Mike Tomlin Intentionally Disrupted KO Return: Proof! (1 Viewer)

[Otis]

Good result. He earned it.

 

[McGarnicle]

Gekko has posted stuff in the past that suggests he works in the league or is more familiar with its internal operations and scuttlebutt than the average joe. Whether that is the case or not is speculation. People also say the tone and content has changed over the years and it could be an alias used by more than one person. Regardless, the race thing veers way off course of the topic at hand and IMO has no place here. Ditto the brain trauma issue which is not racial in the first place nor does it have anything to do with Tomlin.

Tomlin's race absolutely, IMHO, has a factor in his level of punishment.

If Richie Incognito was black or Jonathan Martin was white, that would be a factor in how the press would treat the matter, how much press it would get and how much the NFL would respond.

The NFL clearly cares about perception and how the league is seen by the public and the appearance of professionalism and integrity. This is the same league that has spotters at games to ensure players are in uniform compliance. This is the same league threatening sanctions against players over the color of their cleats. This is the same league that has players wear pink for a month to broaden the leagues demographic appeal to specific consumers so it can further appeal to it's own advertisers.

Mike Tomlin's name and his hiring by the Steelers is COMMONLY used by pro Rooney Rulers in the league to cite how the Rooney Rule has a positive effect on owners giving more opportunity to names out side of the "hot list" of coaching candidates. The league has actively said publicly, and also internally, how it wishes to increase the minority representation in the coaching ranks and the league's front offices.

Do you really think the league was going to suspend Tomlin for a year or six months or four games for conduct detrimental to the integrity of the game, so he could be labeled a cheater, so that when each time his name comes up through the league's new advisory committee, someone could say, "Oh yeah, that guy, the cheater right?"

David Shaw of Stanford is on the "hot list" of coaching candidates specifically because his base is offensive pedigree and he is African American. But most of the African American candidates in the league are on the defensive side of the ball - Ray Horton, Leslie Frazier when he gets clipped,Keith Butler, Ken Norton Jr. And the few guys on the offensive side of the ball, Bobby Turner and Hue Jackson, no one wants to hire for other reasons.

If Big Ben was black, in a bathroom with a white college girl, it makes a difference. Chris Paul is one of the most high profile NBA players and one of the most marketable athletes in the Western world. He also said he'd prefer to play for a black coach. Now if Kevin Love, a white player raised in LA and playing in Minnesota said that? There would be a firestorm, suspensions, death threats, demands for fines and bannings and protests. Jeremy Lin frequently cites that while traveling for Harvard, that racial slurs were used against him on the road regularly by fans and sometimes by other players on other teams. Can you imagine if a black player came forward and said predominately white players threw racial slurs at him during games?

It's simply more socially acceptable in the Western world, esp in pro sports, to be racist against Asians or whites or males or heterosexuals, but not in reverse, you'd better watch yourself before you say something negative about women in general, gays in sports, African Americans and occasionally Jews. Like any big business, the NFL must take a moderate tone, that tone is derived by general perception, that perception is driven by the media and the media is more influenced by some lobbyist groups than others. Sorry to break to you a reality of everyday life in the modern Western world. Yes, when Chris Rock makes fun of white people in stand up, it's considered comedy, but if Jerry Seinfeld starting ragging on African Americans and all their flaws for comedy for 45 minutes on a national stage, how do you think that is going to play out?

People here. some are, are saying Tomlin's level of punishment is based on a contrast compared to Bounty Gate or Spy Gate. Some, as I also have suggested, have inferred that being a coach working for the powerful Rooney family makes a difference.

I'm saying being black makes a difference. The entire difference? I doubt that. But as it weighs into the court of public opinion and perception and considering the league's desire to expand minority hiring, I don't see that as a huge stretch. There are not a lot of black head coaches in the NFL, soon, after the season ends, there will likely be fewer, the list of practical candidates is short and many lack the offensive pedigree/QB1 developmental background that so many franchises want now. I don't think it's a stretch that the league wants to not muddy the name of it's classical example of why minority hiring works and sully the name of the rules namesake owner, one of the major power brokers in the massive TV deals that league gets.

What we have here is what we always have in the Shark Pool, Patriots homers versus Steelers homers versus Saints homers, all talking over each other trying to see whose team and owners and players are the biggest scum bags.

And I'm the only one saying it doesn't matter what you really did, what really happened, or the truth, all that matters is what the public perceives and how things look, and that alone is enough to get you hammered for simply tarnishing the shield, whether you meant it or not.

The Rooney Rules very existence implies RACE MATTERS in the NFL. But there are folks here who want to argue it doesn't matter here and here, when it's actually working for someone's favor instead of the notion of some long ingrained cultural and social bias against it. If it matters, IT MUST MATTER BOTH WAYS. How is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

Honestly, IMHO, some of you guys could stand to turn down your overcharged homerism and actually shut up and listen from time to time, you might actually learn how the league truly operates.

I find it interesting that Belichick was not suspended either and would be interested in your take on that. Granted the punishment was much more severe than Tomlin's, but the offense was about 1000 times worse as well. I would argue it was worse than Bountygate, where Payton got a whole year suspension. I'm guessing Kraft's influence was a big part of determining Belichick's punishment?

A vehement condemnation of homerism, followed immediately by a Patriot-hating fishing expedition. GordonGekko is about to swan dive off the Brooklyn Bridge.

What the hell? You don't think Spygate is by far worse than the bounty scandal and this stupid Tomlin thing? Get a clue.

 

[Cheesedawg]

$100,000 fine! Wow.

Wait, so no year-long suspension? No loss of a 1st-round pick? I can't believe it. All the video experts in here said there was "PROOF" that Tomlin intentionally committed this act, and that he should be punished as/more severely than coaches like Payton, who allowed a scheme to injure players for money to happen and Belicheck, who cheated by video-taping what he wasn't allowed to video-tape.

You would think that if there were "PROOF" that this act was intentional, the NFL would have handed down more of a punishment. Seems like they concluded (like any rational person would) from the video that you can't "PROVE" that the act was intentional, even if they (like I) believe that it was.

You really are stupid.

Says the genius that thought he had "proof" that Tomlin's act was intentional? That really hurts, coming from you.

The Iranians don't believe there was a holocaust despite an abundance of proof. You can't convince everyone, I guess.

 

[Bayhawks]

$100,000 fine! Wow.

Wait, so no year-long suspension? No loss of a 1st-round pick? I can't believe it. All the video experts in here said there was "PROOF" that Tomlin intentionally committed this act, and that he should be punished as/more severely than coaches like Payton, who allowed a scheme to injure players for money to happen and Belicheck, who cheated by video-taping what he wasn't allowed to video-tape.

You would think that if there were "PROOF" that this act was intentional, the NFL would have handed down more of a punishment. Seems like they concluded (like any rational person would) from the video that you can't "PROVE" that the act was intentional, even if they (like I) believe that it was.

You really are stupid.

Says the genius that thought he had "proof" that Tomlin's act was intentional? That really hurts, coming from you.

The Iranians don't believe there was a holocaust despite an abundance of proof. You can't convince everyone, I guess.

And there's a bunch of people who think the US blew up the twin towers because they watched a video that they think "proves" the planes couldn't have caused them to collapse like that.

Uneducated people will interpret video footage in strange ways, I guess.

 

[DropKick]

NFL to consider forfeiture or modification of draft pick(s) once NFL Draft order is set.



The draft order should have no bearing on the pick forfeited. Rooney was very influential On Goodell getting the commish gig so this isn't surprising.

Yeah, the NFL is doing this b/c everyone will have more or less forgotten about this come draft time, so not stripping a draft pick won't cause an uproar. BS

My exact thoughts. The 100K is a joke, Rooney will probably give him an undisclosed Christmas bonus to cover that. These franchises are run by billionaires, what's 100K or even a million dollars to them? The only punishment that has any impact is the loss of draft picks. Those can't be bought back. For what it's worth I don't hate Tomlin or the Steelers but I believe the precedent was set with the taking on draft picks over spygate/bountygate and this scenario compromises the integrity of the game regardless of intent. The Jets should have lost picks as well over this and if they had I bet this would have never happened again. 100K/500k fines are meaningless. I think loss of draft pick(s) should be mandatory in these situations.

So people actually believe this is on par with a team employing the practice of spying on another team repeatedly to get a competitive advantage, or an entire team defense taking part in a bounty program designed to injure other players?

The fine is to Tomlin, not the team. $100K is a massive amount of money to him. Will the Steelers pay it for him? Who knows, but Mike Tomlin is not a billionaire.

I personally believe it was intentional, and I believe he should be fined. Tomlin was a freaking ####### for doing it, intentional or not. And just about every Steelers fan I know believes he did it on purpose.

But there's a lot of wishful thinking in here if people actually put Tomlin spontaneously doing something like this, intentional or not, on par with what the Patriots or Saints did. That was an organizational issue. This was a personal mistake.

