This is why Goodell sucks
http://sportsonmymind.com/2008/08/10/notes-matt-jones-returns-to-the-field/
Notes: Matt Jones Returns to the Field
August 10, 2008
The Florida Times-Union, newspaper to the Jacksonville Jaguars made no mention of the odd happening on the field during the Jaguars-Atlanta Falcons game. ESPN made no mention of the happening, Additionally, in a feature “Camp Confidential article on ESPN.com, Paul Kuharsky, former Tennessee Titans beat writer for the Tennessean and now ESPN.com writer, never mentioned the name of the man involved in the happening. The NFL Network showed a highlight of the happening.
“The happening” was a 22-yard pass from David Garrard to Matt Jones that led to the Jaguars’ first touchdown of their preseason game against the Falcons. Normally the discussion around a play like that would concern a veteran quarterback in his second season as full-time starter and banal banter using the overused term, “sophomore slump.” Secondarily, there would be talk of the new receivers in the Jags camp and how all the receivers from 2007-08 must watch their backs.
But this play should have spotlighted something entirely different - and would have if the receiver was black.
Matty J. was back. He started the game. Jones played his prescribed starter number of plays and sat down for the remainder of the game.
No biggy, huh?
But this is an NFL player who was busted in an SUV with six grams of coke. This is a first round pick who was busted chopping lines with a credit card while his boys eagerly awaited the result of his “largesse.” This is the guy who was given a HUGE break by a prosecutor by reducing his charge from distribution to possession despite the fact that possessing more than one gram of cocaine carries with it an automatic charge of distribution. This is a player who let his team down mightily late last season and into the playoffs; basically disappeared - and then during the offseason had the nerve to complain that he wanted the ball more.
There was no uproar. No boos when he came onto the field. No sardonic remarks from the local press. No ESPN coverage detailing Jones’ first action since the arrest. No wondering if Jones needed to bne released. No nothing from the commissioner’s office about the scourge that is drugs.
It sure must be nice to be Matt Jones.
This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR
0 recs |
64 comments
Comments
We need to be consistent.
If your article is pointing out that possession of a drug is a bad thing and should be punished, then I hope that you are also thinking that Marcus Thomas should be in trouble for possession. If we’re back to the Brandon Marshall comparisons, then it’s even worse. On the one hand, some of us complain because we want players held accountable. On the other hand, we complain because one of our players was held accountable. We can’t have it both ways.
Accountability isn’t a game of comparisons. I work every day with criminals who argue vociferously that they shouldn’t be held accountable because someone else either got off scot free or with a lighter sentence. They also blame the judge for what they perceive as the injustice.
The bottom line is that our guy has been in trouble multiple times, and is getting a second chance through a light suspension and a strong incentive to get counseling. Let’s leave off field bad behaviour to other teams and strive to have high quality players on our own team.
We’re no better than the raiders if we cheer for other teams’ players to get busted, while defending our own. If we flock to the defense of players like Thomas, Marshall, or even Hackney for making poor decisions (several times in the case of Marshall) then we sure as heck shouldn’t be pointing our fingers at anyone else.
Frankly, before Goodell came along this kind of behaviour off the field was rampant. It’s just started getting addressed in the last couple of years, and perhaps it will start paying off in the long run. Over time, teams will think long and hard over whether a player is worth the suspension risks and the game will get cleaned up.
As for Matt Jones, I don’t know if he has a history of the behavior or not, but he’s only guilty of what he pleas to. A plea can mean the evidence just isn’t there, or it can mean a lot of things. The bottom line is, how many brushes with the law has he had in the last year, and, should we also be calling for Marcus Thomas’ head?
I think the Marshall episode is over (if Marshall straightens up), and we as a fan base should move forward. If our players don’t put themselves in bad situations, we don’[t have to worry about making comparisons. There’s always someone who gets off easier, and someone who got it worse than our own guys. Let’s let it go and enjoy some football. (Just my opinion).
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Aug 11, 2008 2:57 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I look at the math ...
... The way I look at it, 1 time posetion of a serious drug (such as cocain) = 10 other small crimes. Let’s forget Marshall’s domestic issues, which are very unclear. The dude was cutting up cocain, and he didn’t even get suspended for a game. Just buying the stuff should be enough of a crime.
Thomas was in a freinds car, and there was trace amounts of the thing in the car. And I would have been less angry had Thomas been suspended one game than I am about Marshall’s three game suspention.
