4 saying exactly what i ws just thinking!

..to know that she was making up the domestic issues. I DO know that Marshall was foolish for staying in the situation as long as he did (and to things entirely away from her, like allegedly drinking and driving, and having neighbors calling the police, etc). But I agree with you on several things, foremost that the suspension is helping Marshall by giiving him a warning. Without Goodell’s intervention, where would we (and Marshall) be now?

I still think it’s a little odd to look at Marshall’s conduct (in several instances of poor judgment that didn’t even involve the girlfriend), and to blame what amounts to the rest of the world. Goodell, the League, the police, the press, psychos, girlfriends, etc. You didn’t list all of these (some), but it seems to be the common thread with people that won’t look at MARSHALL’s choices of behavior. Even in my line of work, I see criminals whose family and friends blame ANYONE but their loved one. The funny thing is, these guys get in trouble again, and again, and again (like Marshall was). I’m not even talking about felons here. Just guys who brush with the police several times a year. And thefunny thing was, some people at MHR were getting attacked for just reporting the facts about the case, as if we only should report on players who deliver food to orphanages instead of guy who make the police blotter time and time again (though we LOVE to do it to other teams).

They do not care about innocence or justice, only about perception and image..

I agree with this, which is why the League is NOT a criminal or civil judicial body. It does, however, fall under the guise of administrative law, and thus looks at responsibility, not guilt. The appeal was not reversed. Only the sanction was lessened. I don’t know what you and “Rog” disagree on in the policy. Guru posted it, and it’s pretty clear. The panel upheld the finding of responsible, and the players’ union didn’t side with Marshall (which is about as clear a message as can be sent. The NFLPA typically jumps in on the player’s side at the drop of a hat. They didn’t in this case).

But really, unless you are totally naive to politics, did you think the league office would back off totally to no suspension. Heck no! Backing off from a 3 game suspension to 1 is about as much an admission of a mistake, as you will ever see from such a political organization.

I don’t consider myself naive to politics. I grew up in the game that “politics” is named for (namely, "politics"). I earned a masters in political science, and started my work career doing lobbying work in a state general assembly. I also founded and led two county level political action groups in support of my party preference. I coached a US Senate candidate for his debate preps, and was a regional campaign manager for a former president. (None of this work was full time, but all of it was in a paid capacity).

I think I’ve encountered “politics” in every job I’ve held (as you probably have). As an educator, I dealt with a school board (on occasion), as a counselor I dealt with clients’ rights issues, and as a football coach… Oh my GOD! Parents, coaches, athletic directors, principals, schoolboards, the press, you name it! Coaching is more political than anything! (Try telling the school board chairwoman that the tryout system shouldn’t be made “fair” because her kid didn’t make the team!)

Frankly, I don’t see the NFL as a political organization in this context. The NFL has nothing to lose keeping the suspension in place. If the NFL was so conspirital, they would never make press releases that wrong calls were made by officials. Heck, they “completely” overturned Henry’s suspension! In fact, Denver has an excellent record of staying out of trouble with the League. (Look at the raiders for contrast).

It seems like the League is damned no matter what they do. If they turn down the appeal, they are accused of being out to get our guy unfairly. If they find him responsible, but lower the sanctions, they get accused of being wrong, but “trying to cover up a mistake”. If they had thrown out the suspension all together, they would get accused of being wrong in the first instance, and folks would miss the irony of the all powerful League making an attempt at being objective in their review process. They just can’t win.

Back to my original comment though. The “apology” I mentioned for Goodell (and his family) was meant to imply that the accusations about Goodell where so over the top as to be not only ridiculous, but personal. And personal attacks fly at some of the MSM sites, but not here. The attraction of this site is that we aren’t going to resort to name calling, offensive language, and bizzare accusations to make our points. A few folks did this, and fortunatley, not many members of MHR.

Again, this isn’t you I’m directing this at. (In fact, I’m not directing it at any one person. SOme of the most hateful comments were never at MHR). But when folks say things that are accusatory and personal, it’s out of bounds. I don’t think most folks that supported no sanctions or light sanctions fell into this category.

I myself felt (in the begining) that Marshall deserved a warning from the League. Because I reported a story outlining some of the police calls against Marshall, and because I said I support the League’s process and ultimate (future) decision, some folks (on my own side of the issue) took this to mean I was against Marshall, or against the Broncos, or in league with the “evil, racist press”, or Goodell’s bestest friend. All of which was assinine. I also didn’t like the jabs at the commissioner. I thnk our site is above that kind of “personal attack” politics that you see on other sites.

On the other hand, I saw some folks (on both sides) with reasoned remarks for and against suspension (without the angry tones). That’s what makes MHR great.

I supported the initial suspension, and I support the downgrade. I would have supported a complete dismissal. I believe the NFL is the greatest sporting organization out there, and I think the leadership has been strong and good for the game. We’ve avoided the major scandals of baseball (steroids), hockey (tetering on bankruptcy), and basketball (a “dirty ref” and troubled players).

Like many businesses and groups (teachers, police, military officers, etc), the NFL has a personal conduct policy. Every full time job I’ve ever held, I’ve been under such a policy. I think folks who have worked under such a policy don’t find it hard to believe that their out of work behavior can impinge on their employment. In my last four jobs (including my present one), if I was involved in just one police incidents (even if innocent, even if as minor as having the police called to my home) I would fully expect to lose my job. A DUI arrest, even if dismissed, would cost me my job hand down. It’s not about “fairness”, and I think this is what people miss. It doesn’t have to be fair. Hell, I couldn’t even go to a liquor store or a strip joint (both legal) an any of my jobs. It’s not an issue of fair. I signed a contract not to bring discredit on my employer in my personal life, and that’s my responsiblity. (I wrote somewhere else about military officers losing entire careers over marital infidelity). It’s the rules the people chose to play by when they took the career.

And I guess I understand that. Naivety to the contrary, I have lived my entire working career in fields where I signed personal conduct policy contracts. I knew the rules going in. I choose my friends carefuly, I choose my neighborhood carefuly, I drive carefuly, and I avoid any appearance of impropriatey. Somehow, like magic, I’ve never had a brush with the law, the press, or accusers, despite making enemies along the way.

And I guess this is why I’m so amazed that anyone could make some of the decisions that Marshall made. (I was his age once too, so I don’t even get that excuse. Most NFL players stay out of trouble). Never the less, I felt he deserved a warning. I guess he ended up with one, and it seems to have helped him. And for that reason, if not an apology (from those who were out of line, not those who simply disagreed), I think we owe the League thanks for helping get Marshall turned around.

Well then if the HC says its not a good idea then it looks like it will be Djax

Stokely did get beat up playing a wide out spot last year, but he could handle it for one game. Let Jackson (Nate) play a slot/TE position?