I don't believe for a minute that what the Patriots or Saints did was exclusive to those two teams.

But this thread isn't about those events, which have been beaten to death. This is about Tomlin - a head coach who apparently is ballsy enough to actually interfere with a game in play. Let's not sugar coat it with phrases like "spontaneous" or "not premeditated".

As far as draft picks, I hope they do take at least a compensatory pick. The head coach is a representative of the organization and you shouldn't be allowed to cross that line without losing something material to the organization.

 

[McGarnicle]

Could the league have buried Spy Gate completely? Yes, but again, if something is likely to get out into the public sphere anyway, it's better to get out on front, and like I said, control the narrative. Do I think a less successful and less marketable team at the time might have been punished more harshly? I would say Yes. Dramatically so? No.

Sure seems like Goodell buried a significant part of whatever was there.

As part of their probe into the allegations, the NFL required the Patriots to turn over all notes and tapes relating to the taping of opponents' defensive signals; the Patriots complied with the order and the NFL reviewed and then destroyed the materials. This action was criticized on February 1, 2008 2 days before Super Bowl XLII by U.S. Senator Arlen Specter, who requested to meet with Goodell. Specter requested the meeting despite the fact that Belichick had admitted to taping signals dating back to 2000 was reported by ESPN on September 14, 2007. After meeting with Goodell on February 13, 2008, and despite the fact that the extent of the taping had been widely reported, Specter appeared to believe he was breaking news when he said that Goodell told him that Belichick had been engaged in the practice since he became head coach of the Patriots in 2000. Belichick said he believed he was operating within the rules as long as the tape was not used during the same game.

Imagine if this ever got legs:

Nearly six months after the incident, the Boston Herald reported, citing an unnamed source, that the Patriots had also videotaped the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough practice prior to Super Bowl XXXVI in February 2002, an allegation denied by Belichick and later retracted by the Herald. Meanwhile, Matt Walsh, a Patriots video assistant in 2001 who was fired after the team's 2002 season, told the media the same week that he had information and materials regarding the Patriots' videotaping practices, but demanded an indemnity agreement before speaking with the NFL.

Makes complete sense that the league sought to control this fire from raging out of control and calling years of game results and even SB results into question. But that is potentially what is here, and the evidence is destroyed and no one cares anymore. Compare that with Bountygate which is about 1/1000th as egregious from a league integrity standpoint, and the contrasting punishments are laughable. But when you take into account the PR aspects, the labor issues and the clout of the owners involved, not difficult to understand at all.Fascinating stuff Gekko, but depressing as hell too.

 

[Jercules]

Gekko has posted stuff in the past that suggests he works in the league or is more familiar with its internal operations and scuttlebutt than the average joe. Whether that is the case or not is speculation. People also say the tone and content has changed over the years and it could be an alias used by more than one person. Regardless, the race thing veers way off course of the topic at hand and IMO has no place here. Ditto the brain trauma issue which is not racial in the first place nor does it have anything to do with Tomlin.

Tomlin's race absolutely, IMHO, has a factor in his level of punishment.

If Richie Incognito was black or Jonathan Martin was white, that would be a factor in how the press would treat the matter, how much press it would get and how much the NFL would respond.

The NFL clearly cares about perception and how the league is seen by the public and the appearance of professionalism and integrity. This is the same league that has spotters at games to ensure players are in uniform compliance. This is the same league threatening sanctions against players over the color of their cleats. This is the same league that has players wear pink for a month to broaden the leagues demographic appeal to specific consumers so it can further appeal to it's own advertisers.

Mike Tomlin's name and his hiring by the Steelers is COMMONLY used by pro Rooney Rulers in the league to cite how the Rooney Rule has a positive effect on owners giving more opportunity to names out side of the "hot list" of coaching candidates. The league has actively said publicly, and also internally, how it wishes to increase the minority representation in the coaching ranks and the league's front offices.

Do you really think the league was going to suspend Tomlin for a year or six months or four games for conduct detrimental to the integrity of the game, so he could be labeled a cheater, so that when each time his name comes up through the league's new advisory committee, someone could say, "Oh yeah, that guy, the cheater right?"

David Shaw of Stanford is on the "hot list" of coaching candidates specifically because his base is offensive pedigree and he is African American. But most of the African American candidates in the league are on the defensive side of the ball - Ray Horton, Leslie Frazier when he gets clipped,Keith Butler, Ken Norton Jr. And the few guys on the offensive side of the ball, Bobby Turner and Hue Jackson, no one wants to hire for other reasons.

If Big Ben was black, in a bathroom with a white college girl, it makes a difference. Chris Paul is one of the most high profile NBA players and one of the most marketable athletes in the Western world. He also said he'd prefer to play for a black coach. Now if Kevin Love, a white player raised in LA and playing in Minnesota said that? There would be a firestorm, suspensions, death threats, demands for fines and bannings and protests. Jeremy Lin frequently cites that while traveling for Harvard, that racial slurs were used against him on the road regularly by fans and sometimes by other players on other teams. Can you imagine if a black player came forward and said predominately white players threw racial slurs at him during games?

It's simply more socially acceptable in the Western world, esp in pro sports, to be racist against Asians or whites or males or heterosexuals, but not in reverse, you'd better watch yourself before you say something negative about women in general, gays in sports, African Americans and occasionally Jews. Like any big business, the NFL must take a moderate tone, that tone is derived by general perception, that perception is driven by the media and the media is more influenced by some lobbyist groups than others. Sorry to break to you a reality of everyday life in the modern Western world. Yes, when Chris Rock makes fun of white people in stand up, it's considered comedy, but if Jerry Seinfeld starting ragging on African Americans and all their flaws for comedy for 45 minutes on a national stage, how do you think that is going to play out?

People here. some are, are saying Tomlin's level of punishment is based on a contrast compared to Bounty Gate or Spy Gate. Some, as I also have suggested, have inferred that being a coach working for the powerful Rooney family makes a difference.

I'm saying being black makes a difference. The entire difference? I doubt that. But as it weighs into the court of public opinion and perception and considering the league's desire to expand minority hiring, I don't see that as a huge stretch. There are not a lot of black head coaches in the NFL, soon, after the season ends, there will likely be fewer, the list of practical candidates is short and many lack the offensive pedigree/QB1 developmental background that so many franchises want now. I don't think it's a stretch that the league wants to not muddy the name of it's classical example of why minority hiring works and sully the name of the rules namesake owner, one of the major power brokers in the massive TV deals that league gets.

What we have here is what we always have in the Shark Pool, Patriots homers versus Steelers homers versus Saints homers, all talking over each other trying to see whose team and owners and players are the biggest scum bags.

And I'm the only one saying it doesn't matter what you really did, what really happened, or the truth, all that matters is what the public perceives and how things look, and that alone is enough to get you hammered for simply tarnishing the shield, whether you meant it or not.

The Rooney Rules very existence implies RACE MATTERS in the NFL. But there are folks here who want to argue it doesn't matter here and here, when it's actually working for someone's favor instead of the notion of some long ingrained cultural and social bias against it. If it matters, IT MUST MATTER BOTH WAYS. How is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

Honestly, IMHO, some of you guys could stand to turn down your overcharged homerism and actually shut up and listen from time to time, you might actually learn how the league truly operates.

I find it interesting that Belichick was not suspended either and would be interested in your take on that. Granted the punishment was much more severe than Tomlin's, but the offense was about 1000 times worse as well. I would argue it was worse than Bountygate, where Payton got a whole year suspension. I'm guessing Kraft's influence was a big part of determining Belichick's punishment?

A vehement condemnation of homerism, followed immediately by a Patriot-hating fishing expedition. GordonGekko is about to swan dive off the Brooklyn Bridge.

What the hell? You don't think Spygate is by far worse than the bounty scandal and this stupid Tomlin thing? Get a clue

I'm pointing out how hilariously obtuse your post was. He begs the Saints/Steelers/Patriots fans to stop arguing about whose management has the biggest scumbags, and you're like "yeah yeah yeah, but seriously... Belichick and Kraft are the biggest scumbags right?!"

 

[Jercules]

Could the league have buried Spy Gate completely? Yes, but again, if something is likely to get out into the public sphere anyway, it's better to get out on front, and like I said, control the narrative. Do I think a less successful and less marketable team at the time might have been punished more harshly? I would say Yes. Dramatically so? No.

Sure seems like Goodell buried a significant part of whatever was there.

As part of their probe into the allegations, the NFL required the Patriots to turn over all notes and tapes relating to the taping of opponents' defensive signals; the Patriots complied with the order and the NFL reviewed and then destroyed the materials. This action was criticized on February 1, 2008 2 days before Super Bowl XLII by U.S. Senator Arlen Specter, who requested to meet with Goodell. Specter requested the meeting despite the fact that Belichick had admitted to taping signals dating back to 2000 was reported by ESPN on September 14, 2007. After meeting with Goodell on February 13, 2008, and despite the fact that the extent of the taping had been widely reported, Specter appeared to believe he was breaking news when he said that Goodell told him that Belichick had been engaged in the practice since he became head coach of the Patriots in 2000. Belichick said he believed he was operating within the rules as long as the tape was not used during the same game.