Anyhow, Goodell’s whole shtick was that he didn’t care what tricks the lawyers played or what you pleaded to, what mattered was your actions as he sees them. Just because the dude made a plea bargain doesn’t make his action any better, and Marshall hasn’t had to plead anything on anything and neither did Thomas.
Go So Cal. I am the bigger one.
by amirebram on Aug 11, 2008 10:16 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed...
First of all…I don’t care if the police come to your house every day for ten years. If there are no charges then it must be assumed by a third party that there was no crime! Hypothetically, I could have a crazy neighbor who calls the police every time I sneeze. Should I be suspended from work for that?
Thomas also did nothing wrong. He was in the car with someone who had trace amounts of Cocaine. He passed a lie detector stating that he didn’t know the Cocaine was in the car…and passed an immediate drug test. Of course he shouldn’t be punished!!!
M. Lynch hit a woman and drove away and this guy was cutting Cocaine. Both admitted to felonies…both faced charges. I understand your arguement about personal accountability and taking responsibility for your own actions; however, Goodell’s punishments are absudly inconsistent and varying in severity. Furthermore, there seems to be absolutely no clear cut criteria for how he makes these decisions. I am really beginging to dislike Goodell…his actions and decisions have no rhyme or reason. He is not off to a good start as commisioner in my mind!
by UnarmingMermaid on Aug 11, 2008 10:38 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the police are going to someone's house every day...
...for ten years and you don’t see a problem there, you never will.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Aug 11, 2008 4:12 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
The point is not that it isn't a problem...
...clearly there is a problem. However, the problem may be with the neighbor in my example and not with the home owner. The point is that a third party has no right to insinuate that a crime has occurred without charges being filed (or really without any determination of guilt). Our society is filled with false accusations and harrasment on a variety of levels and it is important that we don’t start assuming guilt based on accusation or visits by the police. The NFLs job is not to be judge and jury…rather to react to the determination made by an actual judge and jury.
If you can’t understand justice and due process then you never will.
by UnarmingMermaid on Aug 11, 2008 4:21 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
...and the fact that someone's employment can be jeopardized
...without such determination is downright scary for everybody in our society.
by UnarmingMermaid on Aug 11, 2008 4:26 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even the players' union signed off on the policy.
The same codes of conduct for behavior outside of work apply to teachers and law enforcement officers (as well as military officers and many other career fields). You enter these jobs knowing the boundries. Don’t brush with the law, but sure as heck don’t keep doing it.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Aug 11, 2008 4:44 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I work in the financial industry and they have a similiar policy. However, I guarantee you that none of the above fields would dismiss or suspend somebody based on accusations and little else. If they did they should be amply prepared for a wrongfull termination lawsuit (depending on state and “right to work” laws). At very least…they would look for some sort of evidence that they could point to, other than police visits or accusations (even arrests couldn’t qualify without charges as they are often resulting from mere accusation).
I’m not trying to argue that Brandon Marshall is in the right. In fact, I think players should be eligible for suspension for DUIs. I am arguing that we need to take carefull consideration of the precedent being set by the NFL and the potential consequences involved.
by UnarmingMermaid on Aug 11, 2008 4:59 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand what you are saying.
But things I’ve seen in some career fields might surprise you.
Teachers called on the carpet for just shopping in a liquor store. (I did it, but always out of town. Never got called on the carpet myself). Note: not even an illegal behavior.
Teacher seen at a strip club (fired). I thought the person making the claim was an ass, since he (a parent) was there. Never the less, the teacher’s position was indefensible. Also not illegal.
Principal fired for being pulled over for DUI (and not even charged). (Really a forced resignation).
Police officer (forced resignation) for checking himself into a hospital for family problems. Not illegal, and even commendable, but still shows instability for a guy carrying a gun (it was a friend of mine, and while I see the rationale, it was still a bitter pill).
Military officer, forced into early retirement for having an affair.
Again, these things are not “fair”. I don’t try to say that they are. What I AM saying is that certain persons in certain fields sign on knowing that personal conduct outside of work, even legal behavior, that can cause negative publicity are expected to retire, resign, or be fired. Marshall is in a simular position, though he only got a suspension (and by League standards, a very light one too).
