that the Hewitt ruling will have any impact or influence on whether or not Goodell stays on as arbitrator in this case.

Do you think this case (Brady/Pats) will eventually end up in court? Kraft seems like he won't stop until they are exonerated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the detailed explanation and the link. It does not seem that the Hewitt ruling will have any impact or influence on whether or not Goodell stays on as arbitrator in this case.

Do you think this case (Brady/Pats) will eventually end up in court? Kraft seems like he won't stop until they are exonerated.

Yeah, that's just my two cents on that case.  I don't think I could blame the NFLPA for trying to use that case as precedent.  Absent any other information available, doesn't seem likely that it would be applicable.

 

As far as whether Kraft/Brady/Pats take this to federal court, it's hard to say.  It's ultimately up to them.  In Brady's case, I think he'll have to show evidence that wasn't previously available (i.e. the texts and emails that he refused to give Wells), since that will be one of the issues.  In essence, and I'm speculating as to the legal analysis since I don't know the state/federal law in this regard, he'll have to show that he fully complied (which he did not), or if he did not fully comply, there was reasonable justification for doing so.  I just don't see him coming up with reasonable justification given that Wells said he could control the flow of information and just send the responsive documents.  Unless of course, Wells is lying, but there hasn't really been any indication of that so it requires proof of facts not available, the burden of which will be on Brady to prove.  

 

As for Kraft and the Pats, I'm not sure.  He could sue the NFL.  Certainly not slander, but some other legal basis.  It seems that Kraft has thus far built his argument on the legal validity of the Wells report.  The only lawsuits against the NFL by owners that I can recall are the Al Davis and Jerry Jones anti-trust lawsuits, but I don't really see how this would be an anti-trust issue.  Kraft can certainly appeal the penalty, but by what I've seen online, it seems unlikely that Kraft would win on appeal.  So I'm not really sure what Kraft can do.  Any lawsuit would be on grounds that are beyond my limited knowledge in this area - though most of what I've read says Kraft can't really do much.

 

About the only thing he can do is petition the other owners to find a new commissioner, but that would require Goodell himself to have committed an act considered "conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League."  See Article VI, Sec. 6.5(G), NFL Constitution and Bylaws.  I know a lot of people would look at that and make their jokes or give their two cents that Goodell has already done that and can be removed, but he hasn't.  That would require Goodell to have done some of the things the Pats have already accused him of - i.e. assisted Wells in fudging the report or something.  Even then, assuming he has already done something that can appropriately be considered "conduct detrimental," it would still require the Executive Committee, which is comprised of one representative - an owner or part owner - of each of the 32 teams, to approve by at least a 3/4 vote to remove Goodell.  Seems unlikely if you ask me, unless he resigned (but what would that take?).

Link to post
Share on other sites

After thinking about this I was curious as to the power of Goodell. Patriot fans keep bring up Peterson and Rice and how their punishments were reversed  or lightened. Those cases were criminal in nature not football related. The Brady case is not a criminal case just a NFL infraction. Goodell has full power over the penalties according to the contact the players signed. Kraft taking this to a higher court should be useless IMO. Kraft was all ready to accept the punishment before he knew what it was. When the hammer fell he now backtracks. Kraft himself was one of the owners who wanted Goodell to have that power when the CBA was written and accepted by both the players and owners. We all know lawyers will collect money for anything. So will courts systems. The bottom line is who really knows what will happen. Fans certainly don't.

Yes sir, crazycolt1. That sums it up in a nutshell. Nice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole deal reminds me of Lance Armstrong in the way Brady is acting like he is the victim.  Lance once had the world eating from his hand and now he is reviled by most people because of his constant denials and the attitude that he was above reproach.  Brady may not be the one saying things now, but Kraft and the rest of them are not helping him with their biased opinions of what happened and how it was handled.  I hope they Goodell makes them pay dearly for challenging the league's handling of the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's just my two cents on that case.  I don't think I could blame the NFLPA for trying to use that case as precedent.  Absent any other information available, doesn't seem likely that it would be applicable.