Imagine if this ever got legs:

Nearly six months after the incident, the Boston Herald reported, citing an unnamed source, that the Patriots had also videotaped the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough practice prior to Super Bowl XXXVI in February 2002, an allegation denied by Belichick and later retracted by the Herald. Meanwhile, Matt Walsh, a Patriots video assistant in 2001 who was fired after the team's 2002 season, told the media the same week that he had information and materials regarding the Patriots' videotaping practices, but demanded an indemnity agreement before speaking with the NFL.

Makes complete sense that the league sought to control this fire from raging out of control and calling years of game results and even SB results into question. But that is potentially what is here, and the evidence is destroyed and no one cares anymore. Compare that with Bountygate which is about 1/1000th as egregious from a league integrity standpoint, and the contrasting punishments are laughable. But when you take into account the PR aspects, the labor issues and the clout of the owners involved, not difficult to understand at all.Fascinating stuff Gekko, but depressing as hell too.

But again, videotaping signals is, was, and likely always will be legal--just not from the sidelines! Belichick admitted in an interview with Armen Keteyian that they used the camera because it was more efficient than a pen and notepad. Did he lie when he said he misinterpreted the rule? Probably; 'ignored' the rule is more likely, for the same reason people jaywalk: Who cares?

Having the camera on the sidelines wasn't even illegal until 2006--is it your position that accomplishments should be tarnished if they violate future rule changes?

Whatever goodwill I felt towards you for that fantastic name is circling the drain.

 

[PatsWillWin]

The main reason the punishment needs to be heavy is to clearly offset the incentives for doing something like this. If there's a runner in the open field about to return a winning TD in a playoff game, do you not think a coach would pay $100,000 for a chance to stop it? The REAL screw-up here was the refs not immediately awarding the touchdown, which, obviously, re-balances the competitive advantage to trying something like this.

I don't really care what they do to Tomlin, but that's because I don't really care who wins that game. But the NFL needs to make it clear that next time, anything close to this = automatic TD awarded to the other team. I think they are doing that by downgrading the refs and whatnot, but they really need to make that clear. I think taking a away a mid-round draft pick makes sense as well.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I think most people who talk about how horrible SpyGate was don't even really know what exactly the Patriots did and how it compared with the rules.

 

[ghostguy123]

He should be heavily punished, and I guess he was, though he should certainly be suspended some games.

SOme people talking about the Steelers having to give up draft picks makes no sense to me. This wasn't some organizational thing from the GM, owner, or some conspiracy.

It was a coach during the game doing something stupid, nothing that warrants penalizing the future of the ORGANIZATION.

 

[Cheesedawg]

$100,000 fine! Wow.

Wait, so no year-long suspension? No loss of a 1st-round pick? I can't believe it. All the video experts in here said there was "PROOF" that Tomlin intentionally committed this act, and that he should be punished as/more severely than coaches like Payton, who allowed a scheme to injure players for money to happen and Belicheck, who cheated by video-taping what he wasn't allowed to video-tape.

You would think that if there were "PROOF" that this act was intentional, the NFL would have handed down more of a punishment. Seems like they concluded (like any rational person would) from the video that you can't "PROVE" that the act was intentional, even if they (like I) believe that it was.

You really are stupid.

Says the genius that thought he had "proof" that Tomlin's act was intentional? That really hurts, coming from you.

The Iranians don't believe there was a holocaust despite an abundance of proof. You can't convince everyone, I guess.

And there's a bunch of people who think the US blew up the twin towers because they watched a video that they think "proves" the planes couldn't have caused them to collapse like that.

Uneducated people will interpret video footage in strange ways, I guess.

Lots of irony in that statement.

 

[Sabertooth]

He should zip his jacket up instead of trying to look like he's one of the cool kids.

 

[McGarnicle]

Could the league have buried Spy Gate completely? Yes, but again, if something is likely to get out into the public sphere anyway, it's better to get out on front, and like I said, control the narrative. Do I think a less successful and less marketable team at the time might have been punished more harshly? I would say Yes. Dramatically so? No.

Sure seems like Goodell buried a significant part of whatever was there.

As part of their probe into the allegations, the NFL required the Patriots to turn over all notes and tapes relating to the taping of opponents' defensive signals; the Patriots complied with the order and the NFL reviewed and then destroyed the materials. This action was criticized on February 1, 2008 2 days before Super Bowl XLII by U.S. Senator Arlen Specter, who requested to meet with Goodell. Specter requested the meeting despite the fact that Belichick had admitted to taping signals dating back to 2000 was reported by ESPN on September 14, 2007. After meeting with Goodell on February 13, 2008, and despite the fact that the extent of the taping had been widely reported, Specter appeared to believe he was breaking news when he said that Goodell told him that Belichick had been engaged in the practice since he became head coach of the Patriots in 2000. Belichick said he believed he was operating within the rules as long as the tape was not used during the same game.

Imagine if this ever got legs:

Nearly six months after the incident, the Boston Herald reported, citing an unnamed source, that the Patriots had also videotaped the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough practice prior to Super Bowl XXXVI in February 2002, an allegation denied by Belichick and later retracted by the Herald. Meanwhile, Matt Walsh, a Patriots video assistant in 2001 who was fired after the team's 2002 season, told the media the same week that he had information and materials regarding the Patriots' videotaping practices, but demanded an indemnity agreement before speaking with the NFL.

Makes complete sense that the league sought to control this fire from raging out of control and calling years of game results and even SB results into question. But that is potentially what is here, and the evidence is destroyed and no one cares anymore. Compare that with Bountygate which is about 1/1000th as egregious from a league integrity standpoint, and the contrasting punishments are laughable. But when you take into account the PR aspects, the labor issues and the clout of the owners involved, not difficult to understand at all.Fascinating stuff Gekko, but depressing as hell too.

But again, videotaping signals is, was, and likely always will be legal--just not from the sidelines! Belichick admitted in an interview with Armen Keteyian that they used the camera because it was more efficient than a pen and notepad. Did he lie when he said he misinterpreted the rule? Probably; 'ignored' the rule is more likely, for the same reason people jaywalk: Who cares?

Having the camera on the sidelines wasn't even illegal until 2006--is it your position that accomplishments should be tarnished if they violate future rule changes?

Whatever goodwill I felt towards you for that fantastic name is circling the drain.

Who the hell are you and why should I care?

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I think most people who talk about how horrible SpyGate was don't even really know what exactly the Patriots did and how it compared with the rules.

I always assumed 90% were just trolling and 80% were just idiots

 

[Bayhawks]

$100,000 fine! Wow.

Wait, so no year-long suspension? No loss of a 1st-round pick? I can't believe it. All the video experts in here said there was "PROOF" that Tomlin intentionally committed this act, and that he should be punished as/more severely than coaches like Payton, who allowed a scheme to injure players for money to happen and Belicheck, who cheated by video-taping what he wasn't allowed to video-tape.

You would think that if there were "PROOF" that this act was intentional, the NFL would have handed down more of a punishment. Seems like they concluded (like any rational person would) from the video that you can't "PROVE" that the act was intentional, even if they (like I) believe that it was.

You really are stupid.

Says the genius that thought he had "proof" that Tomlin's act was intentional? That really hurts, coming from you.

The Iranians don't believe there was a holocaust despite an abundance of proof. You can't convince everyone, I guess.

And there's a bunch of people who think the US blew up the twin towers because they watched a video that they think "proves" the planes couldn't have caused them to collapse like that.

Uneducated people will interpret video footage in strange ways, I guess.

Lots of irony in that statement.

You don't get it do you? All this time, I thought you were deliberately being dense, but maybe you really are just slow, huh?

 

[PatsFanCT]

Gekko has posted stuff in the past that suggests he works in the league or is more familiar with its internal operations and scuttlebutt than the average joe. Whether that is the case or not is speculation. People also say the tone and content has changed over the years and it could be an alias used by more than one person. Regardless, the race thing veers way off course of the topic at hand and IMO has no place here. Ditto the brain trauma issue which is not racial in the first place nor does it have anything to do with Tomlin.

Tomlin's race absolutely, IMHO, has a factor in his level of punishment.

If Richie Incognito was black or Jonathan Martin was white, that would be a factor in how the press would treat the matter, how much press it would get and how much the NFL would respond.

The NFL clearly cares about perception and how the league is seen by the public and the appearance of professionalism and integrity. This is the same league that has spotters at games to ensure players are in uniform compliance. This is the same league threatening sanctions against players over the color of their cleats. This is the same league that has players wear pink for a month to broaden the leagues demographic appeal to specific consumers so it can further appeal to it's own advertisers.