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Aug 12, 2008 1:17 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
NFLPA signed off on the policy surprises me
since, from what I saw in Guru’s post showing the policy, there doesn’t seem to be a defined “sentence” for different offenses. I figured that they would want that carefully spelled out (especially in light of the recent cases brought up in this post). If there were a specified penalty for a specified offense, I think the fans would feel more comfortable knowing that when it happens to their team, it’s a fair penalty.
I, for one, agree with everything that you’ve said, HT. It is a condition of employment that you follow the rules set forth in your employers code of conduct. The fact that professional athletes have it in their contract (more than likely) makes it even more obvious for them to follow it, otherwise it would be breach of contract.
Finally, you bring up the codes of conduct for other professions. Another one to bring up is anyone having a security clearance. There are several conditions of having a clearance that you must live up to. If you do not live up to them, you lose your clearance. Some of these conditions might not seem to be related to holding a clearance (like espionage) but are still critical to keeping a clearance (staying out of debt, not frequenting certain countries, not partaking in “risky” behavior, etc.). I worked with a guy that admitted to smoking pot while having a clearance and it was yanked on the spot. He worked for our company for a couple more weeks before finally moving off to a different career.
"It's all over Fat Man"
- Tom Jackson to John Madden 1977 AFC Championship Game
by DesertBroncoFan on Aug 11, 2008 5:01 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just becuase it's in the books...
...doesn’t mean it’s fair or legal and it is still subject to a legal challenge. Regardless of who signed it. Contracts are void if deemed illegal…and it sounds like some of this agreement is suspect.
by UnarmingMermaid on Aug 11, 2008 5:10 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Contracts are void...
...if they are in bad faith, or have a clause that endorses criminal activity by a party, etc, etc. Personal conduct policies are well established vehicles used by employers with high stakes in public relations (again, pro athletes, teachers, police officers), and the precedent for them is solid. Remember too that NFLPA and ownership attorney’s support the code, and the process even has government oversight (because of anti-trust).
No one is questioning the legality of the policy.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Aug 12, 2008 1:27 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
DesertBroncoFan...
We’re not debating the same point here. I understand that a person agrees to abide by certain ‘codes of conduct’ for various professions. My point is that there has to be more than mere accusation to determine that someone has violated that code of conduct. In the examples that you gave, all were clear cut violations of that policy based on admission, financial history (credit score), criminal record, etc.. However, without these clear cut indications of a violation, determined by the appropriate entities (i.e. not the employer), no employer has the right to suspend or dismiss an employee (again depending on statuatory law).
by UnarmingMermaid on Aug 11, 2008 5:19 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hear you.
But you are trying to apply a legal standard of proof outside of a courtroom. In some professions, even an accusation that is unfounded is enough proof to require termination or resignation.
For example, most church administrative committees might require a resignation of a youth pastor accused of molestation, even without proof. It’s not “fair” at all, but the preponderance for the church is protecting their children and reputation. Does the youth paster have any recourse? Yes! But against the accuser, and probably not against the church (which is acting in good faith to protect their interests).
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Aug 12, 2008 1:31 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again...
I would argue it depends on the state. Some states are “right to work” states and some are not. In other words, in some states an employer can fire you for looking at them funny and in others they have to have a legitimate and definitive reason. It’s possible that in Indiana, I think that’s where you live, does not need to have a reason and thus can force a resignation. However, not all states are that way.
by UnarmingMermaid on Aug 12, 2008 6:23 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are correct.
On the other hand, right to work legislation does not extend to certain career fields. For example, exemptions are made for certain govt employees (like teachers and law enforcement officers). Here again, a pro athlete that plays for a team located in a right to work state is exempted (even though he isn’t a govt. employee), as well as certain church positions (also not govt).
An example of an exemption that goes beyond termination issues is using a lie detector test for employment. In most states this violates labor laws. However, exemptions are made in law enforcement (I had to take a voice stress analysis to get my current position).
You raise a good point with right to work laws though.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Aug 12, 2008 7:37 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Another point I just realized.
We’re using the wrong terminology. “Right to Work” is the the concept that workers do not have to join a union and are allowed to vote on unionizing in a confidential vote.
The concept we are discussing is “At Will Work”, which is the concept that an employer or the employee are allowed to disassociate (fire / quit) without reason.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Aug 12, 2008 8:36 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good points.
The clearance issue is a great example.
