Tough spot for Goddell

[Logical Reasoning]

I have always been a supporter of the commissioner especially over the last couple of years when he has cracked down on bad drug and alcohol related issues when they have come up. There has not been one individual player that was larger than the image that the NFL wanted to portray and "come hell or high water", poor decisions were to be met with swift and pretty harsh punishments. There have been some on the field stuff too. Rule changes to protect quarterbacks and helmet-to-helmet collisions that are very pro offense were and are implemented to maintain safety, the general offensive integrity of the game, and an image to fans that the words tough and violent can mean two different things. If you consider the media induced push for kids to "move" sixty minutes a day, as a parent I think it is great and my image is heightened even higher.

 

My problem, however, is with the Saints bounty penalties. I really think that the inability to trust the general fan base's understanding of a future lawsuit (or present one) defense is irresponsible. My image is that any one of the plaintiffs will say that the NFL knew how violent the sport was and did nothing to protect the players. Roger Goddell's response will be to say, "Well, in 2012 when we heard what the Saints were doing, we implemented harsh and swift penalties for the players and coaches sending a very swift and direct message that those types of behaviors would not be tolerated".

 

The question then becomes, would Goddell have to be this harsh if the 1800 plaintiffs hadn't sent through the paperwork for the suit. My answer is probably not. If you consider his main responsibility as commissioner is to maintain the present and future NFL, can you blame him especially when it is at the top of sports world.

 

There are some members of the media and players that want the commissioner to start the process over because of a general lack of evidence and there may be some truth to that. If, however, he is preparing himself for that one answer from that question that will come up in court may two or three years down the road, would you blame him if he didn't change anything related to the punishments.

[The Cincinnati Kid]

I think that there was obviously more to the "Bounty" Scandal in New Orleans than just cash bets on the First INT or # of Sacks, etc.

 

"I want to express my sincere regret and apology to the NFL, Mr. Benson, and the New Orleans Saints fans for my participation in the 'pay for performance' program while I was with the Saints. It was a terrible mistake, and we knew it was wrong while we were doing it. Instead of getting caught up in it, I should have stopped it. I take full responsibility for my role. I am truly sorry. I have learned a hard lesson and I guarantee that I will never participate in or allow this kind of activity to happen again." -Gregg Williams.

 

I understand that in this statement he says "Pay for Performance" and I think that was carefully crafted word choice. He did not gripe about his punishment at all when Roger Goddell. handed it down. To me, that says "I'm guilty and I know it. I'm not going to say anything to hurt my former players, but I am not going to rebut this because its true."

 

For the people who are upset, like Vilma and Fujita, the punishments are extreme and in rare company, especially for Vilma. An entire year is an awfully long time and will inhibit his ability to maximize his earning potential while an NFL player. That being said, I fully support the suspensions of these players. I believe that the Commish must have enough evidence to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that these people were either directly involved in the "Bounty" program, or were involved in trying to cover it up when the NFL came around asking questions.

 

There is a lot of truth the OP's thoughts on having to protect the league in the courts someday. There is a lot of reason to believe that that is part of this decision by the Goddell. Additionally, I think that there is a little bit of a "guilt by association" going on here. I don't know any of the evidence that Goddell has or doesn't have, but I do believe that he has enough to say that these guys are directly involved in some fashion. What he might be saying is, and I am not I totally agree with this, but its my thoughts on what might be going on, "I know you guys had something to do with this. I know more guys did too. I can't prove anyone else. I can prove you to an extent. Therefore, because I need to protect this league, I need to make swift and harsh punishments so that I can prove the League did all it could to prevent this type of "Bounty" system in the future and in the Courts. You guys are guilty in the League's eye, whether or not you are guilty to the same degree as your punishment doesn't matter." Its an example thing. If the Commish has the evidence to prove that its more than example thing, then I 100% support all of the suspensions. If he only has reasonable belief (as some reports are saying) then I don't think I agree with the extent of some the suspensions, especially the player's suspensions.

 

Sorry for the long winded response.

[Homey D. Clown]

From what I have heard from a few friends that work in the media, there is a truck-load of sideline evidence of what got these players suspended. There has been an Anthony Hargrove video on NFL network where he emphatically denies that it was his voice demanding "Now where's my money?"