Mike Tomlin's name and his hiring by the Steelers is COMMONLY used by pro Rooney Rulers in the league to cite how the Rooney Rule has a positive effect on owners giving more opportunity to names out side of the "hot list" of coaching candidates. The league has actively said publicly, and also internally, how it wishes to increase the minority representation in the coaching ranks and the league's front offices.

Do you really think the league was going to suspend Tomlin for a year or six months or four games for conduct detrimental to the integrity of the game, so he could be labeled a cheater, so that when each time his name comes up through the league's new advisory committee, someone could say, "Oh yeah, that guy, the cheater right?"

David Shaw of Stanford is on the "hot list" of coaching candidates specifically because his base is offensive pedigree and he is African American. But most of the African American candidates in the league are on the defensive side of the ball - Ray Horton, Leslie Frazier when he gets clipped,Keith Butler, Ken Norton Jr. And the few guys on the offensive side of the ball, Bobby Turner and Hue Jackson, no one wants to hire for other reasons.

If Big Ben was black, in a bathroom with a white college girl, it makes a difference. Chris Paul is one of the most high profile NBA players and one of the most marketable athletes in the Western world. He also said he'd prefer to play for a black coach. Now if Kevin Love, a white player raised in LA and playing in Minnesota said that? There would be a firestorm, suspensions, death threats, demands for fines and bannings and protests. Jeremy Lin frequently cites that while traveling for Harvard, that racial slurs were used against him on the road regularly by fans and sometimes by other players on other teams. Can you imagine if a black player came forward and said predominately white players threw racial slurs at him during games?

It's simply more socially acceptable in the Western world, esp in pro sports, to be racist against Asians or whites or males or heterosexuals, but not in reverse, you'd better watch yourself before you say something negative about women in general, gays in sports, African Americans and occasionally Jews. Like any big business, the NFL must take a moderate tone, that tone is derived by general perception, that perception is driven by the media and the media is more influenced by some lobbyist groups than others. Sorry to break to you a reality of everyday life in the modern Western world. Yes, when Chris Rock makes fun of white people in stand up, it's considered comedy, but if Jerry Seinfeld starting ragging on African Americans and all their flaws for comedy for 45 minutes on a national stage, how do you think that is going to play out?

People here. some are, are saying Tomlin's level of punishment is based on a contrast compared to Bounty Gate or Spy Gate. Some, as I also have suggested, have inferred that being a coach working for the powerful Rooney family makes a difference.

I'm saying being black makes a difference. The entire difference? I doubt that. But as it weighs into the court of public opinion and perception and considering the league's desire to expand minority hiring, I don't see that as a huge stretch. There are not a lot of black head coaches in the NFL, soon, after the season ends, there will likely be fewer, the list of practical candidates is short and many lack the offensive pedigree/QB1 developmental background that so many franchises want now. I don't think it's a stretch that the league wants to not muddy the name of it's classical example of why minority hiring works and sully the name of the rules namesake owner, one of the major power brokers in the massive TV deals that league gets.

What we have here is what we always have in the Shark Pool, Patriots homers versus Steelers homers versus Saints homers, all talking over each other trying to see whose team and owners and players are the biggest scum bags.

And I'm the only one saying it doesn't matter what you really did, what really happened, or the truth, all that matters is what the public perceives and how things look, and that alone is enough to get you hammered for simply tarnishing the shield, whether you meant it or not.

The Rooney Rules very existence implies RACE MATTERS in the NFL. But there are folks here who want to argue it doesn't matter here and here, when it's actually working for someone's favor instead of the notion of some long ingrained cultural and social bias against it. If it matters, IT MUST MATTER BOTH WAYS. How is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

Honestly, IMHO, some of you guys could stand to turn down your overcharged homerism and actually shut up and listen from time to time, you might actually learn how the league truly operates.

I find it interesting that Belichick was not suspended either and would be interested in your take on that. Granted the punishment was much more severe than Tomlin's, but the offense was about 1000 times worse as well. I would argue it was worse than Bountygate, where Payton got a whole year suspension. I'm guessing Kraft's influence was a big part of determining Belichick's punishment?

A vehement condemnation of homerism, followed immediately by a Patriot-hating fishing expedition. GordonGekko is about to swan dive off the Brooklyn Bridge.

What the hell? You don't think Spygate is by far worse than the bounty scandal and this stupid Tomlin thing? Get a clue.

How so?

 

[PatsFanCT]

So yeah, like I said. Link to any evidence of cheating? According to Goodall, there was no competitive advantage at all.

Sure, they broke the rules, just like Tomlin, the Saints, the old Broncos, 49ers, and Raiders, and probably plenty of other broken rules by any number of teams. How does one team get called cheaters, and all the others don't?

Pretty simple. Because it's the hated Pats.
Let's just forget the fact that video taping from the sideline was allowed until 2006. And that the league sent a memo about it before the 2007 season, to EVERY team, that it wasn't allowed anymore. Yet Belichick was the only one doing it before then.

Haters gonna hate.

Where's the cheating? You said it yourself. It was against the rules. Belichick admitted to doing it, all the way back as 2000.

So according to you, Belichick doing it repeatedly (throughout the 2006 season, and into 2007) is the same as Tomlin ONE TIME breaking a rule. Yeah, that makes sense.

Homers gonna blindly defend their teams and attack others.

Belichick was caught breaking the rule one time too, and he was punished, just as Tomlin was. What don't you get?. And, I can also say without a doubt, Belichick never broke the same rule Tomlin did. Can you say the same thing about the Steelers?

 

[PatsFanCT]

Gekko has posted stuff in the past that suggests he works in the league or is more familiar with its internal operations and scuttlebutt than the average joe. Whether that is the case or not is speculation. People also say the tone and content has changed over the years and it could be an alias used by more than one person. Regardless, the race thing veers way off course of the topic at hand and IMO has no place here. Ditto the brain trauma issue which is not racial in the first place nor does it have anything to do with Tomlin.

Tomlin's race absolutely, IMHO, has a factor in his level of punishment.

If Richie Incognito was black or Jonathan Martin was white, that would be a factor in how the press would treat the matter, how much press it would get and how much the NFL would respond.

The NFL clearly cares about perception and how the league is seen by the public and the appearance of professionalism and integrity. This is the same league that has spotters at games to ensure players are in uniform compliance. This is the same league threatening sanctions against players over the color of their cleats. This is the same league that has players wear pink for a month to broaden the leagues demographic appeal to specific consumers so it can further appeal to it's own advertisers.

Mike Tomlin's name and his hiring by the Steelers is COMMONLY used by pro Rooney Rulers in the league to cite how the Rooney Rule has a positive effect on owners giving more opportunity to names out side of the "hot list" of coaching candidates. The league has actively said publicly, and also internally, how it wishes to increase the minority representation in the coaching ranks and the league's front offices.

Do you really think the league was going to suspend Tomlin for a year or six months or four games for conduct detrimental to the integrity of the game, so he could be labeled a cheater, so that when each time his name comes up through the league's new advisory committee, someone could say, "Oh yeah, that guy, the cheater right?"

David Shaw of Stanford is on the "hot list" of coaching candidates specifically because his base is offensive pedigree and he is African American. But most of the African American candidates in the league are on the defensive side of the ball - Ray Horton, Leslie Frazier when he gets clipped,Keith Butler, Ken Norton Jr. And the few guys on the offensive side of the ball, Bobby Turner and Hue Jackson, no one wants to hire for other reasons.

If Big Ben was black, in a bathroom with a white college girl, it makes a difference. Chris Paul is one of the most high profile NBA players and one of the most marketable athletes in the Western world. He also said he'd prefer to play for a black coach. Now if Kevin Love, a white player raised in LA and playing in Minnesota said that? There would be a firestorm, suspensions, death threats, demands for fines and bannings and protests. Jeremy Lin frequently cites that while traveling for Harvard, that racial slurs were used against him on the road regularly by fans and sometimes by other players on other teams. Can you imagine if a black player came forward and said predominately white players threw racial slurs at him during games?

It's simply more socially acceptable in the Western world, esp in pro sports, to be racist against Asians or whites or males or heterosexuals, but not in reverse, you'd better watch yourself before you say something negative about women in general, gays in sports, African Americans and occasionally Jews. Like any big business, the NFL must take a moderate tone, that tone is derived by general perception, that perception is driven by the media and the media is more influenced by some lobbyist groups than others. Sorry to break to you a reality of everyday life in the modern Western world. Yes, when Chris Rock makes fun of white people in stand up, it's considered comedy, but if Jerry Seinfeld starting ragging on African Americans and all their flaws for comedy for 45 minutes on a national stage, how do you think that is going to play out?