I think the NFLPA signed off because they want the wiggle room for players. If every rule was hard and fast, it would be hard to defend a player based on mitigating versus aggravating circumstances. It’s better for the players that the League policy allows for discretion.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Aug 12, 2008 1:22 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
define a small crime
how can we quantify that possession of coke is equal to 10 small crimes? what is a small crime? Slapping a woman is not a small crime and if Marshall did come to blows with his lady then it is not a small matter. a small matter is dropping litter not the stuff BMarsh appears to have been mixed up in on more than one occasion.
Jones is an idiot for what he did but does he deserve to be banned for it? I don’t know, did he harm anyone but himself?
BMarsh will learn from his mistakes and will be a stronger, better person for it. Lets be pleased we can cover for him for a couple of matches and that both he and the team can move on to a better place
and the sing along songs will be our scriptures - we gotta stay positive!
by Orange & Blue Badger on Aug 11, 2008 12:19 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
By small crime I mean
Speeding, having your music one too loud late at night, getting into a loud argument with your dad … these are all small. Having the cops called on you because of a fight with your girlfreind, as long as you don’t actually hit/hurt her.
Even a DUI is much less severe in my eyes than having cocain, but that one is subject to debate so I won’t bring it up.
And I don’t see buying cocain and cutting it up for your freinds as “idiot” ... I lost a couple of uncles to addiction and drugs-and by that, I mean got killed for it-so beleive me when I say cocain is no joke.
Go So Cal. I am the bigger one.
by amirebram on Aug 11, 2008 1:39 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know its no joke
didn’t say it was a joke amir, I did say that Jones was harming himself. An idiot is a ‘silly or foolish person’, I think that fits Jones in this instance and I don’t think calling him that trivialises what he did.
Believe me I have seen the dark side of what drugs can do to people and I am sorry you lost loved ones. We are all, I hope, agreed that coke is not a good thing.
and the sing along songs will be our scriptures - we gotta stay positive!
by Orange & Blue Badger on Aug 11, 2008 1:52 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I had a fiancee who was killed by a driver...
...who was high on pot. DUI is not a small crime in my mind.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Aug 11, 2008 4:14 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the courts didn't say he was cutting up cocaine,
then it didn’t happen (in a legal or administrative sense). It was possession, same as Thomas. (If you are saying Thomas and Marshall didn’t plead to something, then you are also saying that legal manouvers SHOULD have an impact on Goodell’s decision making. We as fans can’t have it both ways).
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Aug 11, 2008 4:10 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree HT
We need to worry about and clean up our own house before we clean up someone elses house
by okiebroncosfan on Aug 11, 2008 3:54 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I for one agree with you amirebram
The most important virtue of any justice system is consistency.
by Jeeeeens on Aug 11, 2008 4:23 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
This is the perfect topic to debate in a bar...
:)
I think amirebram is striking at a point that bothers me as well and that’s perception and inconsistent media coverage. Sadly, I think journalistic integrity (let alone competence) are in decline and we might as well get used to very selective media coverage. With a 24.7 news cycle, analysts, talking heads, etc run with the easiest story line. Homework is optional these days.
I agree with HT, too, that we need to clean up our own house first. If guys are walking the straight and narrow than we’ll have nothing to worry about. Fact is, the Broncos have made a name for themselves over the past few years for drafting/signing suspect character guys (Maurice Clarett, Travis Henry, Marcus Thomas). I think it then becomes easy for commentators to focus more attention on the Broncos when another one of their players gets in trouble. Another reason for the disparity or lack of coverage may be that Matt Jones sucks and Jacksonville is almost a non-media market. Who cares what happens in Jacksonville????
For giggles just think of how this would play out if Goodell was commish of the NBA; he would suspend the entire league! :)
I wish Woody Paige was our coach!
by bcfunk on Aug 11, 2008 5:20 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
"Homework" was always optional
The only reason we see it more now is because of the same 24 hour cycle. Before the media had the luxury of being our only news source. They’ve always had bias, we just couldn’t always see it before. I’m not saying it’s better or worse now. Honestly we probably get better information than we ever have before, which is the real problem.
There’s stuff that we’re just better off not knowing. I promise you the stuff we didn’t hear about athletes from the 60s and 70s would make the stuff we hear about today look like an absolute joke. The story of the receiver who started the superbowl with a hangover would never happen today(see: Eugene Robinson).