 

Just because I wanted to hear it again, I replayed the clip several times, and if I had proper audio equipment I'm sure it would be really easy to make out who said that, but to me, with just my Tivo to analyze, it sure as hell sounds like him to me, especially since he provided some elevated declarations in the NFL-NW interview, i had something to compare it to.

 

I am willing to bet good money what got these players suspended was far more definitive proof, I truly don't think the NFL and Roger Goodell would blindly suspend players that harshly without it, you don't get to run the best and most popular sport in the world by accident.

[NoSaint]

I think that there was obviously more to the "Bounty" Scandal in New Orleans than just cash bets on the First INT or # of Sacks, etc.

 

"I want to express my sincere regret and apology to the NFL, Mr. Benson, and the New Orleans Saints fans for my participation in the 'pay for performance' program while I was with the Saints. It was a terrible mistake, and we knew it was wrong while we were doing it. Instead of getting caught up in it, I should have stopped it. I take full responsibility for my role. I am truly sorry. I have learned a hard lesson and I guarantee that I will never participate in or allow this kind of activity to happen again." -Gregg Williams.

 

I understand that in this statement he says "Pay for Performance" and I think that was carefully crafted word choice. He did not gripe about his punishment at all when Roger Goddell. handed it down. To me, that says "I'm guilty and I know it. I'm not going to say anything to hurt my former players, but I am not going to rebut this because its true."

 

For the people who are upset, like Vilma and Fujita, the punishments are extreme and in rare company, especially for Vilma. An entire year is an awfully long time and will inhibit his ability to maximize his earning potential while an NFL player. That being said, I fully support the suspensions of these players. I believe that the Commish must have enough evidence to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that these people were either directly involved in the "Bounty" program, or were involved in trying to cover it up when the NFL came around asking questions.

 

There is a lot of truth the OP's thoughts on having to protect the league in the courts someday. There is a lot of reason to believe that that is part of this decision by the Goddell. Additionally, I think that there is a little bit of a "guilt by association" going on here. I don't know any of the evidence that Goddell has or doesn't have, but I do believe that he has enough to say that these guys are directly involved in some fashion. What he might be saying is, and I am not I totally agree with this, but its my thoughts on what might be going on, "I know you guys had something to do with this. I know more guys did too. I can't prove anyone else. I can prove you to an extent. Therefore, because I need to protect this league, I need to make swift and harsh punishments so that I can prove the League did all it could to prevent this type of "Bounty" system in the future and in the Courts. You guys are guilty in the League's eye, whether or not you are guilty to the same degree as your punishment doesn't matter." Its an example thing. If the Commish has the evidence to prove that its more than example thing, then I 100% support all of the suspensions. If he only has reasonable belief (as some reports are saying) then I don't think I agree with the extent of some the suspensions, especially the player's suspensions.

 

Sorry for the long winded response.

 

You can see the evidence, instead of going with the "they must have it" approach. It exists but is amazingly thin, and yes there are a few crazy assertions mixed in (see "give me my money"). I agree that they paid for big hits, and I'm leaning towards yes they probably had $ on favres head but even that is questionable after seeing what they actually have. it seems so much hangs on statements from Gregg (claims the nfl wrote parts floating around) and mike cerullo (disgruntled employee that believes the team had him blackballed in the nfl).

 

Hargrove: 8 games for lying? Really?!?!?

 

Fujita: I think is personal for calling out the commissioner on health repeatedly, the evidence just does not at all support the punishment, but the punishment does discredit a man likely to be a leader going forward in player safety.

 

 

Brees to be on mike & mike this morning - id advise you tune in

[KD in CA]

There is a lot of truth the OP's thoughts on having to protect the league in the courts someday.

 

I think so too, but it's a mistake to focus entirely on that reason for the harsh penalties. I think they are also concerned with the PR of the league and its appeal to fans and advertisers. Just as the public is becoming more aware of head injuries and long term health issues, this kind of scandal pops up and makes the league look thuggish. That's a bad combination and one that could make advertisers nervous. Large companies are very quick to move away from scandal (Tiger Woods being the extreme example). So while the NFL isn't anywhere near that point yet, I think Goodell wants to make it very clear to the teams and players (and those watching from the outside) that this sort of thing can never happen again.