People here. some are, are saying Tomlin's level of punishment is based on a contrast compared to Bounty Gate or Spy Gate. Some, as I also have suggested, have inferred that being a coach working for the powerful Rooney family makes a difference.

I'm saying being black makes a difference. The entire difference? I doubt that. But as it weighs into the court of public opinion and perception and considering the league's desire to expand minority hiring, I don't see that as a huge stretch. There are not a lot of black head coaches in the NFL, soon, after the season ends, there will likely be fewer, the list of practical candidates is short and many lack the offensive pedigree/QB1 developmental background that so many franchises want now. I don't think it's a stretch that the league wants to not muddy the name of it's classical example of why minority hiring works and sully the name of the rules namesake owner, one of the major power brokers in the massive TV deals that league gets.

What we have here is what we always have in the Shark Pool, Patriots homers versus Steelers homers versus Saints homers, all talking over each other trying to see whose team and owners and players are the biggest scum bags.

And I'm the only one saying it doesn't matter what you really did, what really happened, or the truth, all that matters is what the public perceives and how things look, and that alone is enough to get you hammered for simply tarnishing the shield, whether you meant it or not.

The Rooney Rules very existence implies RACE MATTERS in the NFL. But there are folks here who want to argue it doesn't matter here and here, when it's actually working for someone's favor instead of the notion of some long ingrained cultural and social bias against it. If it matters, IT MUST MATTER BOTH WAYS. How is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

Honestly, IMHO, some of you guys could stand to turn down your overcharged homerism and actually shut up and listen from time to time, you might actually learn how the league truly operates.

I find it interesting that Belichick was not suspended either and would be interested in your take on that. Granted the punishment was much more severe than Tomlin's, but the offense was about 1000 times worse as well. I would argue it was worse than Bountygate, where Payton got a whole year suspension. I'm guessing Kraft's influence was a big part of determining Belichick's punishment?

Yeah. Your math pretty much sucks. Almost as bad as your common sense.

 

[PatsFanCT]

I think most people who talk about how horrible SpyGate was don't even really know what exactly the Patriots did and how it compared with the rules.

Absolutely. But it's not about what Spygate was, it's about the pure hatred towards the Pats, Belichick and Brady. Which does make total sense. Everybody, including myself, hated the great teams of the past. Those F’ing Dolphins, 49ers and, worst of all, the Cowboys. It’s almost natural to hate the great teams.

 

[treat88]

So yeah, like I said. Link to any evidence of cheating? According to Goodall, there was no competitive advantage at all.

Sure, they broke the rules, just like Tomlin, the Saints, the old Broncos, 49ers, and Raiders, and probably plenty of other broken rules by any number of teams. How does one team get called cheaters, and all the others don't?

Pretty simple. Because it's the hated Pats.
Let's just forget the fact that video taping from the sideline was allowed until 2006. And that the league sent a memo about it before the 2007 season, to EVERY team, that it wasn't allowed anymore. Yet Belichick was the only one doing it before then.

Haters gonna hate.

Where's the cheating? You said it yourself. It was against the rules. Belichick admitted to doing it, all the way back as 2000.

So according to you, Belichick doing it repeatedly (throughout the 2006 season, and into 2007) is the same as Tomlin ONE TIME breaking a rule. Yeah, that makes sense.

Homers gonna blindly defend their teams and attack others.

Belichick was caught breaking the rule one time too, and he was punished, just as Tomlin was. What don't you get?. And, I can also say without a doubt, Belichick never broke the same rule Tomlin did. Can you say the same thing about the Steelers?

Really?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h42kTrO8ZA4

Seems like by your logic the Pats should have been punished a draft pick for each incident of taping they engaged in. No?

 

[fantasycurse42]

Gekko has posted stuff in the past that suggests he works in the league or is more familiar with its internal operations and scuttlebutt than the average joe. Whether that is the case or not is speculation. People also say the tone and content has changed over the years and it could be an alias used by more than one person. Regardless, the race thing veers way off course of the topic at hand and IMO has no place here. Ditto the brain trauma issue which is not racial in the first place nor does it have anything to do with Tomlin.

Tomlin's race absolutely, IMHO, has a factor in his level of punishment.

If Richie Incognito was black or Jonathan Martin was white, that would be a factor in how the press would treat the matter, how much press it would get and how much the NFL would respond.

The NFL clearly cares about perception and how the league is seen by the public and the appearance of professionalism and integrity. This is the same league that has spotters at games to ensure players are in uniform compliance. This is the same league threatening sanctions against players over the color of their cleats. This is the same league that has players wear pink for a month to broaden the leagues demographic appeal to specific consumers so it can further appeal to it's own advertisers.

Mike Tomlin's name and his hiring by the Steelers is COMMONLY used by pro Rooney Rulers in the league to cite how the Rooney Rule has a positive effect on owners giving more opportunity to names out side of the "hot list" of coaching candidates. The league has actively said publicly, and also internally, how it wishes to increase the minority representation in the coaching ranks and the league's front offices.

Do you really think the league was going to suspend Tomlin for a year or six months or four games for conduct detrimental to the integrity of the game, so he could be labeled a cheater, so that when each time his name comes up through the league's new advisory committee, someone could say, "Oh yeah, that guy, the cheater right?"

David Shaw of Stanford is on the "hot list" of coaching candidates specifically because his base is offensive pedigree and he is African American. But most of the African American candidates in the league are on the defensive side of the ball - Ray Horton, Leslie Frazier when he gets clipped,Keith Butler, Ken Norton Jr. And the few guys on the offensive side of the ball, Bobby Turner and Hue Jackson, no one wants to hire for other reasons.

If Big Ben was black, in a bathroom with a white college girl, it makes a difference. Chris Paul is one of the most high profile NBA players and one of the most marketable athletes in the Western world. He also said he'd prefer to play for a black coach. Now if Kevin Love, a white player raised in LA and playing in Minnesota said that? There would be a firestorm, suspensions, death threats, demands for fines and bannings and protests. Jeremy Lin frequently cites that while traveling for Harvard, that racial slurs were used against him on the road regularly by fans and sometimes by other players on other teams. Can you imagine if a black player came forward and said predominately white players threw racial slurs at him during games?

It's simply more socially acceptable in the Western world, esp in pro sports, to be racist against Asians or whites or males or heterosexuals, but not in reverse, you'd better watch yourself before you say something negative about women in general, gays in sports, African Americans and occasionally Jews. Like any big business, the NFL must take a moderate tone, that tone is derived by general perception, that perception is driven by the media and the media is more influenced by some lobbyist groups than others. Sorry to break to you a reality of everyday life in the modern Western world. Yes, when Chris Rock makes fun of white people in stand up, it's considered comedy, but if Jerry Seinfeld starting ragging on African Americans and all their flaws for comedy for 45 minutes on a national stage, how do you think that is going to play out?

People here. some are, are saying Tomlin's level of punishment is based on a contrast compared to Bounty Gate or Spy Gate. Some, as I also have suggested, have inferred that being a coach working for the powerful Rooney family makes a difference.

I'm saying being black makes a difference. The entire difference? I doubt that. But as it weighs into the court of public opinion and perception and considering the league's desire to expand minority hiring, I don't see that as a huge stretch. There are not a lot of black head coaches in the NFL, soon, after the season ends, there will likely be fewer, the list of practical candidates is short and many lack the offensive pedigree/QB1 developmental background that so many franchises want now. I don't think it's a stretch that the league wants to not muddy the name of it's classical example of why minority hiring works and sully the name of the rules namesake owner, one of the major power brokers in the massive TV deals that league gets.

What we have here is what we always have in the Shark Pool, Patriots homers versus Steelers homers versus Saints homers, all talking over each other trying to see whose team and owners and players are the biggest scum bags.

And I'm the only one saying it doesn't matter what you really did, what really happened, or the truth, all that matters is what the public perceives and how things look, and that alone is enough to get you hammered for simply tarnishing the shield, whether you meant it or not.

The Rooney Rules very existence implies RACE MATTERS in the NFL. But there are folks here who want to argue it doesn't matter here and here, when it's actually working for someone's favor instead of the notion of some long ingrained cultural and social bias against it. If it matters, IT MUST MATTER BOTH WAYS. How is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

Honestly, IMHO, some of you guys could stand to turn down your overcharged homerism and actually shut up and listen from time to time, you might actually learn how the league truly operates.

I find it interesting that Belichick was not suspended either and would be interested in your take on that. Granted the punishment was much more severe than Tomlin's, but the offense was about 1000 times worse as well. I would argue it was worse than Bountygate, where Payton got a whole year suspension. I'm guessing Kraft's influence was a big part of determining Belichick's punishment?

Yeah. Your math pretty much sucks. Almost as bad as your common sense.

He knowingly broke the rules for an extended period of time... Don't understand what's in question here?

BTW I'm not hating on the Patriots "because people like to hate on great teams" - you can find a post from MNF where I said they are the only team that might be able to beat the Seahawks.

