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

    • We can't restructure Doyle as he's in the final year of his contract. We can extend him, and reduce his 2021 cap hit, but I don't see that happening. I think Doyle is more likely to be replaced than get a new deal.   For Stewart, the previous CBA had a rule that prevented a player's contract from being restructured more than once within one year. In practice, this meant a player had to wait a year after signing their deal before they could restructure, which means Stewart wouldn't be eligible to restructure until November 2021. I'm assuming that rule has not changed in the new CBA, but I have not researched this yet.   So Kelly is really the only one that would be eligible. They could easily cut his 2021 cap hit in half, or more if they really wanted. So he's scheduled at $14.65m, and that could definitely come down to ~$8m, saving the team $6.65m in 2021. But that savings basically gets moved into dead money in future seasons, which is something the Colts apparently want to avoid. Kelly's contract had zero signing bonus, so after 2021 there is zero dead money. Restructuring him would be a dramatic change in cap strategy for the Colts.   Doesn't mean it won't happen, but we're in really good cap shape, so I'm not expecting it. If the Colts wanted to manipulate their cap situation to add FA flexibility, they could back load their FA contracts, with the same net result. 
    • It helps when you're drafting #1 overall 
    • You are too emotional.   I was speaking of trading for an unknown.   So you would have been fine making that trade to draft Trubisky, who was predicted to go in the same draft position as Herbert?   
    • Are you serious right now? Do you honestly think the Chargers would trade Herbert right now today for Buckner, Pittman and Taylor? Not in a million years. It sounds like you're suggesting that price would be too high for the Colts to pay?   Did you see what it took to get Matt Stafford? Do you hear what it would take to get Watson or Wilson? The entire NFL knows what half of this forum doesn't seem to understand - a franchise QB is worth whatever it costs to get them and you get them whenever you can. You know the best way not to give up 3 firsts and 2 seconds for Watson? Draft one yourself. Ballard knew 1000000% that Luck wasn't coming back last year and you're happy that he got a DT, RB, and WR instead of a franchise QB? If Ballard thinks a team will win a Super Bowl with average QB play that's supported by an All Pro DT he's wrong and so are you if you think average QB's win Super Bowls.    Its also so funny to me that in this SPECIFIC thread I hear nonstop that Grigson only got good results because he drafted a great QB. His record and playoff wins dont count because he drafted a great QB. Then why aren't you and everyone else on this forum destroying Ballard for NOT drafting a great QB? Heck that's all it takes right, just ask Grigson?  
  • Members

    • Archer

      Archer 606

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • craigerb

      craigerb 31

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Superman

      Superman 9,229

      Moderators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • jvan1973

      jvan1973 5,357

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • dew5150

      dew5150 110

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • FortheWin

      FortheWin 232

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Myles

      Myles 4,082

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Mitch Connors

      Mitch Connors 304

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • jmac_48

      jmac_48 365

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • PeterBowman

      PeterBowman 1,444

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...