 

 

 

p.s. there is no reason to think the NFL has made all its evidence in the case public, as doing so only makes the league look worse. Thus, any condemnation of the penalties based on what we've seen is misguided, IMO.

Edited June 26, 2012 by KD in CT

[NoSaint]

I think so too, but it's a mistake to focus entirely on that reason for the harsh penalties. I think they are also concerned with the PR of the league and its appeal to fans and advertisers. Just as the public is becoming more aware of head injuries and long term health issues, this kind of scandal pops up and makes the league look thuggish. That's a bad combination and one that could make advertisers nervous. Large companies are very quick to move away from scandal (Tiger Woods being the extreme example). So while the NFL isn't anywhere near that point yet, I think Goodell wants to make it very clear to the teams and players (and those watching from the outside) that this sort of thing can never happen again.

 

 

 

p.s. there is no reason to think the NFL has made all its evidence in the case public, as doing so only makes the league look worse. Thus, any condemnation of the penalties based on what we've seen is misguided, IMO.

Outside of Gregg's and cerullos statements, they really claim they have given it all. The "there must be more" sentiment really speaks volumes to what little they have.

 

I think the mosaic comment they made the other day highlights the "we don't have it proven, but come on- it must have been going on" approach to a few of the claims.

Edited June 26, 2012 by NoSaint

[BillsWatch]

The NFLPA has attempted to throw doubt on commissioner because they were unhappy with labor agreement and that the agreement was broken despite their being clause allowing it. The players union in general has become a lot more the competition in recent years and NFL should start highlighting this more. The NFL and NFLPA have become as bad as Republicans and Democrats on the hill.

[dbow]

It's my personal belief that it was the lying and attempted cover up that lead to the harsh punishments. The bounties are bad enough but they are not new or unique in the NFL. With the old school players suing over concussions I think Goodell needed to make a big move to change the culture of the game. The Saints just chose the wrong time to challenge the league office. Had they owned up to what was going on 2 years ago, their penalty would have been minor in comparison. Their attempts at deceit were likely seen as contempt for the commissioner and the league office. As for proof. I'm not sure the league needed to prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. The new CBA doesn't give the players much room to maneuver. Since Goodell is both judge and executioner.

[Malazan]

You can see the evidence, instead of going with the "they must have it" approach. It exists but is amazingly thin, and yes there are a few crazy assertions mixed in (see "give me my money").

 

You've made a big leap. You have seen 'some' evidence. Not all.

 

What strikes me as strange is the NFLPA supporting players headhunting, violating very clear rules on bonuses outside a contract and now going after testimony from players who do not want to be reveale. Vilma's lawsuit is a thinly disguised attempt to get at the players who tattled.

[Dragonborn10]

I lost all a lot of respect for Goddell when he destroyed the Patriots video tape evidence. Yes he hit them fairly hard but he protected his buddy Roger Kraft and the Patriots from looking even worse. I suspect there was a lot more to that story and it probably included some evidence that the cheating worked. Just think they played 3 teams twice a year and for many years they played the same team in consecutive years. My bet is they were successfully stealing signals and they had proof it affected outcomes of games. And if you want to be really cynical and sinister maybe he did it because affecting the outcomes of games doesn't go over too well with guys in bad Italian suits from Vegas... Just sayin...

Edited June 27, 2012 by Dadonkadonk

[Dragonborn10]

I think the disconnect with the league and the players lies with the intent of the program. I suspect when it started it was innocent enough - much like the office NCAA tournament bracket. And I suspect there were few if any players that willing tried to make a few extra bucks by intentionally hurting another player. I would also suspect that in most defensive meetings around the league the goal of hitting and pressuring the QB relentlessy is openly discussed. But it only takes a guy or two to take things too far and cross the line. I have no doubt Vilma offered $10,000 to any guy who knocked Favre out of the game. And I would beleive him if he said "Yes I offered that reward but only meant if he got knocked out of the game due to a legal play/hit". I would believe these guys if they just said yes we did it but it was not meant to be mean spirited. Indeed no one has shown any video evidence or statistical analysis of personal foul penalities to suggest the Saints played dirty football. Yes Favre took a beating in that game but the refs were allwoing it to happen and almost all of the hits were legal.