- 49er fan

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I'm watching total access and one of the guys just said he got fined 100 racks -- seriously

 

[Cheesedawg]

$100,000 fine! Wow.

Wait, so no year-long suspension? No loss of a 1st-round pick? I can't believe it. All the video experts in here said there was "PROOF" that Tomlin intentionally committed this act, and that he should be punished as/more severely than coaches like Payton, who allowed a scheme to injure players for money to happen and Belicheck, who cheated by video-taping what he wasn't allowed to video-tape.

You would think that if there were "PROOF" that this act was intentional, the NFL would have handed down more of a punishment. Seems like they concluded (like any rational person would) from the video that you can't "PROVE" that the act was intentional, even if they (like I) believe that it was.

You really are stupid.

Says the genius that thought he had "proof" that Tomlin's act was intentional? That really hurts, coming from you.

The Iranians don't believe there was a holocaust despite an abundance of proof. You can't convince everyone, I guess.

And there's a bunch of people who think the US blew up the twin towers because they watched a video that they think "proves" the planes couldn't have caused them to collapse like that.

Uneducated people will interpret video footage in strange ways, I guess.

Lots of irony in that statement.

You don't get it do you? All this time, I thought you were deliberately being dense, but maybe you really are just slow, huh?

Words (especially yours) are cheap. Actions speak. Tomlin's actions on the video are very clear, which is why 95% of non-homers who are familiar with the incident, INCLUDING YOU AS YOU HAVE SAID MULTIPLE TIMES, say they think he did it intentionally. You are nothing more than a troll on this topic. And a raging hypocrite. Other than that you seem like good people.

 

[PatsFanCT]

So yeah, like I said. Link to any evidence of cheating? According to Goodall, there was no competitive advantage at all.

Sure, they broke the rules, just like Tomlin, the Saints, the old Broncos, 49ers, and Raiders, and probably plenty of other broken rules by any number of teams. How does one team get called cheaters, and all the others don't?

Pretty simple. Because it's the hated Pats.
Let's just forget the fact that video taping from the sideline was allowed until 2006. And that the league sent a memo about it before the 2007 season, to EVERY team, that it wasn't allowed anymore. Yet Belichick was the only one doing it before then.

Haters gonna hate.

Where's the cheating? You said it yourself. It was against the rules. Belichick admitted to doing it, all the way back as 2000.

So according to you, Belichick doing it repeatedly (throughout the 2006 season, and into 2007) is the same as Tomlin ONE TIME breaking a rule. Yeah, that makes sense.

Homers gonna blindly defend their teams and attack others.

Belichick was caught breaking the rule one time too, and he was punished, just as Tomlin was. What don't you get?. And, I can also say without a doubt, Belichick never broke the same rule Tomlin did. Can you say the same thing about the Steelers?

Really?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h42kTrO8ZA4

Seems like by your logic the Pats should have been punished a draft pick for each incident of taping they engaged in. No?

Since you asked, no.

 

[PatsFanCT]

Gekko has posted stuff in the past that suggests he works in the league or is more familiar with its internal operations and scuttlebutt than the average joe. Whether that is the case or not is speculation. People also say the tone and content has changed over the years and it could be an alias used by more than one person. Regardless, the race thing veers way off course of the topic at hand and IMO has no place here. Ditto the brain trauma issue which is not racial in the first place nor does it have anything to do with Tomlin.

Tomlin's race absolutely, IMHO, has a factor in his level of punishment.

If Richie Incognito was black or Jonathan Martin was white, that would be a factor in how the press would treat the matter, how much press it would get and how much the NFL would respond.

The NFL clearly cares about perception and how the league is seen by the public and the appearance of professionalism and integrity. This is the same league that has spotters at games to ensure players are in uniform compliance. This is the same league threatening sanctions against players over the color of their cleats. This is the same league that has players wear pink for a month to broaden the leagues demographic appeal to specific consumers so it can further appeal to it's own advertisers.

Mike Tomlin's name and his hiring by the Steelers is COMMONLY used by pro Rooney Rulers in the league to cite how the Rooney Rule has a positive effect on owners giving more opportunity to names out side of the "hot list" of coaching candidates. The league has actively said publicly, and also internally, how it wishes to increase the minority representation in the coaching ranks and the league's front offices.

Do you really think the league was going to suspend Tomlin for a year or six months or four games for conduct detrimental to the integrity of the game, so he could be labeled a cheater, so that when each time his name comes up through the league's new advisory committee, someone could say, "Oh yeah, that guy, the cheater right?"

David Shaw of Stanford is on the "hot list" of coaching candidates specifically because his base is offensive pedigree and he is African American. But most of the African American candidates in the league are on the defensive side of the ball - Ray Horton, Leslie Frazier when he gets clipped,Keith Butler, Ken Norton Jr. And the few guys on the offensive side of the ball, Bobby Turner and Hue Jackson, no one wants to hire for other reasons.

If Big Ben was black, in a bathroom with a white college girl, it makes a difference. Chris Paul is one of the most high profile NBA players and one of the most marketable athletes in the Western world. He also said he'd prefer to play for a black coach. Now if Kevin Love, a white player raised in LA and playing in Minnesota said that? There would be a firestorm, suspensions, death threats, demands for fines and bannings and protests. Jeremy Lin frequently cites that while traveling for Harvard, that racial slurs were used against him on the road regularly by fans and sometimes by other players on other teams. Can you imagine if a black player came forward and said predominately white players threw racial slurs at him during games?

It's simply more socially acceptable in the Western world, esp in pro sports, to be racist against Asians or whites or males or heterosexuals, but not in reverse, you'd better watch yourself before you say something negative about women in general, gays in sports, African Americans and occasionally Jews. Like any big business, the NFL must take a moderate tone, that tone is derived by general perception, that perception is driven by the media and the media is more influenced by some lobbyist groups than others. Sorry to break to you a reality of everyday life in the modern Western world. Yes, when Chris Rock makes fun of white people in stand up, it's considered comedy, but if Jerry Seinfeld starting ragging on African Americans and all their flaws for comedy for 45 minutes on a national stage, how do you think that is going to play out?

People here. some are, are saying Tomlin's level of punishment is based on a contrast compared to Bounty Gate or Spy Gate. Some, as I also have suggested, have inferred that being a coach working for the powerful Rooney family makes a difference.

I'm saying being black makes a difference. The entire difference? I doubt that. But as it weighs into the court of public opinion and perception and considering the league's desire to expand minority hiring, I don't see that as a huge stretch. There are not a lot of black head coaches in the NFL, soon, after the season ends, there will likely be fewer, the list of practical candidates is short and many lack the offensive pedigree/QB1 developmental background that so many franchises want now. I don't think it's a stretch that the league wants to not muddy the name of it's classical example of why minority hiring works and sully the name of the rules namesake owner, one of the major power brokers in the massive TV deals that league gets.

What we have here is what we always have in the Shark Pool, Patriots homers versus Steelers homers versus Saints homers, all talking over each other trying to see whose team and owners and players are the biggest scum bags.

And I'm the only one saying it doesn't matter what you really did, what really happened, or the truth, all that matters is what the public perceives and how things look, and that alone is enough to get you hammered for simply tarnishing the shield, whether you meant it or not.

The Rooney Rules very existence implies RACE MATTERS in the NFL. But there are folks here who want to argue it doesn't matter here and here, when it's actually working for someone's favor instead of the notion of some long ingrained cultural and social bias against it. If it matters, IT MUST MATTER BOTH WAYS. How is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

Honestly, IMHO, some of you guys could stand to turn down your overcharged homerism and actually shut up and listen from time to time, you might actually learn how the league truly operates.

I find it interesting that Belichick was not suspended either and would be interested in your take on that. Granted the punishment was much more severe than Tomlin's, but the offense was about 1000 times worse as well. I would argue it was worse than Bountygate, where Payton got a whole year suspension. I'm guessing Kraft's influence was a big part of determining Belichick's punishment?

Yeah. Your math pretty much sucks. Almost as bad as your common sense.

He knowingly broke the rules for an extended period of time... Don't understand what's in question here?

BTW I'm not hating on the Patriots "because people like to hate on great teams" - you can find a post from MNF where I said they are the only team that might be able to beat the Seahawks.

- 49er fan

He broke the rules ONCE, and was caught 7 minutes into the first game of the 2007 season, where they then went on to go 18-0, until the Super Bowl. Don't understand why you don't understand that.

 

[Half in the bag]

but the video shows he clearly intentionally got into the ball carrier's path

No it doesn't.

If he wasn't trying to interfere with Jones on the kick return then why was he standing on the field?

 

[PatsFanCT]

Also, for the record, I don't think the Steelers should lose a draft pick. I do think Tomlin knew what he was doing, but think the 100k is fair. It is what it is, and I don't know why this is such a huge topic.