The truth of the matter is if his personal life doesn’t affect me, I really don’t want to hear about it. If it affects his performance on Sunday, I care. Otherwise I really don’t want to hear about it.
I don’t look for my neighbor’s dirty laundry in the papers, why would I look for a professional athlete’s dirty laundry in the papers?
steps off the soapbox
by JR_G on Aug 11, 2008 6:40 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
We don't have to look for dirty laundy.
That’s the job of the commissioner, and the players and their union signed onto it.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Aug 11, 2008 4:16 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, you hit the nail on the head!!!
You know, I honestly think that the media coverage played a big part in getting Marshall suspended.
And in my view Goodell doesn’t give a damn about what is right and wrong. With him it’s all about the image, and if the media get’s on someone’s case, then that guy is a bad guy that needs to be suspended. But if the media leaves him alone, then Goodell isn’t going to raise a fuss and draw attention to the idiot who had cocain. It’s as if he has make media coverage the jurry in his little court.
Shouldn’t the nature of the crime count just as much as how often you have trouble with the law?
Go So Cal. I am the bigger one.
by amirebram on Aug 11, 2008 10:20 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
It IS about image.
The players and their union cared enough about the image to sign onto the conduct policy. If this was a blatent injustice, why isn’t the players’ union fighting Marshall’s suspension, or even speaking out against it?
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Aug 11, 2008 4:17 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
If God is not a Bronco fan, then WHY are sunsets Blue and Orange? - Jon Tollerud 5/22/08
by Tim Lynch on Aug 11, 2008 9:20 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
A couple of points
1. Marshall needs to grow up and clean up his act no matter what anyone else on the Broncos or in the NFL is doing. He’s been in trouble almost as many times as Chris Henry and Adam Jones (though not as severe, but the #’s I’m talking about). Marshall didn’t get near what those 2 got for punishments. He’s the one who put himself in this situation, he’s the only one responsible for not being in it again. His punishment is appropriate for his offenses.
2. Matt Jones and M. Lynch, to my knowledge, are first time offenders. I believe what Goodell is trying to stop is the repeated acts of criminal behavior, meaning that subsequent problems increase in greater proportion punishment. So players won’t get the death penalty for a one-time screw up, but be blasted for repeated problems. In the case of M. Jones, is his punishment any greater than someone who popped positive for coke on a pee test? If I’m not mistake, he’s put into the NFL drug program, but not suspended for a first offense.
So I guess I’m saying that Marshall needs to man up and fly straight and not worry about anything else.
Owning the Patriots since September 9, 1960
by Darin H on Aug 11, 2008 11:29 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Which I think Marshall has done
"It's all over Fat Man"
- Tom Jackson to John Madden 1977 AFC Championship Game
by DesertBroncoFan on Aug 11, 2008 12:00 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Marshall has...
...but apparently a few fans haven’t.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Aug 11, 2008 4:18 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
But that's the part that doesn't make sense.
you can buy cocain, but only once? what the **? If repeated minor run-ins with the law, without any conviction, are bad enough to get you suspended, then being a criminal once should get you suspended too.
Anything else just seems unfair to me.
Go So Cal. I am the bigger one.
by amirebram on Aug 11, 2008 1:42 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Goodell should be held to a higher standard.
I don’t think this fanpost was about debating Marshall’s suspension again. I don’t think it was completely about whether a player from another team (Matt Jones) should be suspended or not? What I took from amirebram’s fanpost was whether Goodell is doing a good job with the Player Conduct Policy overall, and yes the point was lack of consistency.
It does not surprise me to see HT defend Goodell, as I know he does not care about consistency and does not think it is possible. Likewise I am sure others are not surprised to see me agree with amirebram and UnarmingMermaid. Although I am educated enough to know that 100% consistency is practically impossible, the level of inconsistency that Goodell has displayed is in my opinion unacceptable.
And I have heard most everyone’s point, even TSG about the letter of the Policy, and how Goodell has been consistent because it is more about the number of infractions than it is about any one infraction. And while I agree that is true, my point is that considering the Conduct Policy was implemented primarily for league image and fan perception concerns, than the real measure of the policy”s effectiveness and Goodell’s implementation is whether fan perception and league image has improve, along with the frequency of players off field infractions.