[Geno Smith's Arm]

As someone else mentioned, it was the lying that probably pissed off Goodell. He had personal interviews with them, and apparently they lied to his face. The Saints were warned years ago, told the league they would end it, but kept doing it. They have NO ONE BUT THEMSELVES TO BLAME.

[Meathead]

I lost all a lot of respect for Goddell when he destroyed the Patriots video tape evidence. Yes he hit them fairly hard but he protected his buddy Roger Kraft and the Patriots from looking even worse. I suspect there was a lot more to that story and it probably included some evidence that the cheating worked. Just think they played 3 teams twice a year and for many years they played the same team in consecutive years. My bet is they were successfully stealing signals and they had proof it affected outcomes of games. And if you want to be really cynical and sinister maybe he did it because affecting the outcomes of games doesn't go over too well with guys in bad Italian suits from Vegas... Just sayin...

this idea that the cheatriots were hit hard is absurd

 

belicheat fined 500k, the team fined 250k, and one draft pick forfeited. no suspensions. no asterisks. just money and one draft pick

 

for the magnitude of the advantage the cheating gave them, that is a slap on the wrist. the cheating coach should have been suspended for at least a year if not life in addition to his fine. any coach who used that information should have been suspended for at least the year also. and their tainted superbowl 'wins' should have been forever marked as fraudulent

 

hit hard indeed you must be out your damn mind

[Logical Reasoning]

I think so too, but it's a mistake to focus entirely on that reason for the harsh penalties. I think they are also concerned with the PR of the league and its appeal to fans and advertisers. Just as the public is becoming more aware of head injuries and long term health issues, this kind of scandal pops up and makes the league look thuggish. That's a bad combination and one that could make advertisers nervous. Large companies are very quick to move away from scandal (Tiger Woods being the extreme example). So while the NFL isn't anywhere near that point yet, I think Goodell wants to make it very clear to the teams and players (and those watching from the outside) that this sort of thing can never happen again.

 

 

 

p.s. there is no reason to think the NFL has made all its evidence in the case public, as doing so only makes the league look worse. Thus, any condemnation of the penalties based on what we've seen is misguided, IMO.

 

 

I was under the impression that he could not limit the evidence he had when he met with the players. He had to show everything he had to them to justify his stance and I would truly hope that he would provide it considering the degree of the penalties that were placed especially on Vilma and Williams. If I am wrong and the effected players know there is more out there, they should take their punishment and move on.

[Dr. Trooth]

Well...If the player think NFL condoning vilolence for years is their case, then they're gonna lose. It is well documented that the NFL has fined players for "hits" on what they've determined were excessive and outside the lines. James Harrison would be the poster boy for that. They've also established commitees to modify rules to protect players. Kickoffs from the 25, crackbaks blocks, QB protection, low blocks on an engaged lineman, etc. So the players can take what they want to court. In a civil proceeding the scales only need to tip slightly in the favor of one party. That being the case, and knowing only the tip of the iceberg evidence that the NFL has, my money is squarely on the NFL on this one.

 

The sport is always going to win on matters like this... that's why boxing and ultimate fighing exist. That's why fighting in hockey exists... that's what the patrons want to see. And lastly, football is a game of violence... big fast men colliding. It is what it is and we like it that way. But, when bounties are paid to purposely injure a player... well, geez folks, that crosses a line. I thought the Tonya Harding school of competiton days were behind us.

[NoSaint]

You've made a big leap. You have seen 'some' evidence. Not all.

 

What strikes me as strange is the NFLPA supporting players headhunting, violating very clear rules on bonuses outside a contract and now going after testimony from players who do not want to be reveale. Vilma's lawsuit is a thinly disguised attempt to get at the players who tattled.

Minus the Williams and cerullo interviews the nfl says they've given the relevant documents. It's near certain at this point the unnamed source is former assisstant mike cerullo. At this point the vilma lawsuit is much more about getting the other papers which they claim include retractions of statements, and then additionally evidence including specifically the exact interviews mentioned above.

 

The nflpa isn't going after a player at this point- that would be an absolutely shocking and out of left field development.