 

[grateful zed]

link

 

[Bayhawks]

$100,000 fine! Wow.

Wait, so no year-long suspension? No loss of a 1st-round pick? I can't believe it. All the video experts in here said there was "PROOF" that Tomlin intentionally committed this act, and that he should be punished as/more severely than coaches like Payton, who allowed a scheme to injure players for money to happen and Belicheck, who cheated by video-taping what he wasn't allowed to video-tape.

You would think that if there were "PROOF" that this act was intentional, the NFL would have handed down more of a punishment. Seems like they concluded (like any rational person would) from the video that you can't "PROVE" that the act was intentional, even if they (like I) believe that it was.

You really are stupid.

Says the genius that thought he had "proof" that Tomlin's act was intentional? That really hurts, coming from you.

The Iranians don't believe there was a holocaust despite an abundance of proof. You can't convince everyone, I guess.

And there's a bunch of people who think the US blew up the twin towers because they watched a video that they think "proves" the planes couldn't have caused them to collapse like that.

Uneducated people will interpret video footage in strange ways, I guess.

Lots of irony in that statement.

You don't get it do you? All this time, I thought you were deliberately being dense, but maybe you really are just slow, huh?

Words (especially yours) are cheap. Actions speak. Tomlin's actions on the video are very clear, which is why 95% of non-homers who are familiar with the incident, INCLUDING YOU AS YOU HAVE SAID MULTIPLE TIMES, say they think he did it intentionally. You are nothing more than a troll on this topic. And a raging hypocrite. Other than that you seem like good people.

Not a troll, nor a hypocrite. Maybe you should look up the definitions of those terms, as well as proof, since you don't seem to understand what any of them mean.

I think Tomlin did it intentionally, because of the implausibility of his explanation behind the incident. I can't PROVE that he did it intentionally, but I think he did. For that reason, I didn't go on a public message board, with video footage that was available to EVERYONE, and loudly claim "I have PROOF that Tomlin's act was intentional."

You saw a video which confirmed, TO YOU, that Tomlin's act was intentional. This does not make it proof. Any intelligent person knows this, including the NFL officials that determined a stiff fine was in order, but no suspension, and likely no loss of draft pick (obviously if they could prove he INTENTIONALLY tried to impede Jones, the punishment would have been more harsh).

So, other than being completely ignorant of what the term PROOF means, you seem like good people.

Good day, sir.

 

[Bayhawks]

So yeah, like I said. Link to any evidence of cheating? According to Goodall, there was no competitive advantage at all.

Sure, they broke the rules, just like Tomlin, the Saints, the old Broncos, 49ers, and Raiders, and probably plenty of other broken rules by any number of teams. How does one team get called cheaters, and all the others don't?

Pretty simple. Because it's the hated Pats.
Let's just forget the fact that video taping from the sideline was allowed until 2006. And that the league sent a memo about it before the 2007 season, to EVERY team, that it wasn't allowed anymore. Yet Belichick was the only one doing it before then.

Haters gonna hate.

Where's the cheating? You said it yourself. It was against the rules. Belichick admitted to doing it, all the way back as 2000.

So according to you, Belichick doing it repeatedly (throughout the 2006 season, and into 2007) is the same as Tomlin ONE TIME breaking a rule. Yeah, that makes sense.

Homers gonna blindly defend their teams and attack others.

Belichick was caught breaking the rule one time too, and he was punished, just as Tomlin was. What don't you get?. And, I can also say without a doubt, Belichick never broke the same rule Tomlin did. Can you say the same thing about the Steelers?

What don't you get?

BB admitted to this taping since 2000.

It was prohibited AT LEAST since the 2006 season.

16 games in 2006 season, 1st game of 2007 season=17 games

17 is more than 1, in case you weren't sure.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Gekko has posted stuff in the past that suggests he works in the league or is more familiar with its internal operations and scuttlebutt than the average joe. Whether that is the case or not is speculation. People also say the tone and content has changed over the years and it could be an alias used by more than one person. Regardless, the race thing veers way off course of the topic at hand and IMO has no place here. Ditto the brain trauma issue which is not racial in the first place nor does it have anything to do with Tomlin.

Tomlin's race absolutely, IMHO, has a factor in his level of punishment.

If Richie Incognito was black or Jonathan Martin was white, that would be a factor in how the press would treat the matter, how much press it would get and how much the NFL would respond.

The NFL clearly cares about perception and how the league is seen by the public and the appearance of professionalism and integrity. This is the same league that has spotters at games to ensure players are in uniform compliance. This is the same league threatening sanctions against players over the color of their cleats. This is the same league that has players wear pink for a month to broaden the leagues demographic appeal to specific consumers so it can further appeal to it's own advertisers.

Mike Tomlin's name and his hiring by the Steelers is COMMONLY used by pro Rooney Rulers in the league to cite how the Rooney Rule has a positive effect on owners giving more opportunity to names out side of the "hot list" of coaching candidates. The league has actively said publicly, and also internally, how it wishes to increase the minority representation in the coaching ranks and the league's front offices.

Do you really think the league was going to suspend Tomlin for a year or six months or four games for conduct detrimental to the integrity of the game, so he could be labeled a cheater, so that when each time his name comes up through the league's new advisory committee, someone could say, "Oh yeah, that guy, the cheater right?"

David Shaw of Stanford is on the "hot list" of coaching candidates specifically because his base is offensive pedigree and he is African American. But most of the African American candidates in the league are on the defensive side of the ball - Ray Horton, Leslie Frazier when he gets clipped,Keith Butler, Ken Norton Jr. And the few guys on the offensive side of the ball, Bobby Turner and Hue Jackson, no one wants to hire for other reasons.

If Big Ben was black, in a bathroom with a white college girl, it makes a difference. Chris Paul is one of the most high profile NBA players and one of the most marketable athletes in the Western world. He also said he'd prefer to play for a black coach. Now if Kevin Love, a white player raised in LA and playing in Minnesota said that? There would be a firestorm, suspensions, death threats, demands for fines and bannings and protests. Jeremy Lin frequently cites that while traveling for Harvard, that racial slurs were used against him on the road regularly by fans and sometimes by other players on other teams. Can you imagine if a black player came forward and said predominately white players threw racial slurs at him during games?

It's simply more socially acceptable in the Western world, esp in pro sports, to be racist against Asians or whites or males or heterosexuals, but not in reverse, you'd better watch yourself before you say something negative about women in general, gays in sports, African Americans and occasionally Jews. Like any big business, the NFL must take a moderate tone, that tone is derived by general perception, that perception is driven by the media and the media is more influenced by some lobbyist groups than others. Sorry to break to you a reality of everyday life in the modern Western world. Yes, when Chris Rock makes fun of white people in stand up, it's considered comedy, but if Jerry Seinfeld starting ragging on African Americans and all their flaws for comedy for 45 minutes on a national stage, how do you think that is going to play out?

People here. some are, are saying Tomlin's level of punishment is based on a contrast compared to Bounty Gate or Spy Gate. Some, as I also have suggested, have inferred that being a coach working for the powerful Rooney family makes a difference.

I'm saying being black makes a difference. The entire difference? I doubt that. But as it weighs into the court of public opinion and perception and considering the league's desire to expand minority hiring, I don't see that as a huge stretch. There are not a lot of black head coaches in the NFL, soon, after the season ends, there will likely be fewer, the list of practical candidates is short and many lack the offensive pedigree/QB1 developmental background that so many franchises want now. I don't think it's a stretch that the league wants to not muddy the name of it's classical example of why minority hiring works and sully the name of the rules namesake owner, one of the major power brokers in the massive TV deals that league gets.

What we have here is what we always have in the Shark Pool, Patriots homers versus Steelers homers versus Saints homers, all talking over each other trying to see whose team and owners and players are the biggest scum bags.

And I'm the only one saying it doesn't matter what you really did, what really happened, or the truth, all that matters is what the public perceives and how things look, and that alone is enough to get you hammered for simply tarnishing the shield, whether you meant it or not.

The Rooney Rules very existence implies RACE MATTERS in the NFL. But there are folks here who want to argue it doesn't matter here and here, when it's actually working for someone's favor instead of the notion of some long ingrained cultural and social bias against it. If it matters, IT MUST MATTER BOTH WAYS. How is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

Honestly, IMHO, some of you guys could stand to turn down your overcharged homerism and actually shut up and listen from time to time, you might actually learn how the league truly operates.

I find it interesting that Belichick was not suspended either and would be interested in your take on that. Granted the punishment was much more severe than Tomlin's, but the offense was about 1000 times worse as well. I would argue it was worse than Bountygate, where Payton got a whole year suspension. I'm guessing Kraft's influence was a big part of determining Belichick's punishment?

Yeah. Your math pretty much sucks. Almost as bad as your common sense.

He knowingly broke the rules for an extended period of time... Don't understand what's in question here?