I would love to see someone actually do research and collect data on the total number of off-field player infractions and repeat offenders over the last 3-4 years. I am sure a reporter like Schefter (who knows things before Goodell) could even acquire that data (as I am sure the NFL has it or should). Until some data is collected and shared, this is simply a debate between whether there are more infractions, or whetehr it just seems that way due to increased media attention.
However, if we leave that debate alone, but accept the obvious (increased media attention) to move on to the other purposes of the Conduct Policy (improved fan perception and league image), than it is also obvious that the Conduct Policy and the way Goodell has handled it has actually indeed brought even more media attention and scrutiny on the league (which is counter to it’s purposes). And that is a big negative.
In that sense, the Policy and Goodell’s handling of it has been ineffective. Sure, he can not control the media. But what he does as far as perceived consistency, how quickly he determines a suspension, and how he communicates it, makes a huge difference on the amount of media attention. When Goodell seems inconsistent, then it creates more negative fan perception. And the more the media focus on player infractions, than the worse the image for the league.
The Policy gives Goodell a lot of latitude, and he needs to realize that the fans care as much if not more about the seriousness of an offense (even one) than they do about a string of questionable conflicts.
I will state again, what I have said before, that I think the Policy has been ineffective and Goodell has done a poor job of implementing it. I don not believe player infractions have decreased, and I believe fan perception and league image has worsened because of how Goodell has handled it. And of courese we can argue my concluding points, but I believe time will show us, as eventually the league will adjust their Player Conduct Policy to improve the outcomes.
by The Gun Young on Aug 11, 2008 11:34 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Great take on the whole issue.
I guess you summed it up much better than I ever could.
Go So Cal. I am the bigger one.
by amirebram on Aug 11, 2008 1:44 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Care to explain this little comment?
It does not surprise me to see HT defend Goodell, as I know he does not care about consistency and does not think it is possible.
Don’t ascribe positions to me unless you know what you’re talking about. I made it clear from the start that I had no position on whether Marshall was suspended or not, and would support whatever the commissioner decided. I also have made it clear that the commissoner has been empowered by both owners and the players’ union to handle these matters, and the code of conduct policy allows him the discretion to do so. You seem to mistake this for favoring a suspension in this case.
You don’t like the decision. We get it. Should I ascribe the notion that you favor criminal behavior because we disagree? The notion would be equaly assinine.
Move on.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Aug 11, 2008 4:27 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
How can you deny it?
Dude, you have defended Goodell repeatedly and consistently in all these debates (more than anyone else on this site). And below is just one of your quotes about inconsistency not mattering. So, why would you then comeback with “Care to explain this little comment?” and “don’t ascribe positions to me unless you know what you’re talking about.” Why would you deny your own strongly stated positions?
Inconsistency is not a defense.Inconsistency is a given. It happens with parenting, courts, teaching, law enforcement, rulings on the field in sports, etc. The defense is so simple it’s moronic.
by hoosierteacher
But dude, really who cares? We all disagree with each other on different topics. I don’t care to debate this issue any further with you. We disagree, and thats fine. I simply chimed in to support amirebran and UnarmingMermaid. But based on your previous blogs your positon has been clear, and so has mine. Anyone can go back and check our previous blogs on these topics. So what up?
by The Gun Young on Aug 11, 2008 8:21 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
The issue is clear.
Because you think Marshall does not deserve any sanction, and because you believe that the League commissioner is some kind of demon, you assume that anyone who doesn’t share your view must favor Marshall’s sanctions. You are far from correct.
I’ve defended Goodell from name calling, defended the NFL, defended the personal conduct policy, defended law enforcement officers, and even our criminal justice system, and you think this means I have something against Marshall?
I said I would favor the decision the NFL made, and I did. Had they let him play I would have defended that too. I still had no opinion one way or the other before the decision. Saying that the League has the right and privledge to make autonomous decisions based on player behavior isn’t a far fetched thought, but you seem to think it means I wanted Marshall’s head. That’s just plain, poor reading comprehension.
As to the consistency statement, to say I don’t care about consistency is ignorance again, and here you use a straw man argument (ascribing a false argument to me then attacking it). Inconsistency by ruling bodies is NOT a defense. If we followed your argument of consistency ubber alles to an absurd conclusion, we could never punish anybody for anything because you could always find cases where someone got off easier than the subject person you are discussing. That was my point, and it was clear. For you to make the bizzare connection that I “(do) not care about consistency and does not think it is possible” is just out of left field.