 

As far as whether Kraft/Brady/Pats take this to federal court, it's hard to say.  It's ultimately up to them.  In Brady's case, I think he'll have to show evidence that wasn't previously available (i.e. the texts and emails that he refused to give Wells), since that will be one of the issues.  In essence, and I'm speculating as to the legal analysis since I don't know the state/federal law in this regard, he'll have to show that he fully complied (which he did not), or if he did not fully comply, there was reasonable justification for doing so.  I just don't see him coming up with reasonable justification given that Wells said he could control the flow of information and just send the responsive documents.  Unless of course, Wells is lying, but there hasn't really been any indication of that so it requires proof of facts not available, the burden of which will be on Brady to prove.  

 

As for Kraft and the Pats, I'm not sure.  He could sue the NFL.  Certainly not slander, but some other legal basis.  It seems that Kraft has thus far built his argument on the legal validity of the Wells report.  The only lawsuits against the NFL by owners that I can recall are the Al Davis and Jerry Jones anti-trust lawsuits, but I don't really see how this would be an anti-trust issue.  Kraft can certainly appeal the penalty, but by what I've seen online, it seems unlikely that Kraft would win on appeal.  So I'm not really sure what Kraft can do.  Any lawsuit would be on grounds that are beyond my limited knowledge in this area - though most of what I've read says Kraft can't really do much.

 

About the only thing he can do is petition the other owners to find a new commissioner, but that would require Goodell himself to have committed an act considered "conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League."  See Article VI, Sec. 6.5(G), NFL Constitution and Bylaws.  I know a lot of people would look at that and make their jokes or give their two cents that Goodell has already done that and can be removed, but he hasn't.  That would require Goodell to have done some of the things the Pats have already accused him of - i.e. assisted Wells in fudging the report or something.  Even then, assuming he has already done something that can appropriately be considered "conduct detrimental," it would still require the Executive Committee, which is comprised of one representative - an owner or part owner - of each of the 32 teams, to approve by at least a 3/4 vote to remove Goodell.  Seems unlikely if you ask me, unless he resigned (but what would that take?).

Very eloquently put, OffensivelyPC! These are my exact thoughts as well. Public confidence in Goodell, must be reached from an NFL fan point of view. To ostracize his every decision regarding rulings, regulations, and punishments just further impugns his ability to do so in a manner of authoritative ability given him by the entire NFL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole deal reminds me of Lance Armstrong in the way Brady is acting like he is the victim.  Lance once had the world eating from his hand and now he is reviled by most people because of his constant denials and the attitude that he was above reproach.  Brady may not be the one saying things now, but Kraft and the rest of them are not helping him with their biased opinions of what happened and how it was handled.  I hope they Goodell makes them pay dearly for challenging the league's handling of the case.

"This whole deal reminds me of Lance Armstrong in the way Brady is acting like he is the victim."

To me, Big Red, that is a very good analogy. It certainly seems that way, doesn't it? Brady is one of many (IMO) that knows the real score here. Trying to defend yourself is one thing. Trying to defend the truth, when it's not on your side, is most injurious to you and the many others that value this virtue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very eloquently put, OffensivelyPC! These are my exact thoughts as well. Public confidence in Goodell, must be reached from an NFL fan point of view. To ostracize his every decision regarding rulings, regulations, and punishments just further impugns his ability to do so in a manner of authoritative ability given him by the entire NFL.