 

Well...If the player think NFL condoning vilolence for years is their case, then they're gonna lose. It is well documented that the NFL has fined players for "hits" on what they've determined were excessive and outside the lines. James Harrison would be the poster boy for that. They've also established commitees to modify rules to protect players. Kickoffs from the 25, crackbaks blocks, QB protection, low blocks on an engaged lineman, etc. So the players can take what they want to court. In a civil proceeding the scales only need to tip slightly in the favor of one party. That being the case, and knowing only the tip of the iceberg evidence that the NFL has, my money is squarely on the NFL on this one.

 

The sport is always going to win on matters like this... that's why boxing and ultimate fighing exist. That's why fighting in hockey exists... that's what the patrons want to see. And lastly, football is a game of violence... big fast men colliding. It is what it is and we like it that way. But, when bounties are paid to purposely injure a player... well, geez folks, that crosses a line. I thought the Tonya Harding school of competiton days were behind us.

 

You've seen more than the tip. The league was required to give ALL evidence they planned to use. They admit to holding back Gregg's interview and one with an unnamed source (heavily thought to be former coach mike cerullo who was fired after the 2009 season and claims the saints blackballed him from future jobs). The fact that everyone claims this is just the tip or that there must be some smoking gun still goes a long way in pointing out how thin this is. It's why the nfl keeps saying it's a mosaic instead of here's the clear proof in documentation.

Edited June 27, 2012 by NoSaint

[NoSaint]

I think the disconnect with the league and the players lies with the intent of the program. I suspect when it started it was innocent enough - much like the office NCAA tournament bracket. And I suspect there were few if any players that willing tried to make a few extra bucks by intentionally hurting another player. I would also suspect that in most defensive meetings around the league the goal of hitting and pressuring the QB relentlessy is openly discussed. But it only takes a guy or two to take things too far and cross the line. I have no doubt Vilma offered $10,000 to any guy who knocked Favre out of the game. And I would beleive him if he said "Yes I offered that reward but only meant if he got knocked out of the game due to a legal play/hit". I would believe these guys if they just said yes we did it but it was not meant to be mean spirited. Indeed no one has shown any video evidence or statistical analysis of personal foul penalities to suggest the Saints played dirty football. Yes Favre took a beating in that game but the refs were allwoing it to happen and almost all of the hits were legal.

 

That's essentially what they have admitted to minus the favre incident. I still think we might see a twist in the favre situation. The way vilmas early comments were shaped I wouldn't be surprised if Gregg handed him 10k and said go rile the troops up, I need you to give a big speach here. He just had too much of the "I never intended to give any of my money" for the first week, while after he got the documentation he's changed to the "I did nothing"

[BRH]

There is one very good reason why the league wouldn't release all the evidence it has (besides the fact that right now, it doesn't have to): Goodell may have promised anonymity to players in exchange for their truthful testimony. If those players' covers are blown, what kind of careers do you think they can look forward to? Even if coaches and GMs sign them, they'd be targets for other players, who wouldn't even need bounties as motivation. And if the league doesn't do everything it can to protect those players' identities, what player will ever cooperate in another investigation?

 

The PA needs to tread VERY carefully here. You're hearing a lot of noise from them but I bet you there are a bunch of players out there who have NO desire to see this go to court and expose their testimony. And the PA represents them too.

[NoSaint]

There is one very good reason why the league wouldn't release all the evidence it has (besides the fact that right now, it doesn't have to): Goodell may have promised anonymity to players in exchange for their truthful testimony. If those players' covers are blown, what kind of careers do you think they can look forward to? Even if coaches and GMs sign them, they'd be targets for other players, who wouldn't even need bounties as motivation. And if the league doesn't do everything it can to protect those players' identities, what player will ever cooperate in another investigation?

 

The PA needs to tread VERY carefully here. You're hearing a lot of noise from them but I bet you there are a bunch of players out there who have NO desire to see this go to court and expose their testimony. And the PA represents them too.

 

that would have been relevant 2 months ago. at this point the only evidence that they are acknowledging as held back is the gregg williams statement, and the mystery witness that is pretty widely speculated (and with each day becoming more likely) to be former coach Mike Cerullo. as its not been confirmed, that could be wrong, but at this point it would be SHOCKING for anyone that has followed closely to find out the mystery source was a player and not him, given the type of information that this source has provided (the ledger, for instance).

[eball]

Am I the only one irritated by looking at the first page of TSW and seeing this topic with Goodell's name misspelled?

 

Yes, I'm sick.