This isn’t the only time you’ve pulled this. On another post you state you didn’t agree with my assertion that Woodyard had “stiff hips”. I, of course, never made such a statement. You wrote a few paragraphs, inserted a dig at me (making up an accusation as you just have here), then leave it there to make me look ike I have an opinion that I don’t have.. But you failed to read that my remarks about stiff hips where limited to discussing how the problem manifests itself, and how it can (or can’t) be corrected. It was in response to JonahSilas, who has the opinion that Woodyard hs stiff hips. Frankly, I don’t know enough about Woodyard to have an opinion.
Last, you pulled the same stunt on a grand scale in one of your first comments since joining. Because you read a post about Marshall’s police record, you assumed that I, and worse MHR, somehow was a part of some media conspiracy to bring down a Broncos player. We’ve worked hard to provide a place where people can disagree and have fun. You may have a background typing comments in places like RMN or the DP, where the comments sections are a trash pile of name calling and arguing. We don’t roll that way here.
That’s what’s up.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Aug 12, 2008 1:51 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Get over it.
I think you just showed you have some personal issues here. I may argue my point strongly, but I have never attacked anyone personally here at MHR. I stick to the debates. I think my bluebox quote backs me up on my assertion that you are not concerned about consistency. Thats what started your ire, but the proof is in the writing. You are the one distorting things.
You keep bringing up Marshall in these debates about Goodell, but I have not. Go ahead and check the record. If the fanpost or debate was about Marshall, I talked about Marshall, but in thes fanposts about Goodell, I never mention Marshall. My point about Goodell is not about Marshall, it is about everything Goodell has done in these regards.
I know we have differed on a lot of posts, and I have let you have the last word almost everytime, so I doubt you will end it here. But really this is it for me on this debate. You just seem to be over reacting.
by The Gun Young on Aug 12, 2008 12:02 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
doesnt matter what we think
Goodell is gonna run his ship the way he sees fit, Now I disagree with the way he is running it, I think he is inconsistent but it wont change anyhting. I do think Jones should be suspended for at least 2 games same as Marshall. But really is that gonna happen? I doubt it. I am tired of complaining about it. The only thing I want is #15 to stay clean. Screw the rest of the league as far as I am concerned. As long as the Broncos stay clean and win thats all that really should matter now
by broncfanstuckinsd on Aug 11, 2008 11:41 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Racism?!
“But this [...] should have spotlighted something entirely different – and would have if the receiver was black.”
I can’t believe you got away with injecting racism into the fray without so much as a question about it! You may not have written this article, but the fact that you brought it to our attention and defended it in the comments leads me to believe that you support its ideas. Do you really believe that Marshall was suspended and Jones was not because of the color of their skin? Do you even think that the media attention was different because of that??? Perhaps you should consider that the former is a budding star in the league, while the later is a bust, which usually matters as far as the MSM is concerned. And I believe that Goodell is much more concerned with “paterns of behavior” than single events because he, much like our society at large, can forgive almost anything once (we’re all human) so long as you accept the consequences and change your behavior. Goddell’s no racist and neither is the media in this case; trying to assert that only weakens any other points made.
P.S.: Isn’t Marshawn Lynch black and wasn’t his the worst crime of all, or does this racism only apply to the WR position??? By the way, I consider physical violence against women to be at least as bad as possession of narcotics; maybe that’s just me, but it’s how I feel about that.
Here we go again: http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/
by ejruiz on Aug 11, 2008 12:30 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I didn't write the article,
and I won’t get into the whole race thing… that was a bad line in the article.
The point was to bring up the event and discuss the fairness or unfairness of Godell.
Go So Cal. I am the bigger one.
by amirebram on Aug 11, 2008 1:46 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
In the future...
It can be helpful to use the Quotes function to highlight all parts of an article so it is easily differentiated from your own writing.
Knowing you as I do, and knowing that you yourself are a minority person, I recognized right away that the comment wasn’t yours. No harm, no foul my friend.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Aug 11, 2008 4:38 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Goodell
I don’t have any problem with keeping the league clean. But I did (and do) have a problem with Goodell, shortly after taking office, disciplining players for things that had happened in the past. He should have taken office, and made a clear declaration of what would not be tolerated in the future, but we still are not clear on what he’s thinking. Brandon Marshall gets suspended for multiple incidents, where not much happened, while Marshawn Lynch and Matt Jones walk after very serious incidents (felonies), but their first.