I don't know that public confidence HAS to be reached from an NFL fan point of view.  You're going to have dissenters in anything someone does,r eally.  Someone always has an opinion.  But the unfortunate thing about social media (and for that matter, the media's often inaccurate reporting), is that it amplifies everyones right to be an *.  I don't mind when people criticize Goodell for doing something he wasn't legally entitled to do or even disagree with his justification for something.  But for the life of me, I will never understand why people will criticize a player suspension or fine for being "inconsistent" when it is so obviously within the commissioner's discretion.  Why people care about this so much is absolutely insane to me.  But the NFLPA knows that fans are emotionally invested in players.  And I wouldn't have a problem with that if they didn't rely on the ignorance (not using that term in a derogatory fashion, since no one should expect the average citizen to understand all the legal jargon in the CBA, for instance) of the common fan to play the emotional aspect of their grievances against the NFL on the national media.  And it's made worse when every single fine or suspension is reported, irrespective of how small it is, and shots are taken at the league, even if the player is clearly in the wrong.  But that's always been the NFLPA's angle, "we're not defending the players actions, but the commissioner is the bigger bad guy here."  It's just baloney and I'm flabbergasted that it always seems to stick.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know that public confidence HAS to be reached from an NFL fan point of view.  You're going to have dissenters in anything someone does,r eally.  Someone always has an opinion.  But the unfortunate thing about social media (and for that matter, the media's often inaccurate reporting), is that it amplifies everyones right to be an *.  I don't mind when people criticize Goodell for doing something he wasn't legally entitled to do or even disagree with his justification for something.  But for the life of me, I will never understand why people will criticize a player suspension or fine for being "inconsistent" when it is so obviously within the commissioner's discretion.  Why people care about this so much is absolutely insane to me.  But the NFLPA knows that fans are emotionally invested in players.  And I wouldn't have a problem with that if they didn't rely on the ignorance (not using that term in a derogatory fashion, since no one should expect the average citizen to understand all the legal jargon in the CBA, for instance) of the common fan to play the emotional aspect of their grievances against the NFL on the national media.  And it's made worse when every single fine or suspension is reported, irrespective of how small it is, and shots are taken at the league, even if the player is clearly in the wrong.  But that's always been the NFLPA's angle, "we're not defending the players actions, but the commissioner is the bigger bad guy here."  It's just baloney and I'm flabbergasted that it always seems to stick.

Regarding your entire post, it is unfortunately, the way things are nowadays. Emotions have replaced facts and that includes the social media. Back in the day, it seems as though it was Suits v. Blue Collar. Now, it's the haves & have-nots. Probably the same correlation.

It's sad that this analogy creeps into every aspect of life now, including and not only limited to sports.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know that public confidence HAS to be reached from an NFL fan point of view.  You're going to have dissenters in anything someone does,r eally.  Someone always has an opinion.  But the unfortunate thing about social media (and for that matter, the media's often inaccurate reporting), is that it amplifies everyones right to be an *.  I don't mind when people criticize Goodell for doing something he wasn't legally entitled to do or even disagree with his justification for something.  But for the life of me, I will never understand why people will criticize a player suspension or fine for being "inconsistent" when it is so obviously within the commissioner's discretion.  Why people care about this so much is absolutely insane to me.  But the NFLPA knows that fans are emotionally invested in players.  And I wouldn't have a problem with that if they didn't rely on the ignorance (not using that term in a derogatory fashion, since no one should expect the average citizen to understand all the legal jargon in the CBA, for instance) of the common fan to play the emotional aspect of their grievances against the NFL on the national media.  And it's made worse when every single fine or suspension is reported, irrespective of how small it is, and shots are taken at the league, even if the player is clearly in the wrong.  But that's always been the NFLPA's angle, "we're not defending the players actions, but the commissioner is the bigger bad guy here."  It's just baloney and I'm flabbergasted that it always seems to stick.  

 

The Ray Rice case is a perfect example. He hit his fiance, but by the end of it all, Rice was the sympathetic figure and Goodell was the bad guy. 

 

Or even "the NFL doesn't care about player safety!" But every time a rule is changed to limit dangerous plays, it's "Goodell is ruining the game!!!" Never mind that Goodell doesn't make rules changes; the Competition Committee and the 32 owners are in control of that process. 

 

It's really silly. The Internet echo chamber is often devoid of any perspective, and almost always comes with no real accountability. What's sad is how that has gradually worked its way into more traditional media, including beat writers, analysts, etc. It's becoming nearly impossible to find cogent analysis in traditional media anymore. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor Joe. He had Dwight Clark trying to go to bat for him to say he is the greatest because of his SB performances and no deflategate. Too bad he forgot to mention his owner getting suspended from the league and Jerry's stickum ...

How exactly does a democrat policitian extorting $400,000 from DeBartolo for a river boat gaming licence taint any superbowls?

 

On Jerry Rice, did he let the Refs feel his gloves and then send someone to the bathroom with them to put on stickum? 

 

Also Montana won two Superbowls before Rice was even drafted, so I don't think Rice's stickum was the reason for his success.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How exactly does a democrat policitian extorting $400,000 from DeBartolo for a river boat gaming licence taint any superbowls?

On Jerry Rice, did he let the Refs feel his gloves and then send someone to the bathroom with them to put on stickum?