Also, it now seems that Adam Schefter was correct when he reported, on a Sunday, I think, that Marshall would get a 3 game suspension (2 with counseling) but then on Monday Goodell said no decision had been made. On Tuesday, Goodell announced a 3 game suspension, 2 with counseling.
Is Goodell an honest person? I miss Paul Tagliabue.
while yet unspoken, you are master of the word. After it is spoken, the word is master of you.
by bradley on Aug 11, 2008 2:10 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
A lot of folks are involved in the administrative process.
I doubt Goodell was the source of the leak, and it is reasonable to assume that he didn’t appreciate it.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Aug 11, 2008 4:39 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
But...
... he denied it was true, when it was true.
while yet unspoken, you are master of the word. After it is spoken, the word is master of you.
by bradley on Aug 11, 2008 4:44 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
There were predictions all over the place.
One of them was true. It may also be the case that this was one of the outcomes discussed by the administration in the NFL (leaked to Schefter), and a decision had not yet been made. I think that is likely (leaks also included a four game suspension, as you may recall).
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Aug 11, 2008 4:48 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well....
....Schefter works for the NFL, so was it really a leak? Hey, I dunno, and maybe enough quibbling – I just think it seems clear that Goodell should take a look in the mirror. I wish him the best as NFL Commissioner, because I wish for the best for the NFL.
while yet unspoken, you are master of the word. After it is spoken, the word is master of you.
by bradley on Aug 11, 2008 4:54 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I certainly agree that this matter...
...has been handled badly. I agree with you and Guru on this entirely. The time frame to make the decision, and the leak were inexcusable. I just don’t think the matter adds to the defense of Marshall in any meaningful way (and I don’t mean to imply that you think it does, but some have suggested it).
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Aug 12, 2008 1:54 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey HT...
We agree on something!!! Cool!!! ;-)
by UnarmingMermaid on Aug 12, 2008 6:30 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we agree on most things! : )
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Aug 12, 2008 7:37 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
well it doesnt seem 2 be working
for all his heavy handedness I dont see anything really changing? The NFL is a microcosm of society. Pure and simple
by broncfanstuckinsd on Aug 11, 2008 2:34 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
The current policy is oly a couple of years old.
As mentioned in another thread by our in house Atty (Jack), we would have a worse system if we couldn’t look at issues case by case, and just had a blanket answer for every infraction of the policy. Even the legal system considers mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Aug 11, 2008 4:41 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point is
He has come down hard, but still it doesnt seem to be really effective. Do you think that getting suspended ever entered in Jones mind? I dont. If it did he would not be snorting coke in his vehicle. Now can you or anyone explain how this is not as bad as what Marshall went thru? If the the NFL’s image is what he is trying to protect why hasnt Jones been called onto the carpet yet? Where is his 2-3 game vacation? Thats my biggest beef, is the inconsistency
by broncfanstuckinsd on Aug 11, 2008 4:55 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand what you are saying.
My only point is that you seem to be arguing for a penalty for Jones. I’m fine with that. It still doesn’t excuse Marshall.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Aug 12, 2008 1:56 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am beyond
trying to excuse him (#15). Its done and all my bitching wont change the fact he is gone. But it seems to me that punishing Marshall or anyone for misdemenors and letting a felony not even get a meeting is somewhat inconsistent. I want consistency in his use of the susupensions thats all.
by broncfanstuckinsd on Aug 12, 2008 11:58 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we are moving towards a police state
Its just ooooozing into the NFL.
Broncos broncos everywhere and all the league did blink,
by Mike Clark on Aug 11, 2008 4:05 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
The NFL seems to be leading the charge.
by UnarmingMermaid on Aug 11, 2008 4:23 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Funny I remember when this was a free nation. But I'm old and maybe out of touch.
Broncos broncos everywhere and all the league did blink,
by Mike Clark on Aug 11, 2008 4:39 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
The NFL as jack booted stormtroopers?
Come on Mike.
: )
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Aug 11, 2008 4:42 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
The picture is something else......... Has brandon been convicted? Its like a game
that doesn’t make sense.
Broncos broncos everywhere and all the league did blink,
by Mike Clark on Aug 11, 2008 5:07 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

by 




