Also Montana won two Superbowls before Rice was even drafted, so I don't think Rice's stickum was the reason for his success.

there is no place for logic here my friend

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ray Rice case is a perfect example. He hit his fiance, but by the end of it all, Rice was the sympathetic figure and Goodell was the bad guy.

Or even "the NFL doesn't care about player safety!" But every time a rule is changed to limit dangerous plays, it's "Goodell is ruining the game!!!" Never mind that Goodell doesn't make rules changes; the Competition Committee and the 32 owners are in control of that process.

It's really silly. The Internet echo chamber is often devoid of any perspective, and almost always comes with no real accountability. What's sad is how that has gradually worked its way into more traditional media, including beat writers, analysts, etc. It's becoming nearly impossible to find cogent analysis in traditional media anymore.

it's not just silly, it's pathetic. The NFLPA, who I blame most, has turned the NFL off the field events into a soap opera. And the most disappointing aspect of it all is that people watch it and call others who disagree "media sheep." how ironic is it that the pepole who side with the media call dissenting opinion sheep?
Link to post
Share on other sites

it's not just silly, it's pathetic. The NFLPA, who I blame most, has turned the NFL off the field events into a soap opera. And the most disappointing aspect of it all is that people watch it and call others who disagree "media sheep." how ironic is it that the pepole who side with the media call dissenting opinion sheep?

I truly believe this as well. The NFLPA (and this is going to ruffle some fans feathers) has served as a coddling playpen for players who get into trouble from violations against the league's policies. Some, over and over again. It's time that both sides recognize disciplinary measures that either side can abide in. Do what's necessary in order to change this whining venue of running to anyone who'll attempt to get them off with a reduced or negated ruling on punishment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it's not just silly, it's pathetic. The NFLPA, who I blame most, has turned the NFL off the field events into a soap opera. And the most disappointing aspect of it all is that people watch it and call others who disagree "media sheep." how ironic is it that the pepole who side with the media call dissenting opinion sheep?

 

 

The NFLPA formally filed two new charges today, one for contempt of court (Peterson case), and the other for Roger to recuse himself from hearing Brady's appeal. They are still full steam ahead...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • No doubt any move is a gamble of some kind or another. If its an older guy, is the player injury prone or on the downhill side of his career? If a younger guy, will he still perform with serious coin in his pocket for the first time? But in the end, you have to look at recent production. If the guy has a good rep for being a hard worker and improved his play such that he's become an impact player, he's worth the gamble, IMO. Maybe not for a contract longer than 3 years, but I like taking a shot at an ascending talent.    More importantly, if you believe, as I do, that the defense HAS to get much better at rushing the passer, especially since our D coordinator seems to have a serious allergy to blitzing, then the push to find that missing piece has to take its place front and center over other needs. 
    • This kid could make things really interesting and turn that flat-butt 4-3 into something really special with corners who can press. The scheme could be really sneaky good with that personnel. 
    • I don't know who else we really need to have a bounce back year, especially on D.  Along our DL, we either need to bring back Houston and Autry or figure out how to replace them - but both had pretty solid years.  Lewis was better than he had been his first couple years.  Buckner was a stud and Stewart was solid.  Having Turay come back healthy and seeing Banogu improve would be helpful, but they both played so little last year and hadn't done enough previously to indicate last year was a 'down year'.  At LB, Leonard was a first-team all pro again and very solid.  Walker was solid but saw his snap count decrease and Oke had his ups and downs while seeing his snap count dramatically increase (as @EastStreet pointed out,  not only did his snaps go way up compared to his rookie year but the way he was used was different).  I doubt we see Walker back, so it'd be nice to see Oke improve for sure.  Then in the secondary we had solid play from Rhodes, Carrie, Willis and Moore for the most part.  Blackmon was solid (especially early on, but he seemed to digress as the year went on - IMO, to be expected as he was raw coming in and was coming off a knee injury, I don't think he was supposed to get near the snaps he did last year, but we know what happened with Hooker and sort of forced Blackmon into the fire).  RYS had a down year, but I don't see why he can't bounce back - he's got the physical traits - I tend to think he battled some mental demons after some P-Int penalties, and hopefully he can refine his technique some and come back strong.     In all, on the D, I think we're in good shape.  Keep in mind, it seemed like 'Flus called the D a bit differently last year than he had in earlier years here.  We are, overall (aside from Houston, Autry, Rhodes) very young on D.  We had a very weird off-season last year, which (IMO) is critical for younger guys.  I can't help but think it didn't help the likes of guys like RYS and Oke who saw their roles increase and change (IMO, OKe's change was more than a 'slight' change) between their rookie year and year 2.     On O, ideally we'll see solid QB play from Wentz (I won't go as far as to saying he needs a 'bounce back' year as he hasn't been in Indy before and it sounds like there was a lot of toxicity in Philly, hopefully all he needs in a change of scenery and a reunion with Reich).  Our OL was solid, so as long as we can replace AC at LT I think we'll be OK there.  We had pretty consistent play from Hines and Wilkins throughout the year and JT got dramatically better as the season wore on -- I think if those guys can start up where they left off, we're more than fine at RB.  TY didn't have his best year, but he's be declining for about 3 years now, so if we bring him back, all we can do is hope he stays healthy and I think we'll be in OK shape.  Pittman missed some time with his leg compartment syndrome, but was solid down the stretch, so I don't think we need him to 'bounce back', just continue on his trajectory and he's gonna be solid.  Pascal was solid and I think we've pretty much seen his ceiling, so he just needs to stay solid.  It would be sweet to see Campbell and/or Patmon to emerge, but don't think we need them to 'bounce back' as we've never gotten high level results from them to begin with.     Then on STs, we were pretty solid all around.  Would like to see Blankenship add a bit more umphf to his kicks, but he was solid and Sanchez was solid punting.  The coverage and return units were solid overall.   So really, I think we need a comeback or bounce back year from RYS and maybe Oke... but overall, I don't think we need a 'bunch of them.'       I agree, pretty much  have to temper expectations on Speed being from a small school.  He did really improve on STs last year and he got his praise any time Ballard or any coaches spoke about him.  I get the feeling Ballard and staff are willing to use patience with project players (Ballard states that fairly regularly).  With Oke, Walker, Leonard and then Franklin who has more playing experience at LB - I don't think there was really much need to rush Speed into an LB role last year.  He got plenty of ST snaps and did well there, hopefully boosting his confidence that he can play at NFL level while still refining his LB technique in practices and the film room.     While I would rather see guys like Adams and Glasgow on STs - I don't think it is terrible to have them on the roster primarily as STers but being our 5th and 6th ranked LBs on the depth chart as well.  Meaning, if we went into the season with Leonard, Oke, Speed and Franklin as our top 4 with Adams and Glasgow as STers but listed as 5 and 6 on depth chart, I don't think it'd be the worst thing (especially considering we predominantly play with only 2 LBers on the field).  So, sure it'd be nice to bring in a mid-late round draft pick or sign a decent FA for fairly cheap, but I'd rather see us dishing out money to bring in a solid LT, a playmaker at TE (and maybe WR), retain Rhodes, ensure the DL was solid (either by bringing back Houston and Autry or by getting a guy like Bud Dupree/JJ Watt/etc.), and add OL depth.  In otherwords, regardless of if we bring Walker back or not, I don't think LB is a top 5 position of concern right now.   I don't think Walker is going to command a ton, but he was 15th in the NFL in tackles in 2018 (124), tied for 28th (105) in 2019 and in the top 50 in 2020 (92).  He's a pretty productive player and a solid one - so he's going to demand significantly more than he was getting as a 5th round pick on his rookie contract.  And yes, he definitely wants to play more and I think his biggest issue here is his lack of athleticism.  You're right, he'll probably play more in a 3-4 D and he will likely be offered more money by a team where he'll play a lot than what Ballard will offer him.    See the last line from Ballard in this article:  https://www.colts.com/news/chris-ballard-philip-rivers-ty-hilton-xavier-rhodes-2020-season-press-conference (Ballard on Linebacker Anthony Walker: "I have a special relationship with Anthony Walker. Selfless. Team guy. Rare leader. I hope he gets into coaching one day or scouting. Mark my words on this: if Anthony Walker gets into coaching, he will be a head football coach in the National Football League. And if he gets into scouting, he'll be a general manager. He's brilliant — absolutely brilliant, and he's made of the right stuff. I know Anthony wants to play more. We value Anthony. We'll see how it works out. I want good for Anthony."   My guess is Walker is gone.  
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...