BTW I'm not hating on the Patriots "because people like to hate on great teams" - you can find a post from MNF where I said they are the only team that might be able to beat the Seahawks.

- 49er fan

He broke the rules ONCE, and was caught 7 minutes into the first game of the 2007 season, where they then went on to go 18-0, until the Super Bowl. Don't understand why you don't understand that.

Wrong. They turned in illegal tapes of several teams practices.

Including 2 vs Steelers and 1 vs the Rams that were reported by the NFL when they received the tapes and subsequently destroyed them.

Even Belichick had admitted to taping signals dating back to 2000.

 

[McGarnicle]

So pathetic that it's impossible to debate this stuff in an objective manner without some diehard fanboy getting hysterical to defend their team and anyone being critical labeled a hater. What's the ####### point. All this stuff has been litigated already, time to move on.

 

[The Hank]

From Ed Bouchette Today:

NFL was ambiguous, but it's unlikely the #Steelers will lose any draft picks over the Baltimore Blunder. Here is why as Ray Fittipaldo points out in his story today in the Post-Gazette, after consulting a source at the NFL, the draft pick would only be changed if that play that possibly cost the Ravens a touchdown affects playoff tiebreakers. There is little chance of that.

The NFL then has determined that Jacoby Jones might have scored a touchdown had Mike Tomlin not stepped into his path. They wound up kicking a field goal. That four-point difference theoretically could mean the difference between the Ravens making the playoffs and not making them based on a tiebreaker way down the list of tiebreakers. Point differential rarely comes into play.

 

[McGarnicle]

From Ed Bouchette Today:

NFL was ambiguous, but it's unlikely the #Steelers will lose any draft picks over the Baltimore Blunder. Here is why as Ray Fittipaldo points out in his story today in the Post-Gazette, after consulting a source at the NFL, the draft pick would only be changed if that play that possibly cost the Ravens a touchdown affects playoff tiebreakers. There is little chance of that.

The NFL then has determined that Jacoby Jones might have scored a touchdown had Mike Tomlin not stepped into his path. They wound up kicking a field goal. That four-point difference theoretically could mean the difference between the Ravens making the playoffs and not making them based on a tiebreaker way down the list of tiebreakers. Point differential rarely comes into play.

They're drawing an interesting distinction there. The action could have cost them a touchdown and could have affected the playoff tiebreaker, but since it didn't, we'll be more lenient. Same logic as attempted murder carrying a lesser penalty than murder.

 

[Gvindy]

Anyone ever see this play where the guy came off the sidelines and tackled the rb, they were awarded a touchdown pretty funny?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eSteCSinjTs&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DeSteCSinjTs

 

[Godsbrother]

From Ed Bouchette Today:

NFL was ambiguous, but it's unlikely the #Steelers will lose any draft picks over the Baltimore Blunder. Here is why as Ray Fittipaldo points out in his story today in the Post-Gazette, after consulting a source at the NFL, the draft pick would only be changed if that play that possibly cost the Ravens a touchdown affects playoff tiebreakers. There is little chance of that.The NFL then has determined that Jacoby Jones might have scored a touchdown had Mike Tomlin not stepped into his path. They wound up kicking a field goal. That four-point difference theoretically could mean the difference between the Ravens making the playoffs and not making them based on a tiebreaker way down the list of tiebreakers. Point differential rarely comes into play.

Interesting. I hope this is the case.

 

[mbuehner]

From Ed Bouchette Today:

NFL was ambiguous, but it's unlikely the #Steelers will lose any draft picks over the Baltimore Blunder. Here is why as Ray Fittipaldo points out in his story today in the Post-Gazette, after consulting a source at the NFL, the draft pick would only be changed if that play that possibly cost the Ravens a touchdown affects playoff tiebreakers. There is little chance of that.The NFL then has determined that Jacoby Jones might have scored a touchdown had Mike Tomlin not stepped into his path. They wound up kicking a field goal. That four-point difference theoretically could mean the difference between the Ravens making the playoffs and not making them based on a tiebreaker way down the list of tiebreakers. Point differential rarely comes into play.

Interesting. I hope this is the case.

Do the Ravens get the draft pick ?

 

[mbuehner]

Anyone ever see this play where the guy came off the sidelines and tackled the rb, they were awarded a touchdown pretty funny?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eSteCSinjTs&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DeSteCSinjTs

Did Lewis strut over to the bench and pull out a cigarette? Looked like he did That would be the ultimate pimp move.

 

[Cheesedawg]

$100,000 fine! Wow.

Wait, so no year-long suspension? No loss of a 1st-round pick? I can't believe it. All the video experts in here said there was "PROOF" that Tomlin intentionally committed this act, and that he should be punished as/more severely than coaches like Payton, who allowed a scheme to injure players for money to happen and Belicheck, who cheated by video-taping what he wasn't allowed to video-tape.

You would think that if there were "PROOF" that this act was intentional, the NFL would have handed down more of a punishment. Seems like they concluded (like any rational person would) from the video that you can't "PROVE" that the act was intentional, even if they (like I) believe that it was.

You really are stupid.

Says the genius that thought he had "proof" that Tomlin's act was intentional? That really hurts, coming from you.

The Iranians don't believe there was a holocaust despite an abundance of proof. You can't convince everyone, I guess.

And there's a bunch of people who think the US blew up the twin towers because they watched a video that they think "proves" the planes couldn't have caused them to collapse like that.

Uneducated people will interpret video footage in strange ways, I guess.

Lots of irony in that statement.

You don't get it do you? All this time, I thought you were deliberately being dense, but maybe you really are just slow, huh?

Words (especially yours) are cheap. Actions speak. Tomlin's actions on the video are very clear, which is why 95% of non-homers who are familiar with the incident, INCLUDING YOU AS YOU HAVE SAID MULTIPLE TIMES, say they think he did it intentionally. You are nothing more than a troll on this topic. And a raging hypocrite. Other than that you seem like good people.

Not a troll, nor a hypocrite. Maybe you should look up the definitions of those terms, as well as proof, since you don't seem to understand what any of them mean.

I think Tomlin did it intentionally, because of the implausibility of his explanation behind the incident. I can't PROVE that he did it intentionally, but I think he did. For that reason, I didn't go on a public message board, with video footage that was available to EVERYONE, and loudly claim "I have PROOF that Tomlin's act was intentional."

You saw a video which confirmed, TO YOU, that Tomlin's act was intentional. This does not make it proof. Any intelligent person knows this, including the NFL officials that determined a stiff fine was in order, but no suspension, and likely no loss of draft pick (obviously if they could prove he INTENTIONALLY tried to impede Jones, the punishment would have been more harsh).

So, other than being completely ignorant of what the term PROOF means, you seem like good people.

Good day, sir.

You are certainly both a troll and a RAGING hypocrite, along with other things. Obtuse comes to mind.

Until we can read minds, you can say there is no proof of almost anything in the world when it comes to human actions. Yet the jails are full of people who are convicted of doing bad things. I suppose you would argue that they should all be set free. Or that Obamacare is running great! There is no proof of anything!

The proof that I posted was good enough to convince just about every non-Steeler-homer in the country that Tomlin intentionally cheated, INCLUDING YOU! That is how you get labeled a troll and a hypocrite, and why obtuse works well too.

Have a great day!

 

[Anarchy99]

I'm a little confused by this whole situation. Shouldn't the league be more on the case of the refs than Timlin? If they had called a penalty on the play and awarded a TD for coming on to the field to stop a breakaway TD, things would have resolved themselves on the field. Then any future impact would be out the window.

 

[Bayhawks]

You are certainly both a troll and a RAGING hypocrite, along with other things. Obtuse comes to mind.

Until we can read minds, you can say there is no proof of almost anything in the world when it comes to human actions. Yet the jails are full of people who are convicted of doing bad things. I suppose you would argue that they should all be set free. Or that Obamacare is running great! There is no proof of anything!

The proof that I posted was good enough to convince just about every non-Steeler-homer in the country that Tomlin intentionally cheated, INCLUDING YOU! That is how you get labeled a troll and a hypocrite, and why obtuse works well too.

Have a great day!

I said, Good day.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I'm a little confused by this whole situation. Shouldn't the league be more on the case of the refs than Timlin? If they had called a penalty on the play and awarded a TD for coming on to the field to stop a breakaway TD, things would have resolved themselves on the field. Then any future impact would be out the window.

I believe this ref crew got downgraded which can affect playoff assignments, which is probably money

I'm not sure what else you want the league to do --- fines for missing a call?

 

[Cheesedawg]

You are certainly both a troll and a RAGING hypocrite, along with other things. Obtuse comes to mind.

Until we can read minds, you can say there is no proof of almost anything in the world when it comes to human actions. Yet the jails are full of people who are convicted of doing bad things. I suppose you would argue that they should all be set free. Or that Obamacare is running great! There is no proof of anything!

The proof that I posted was good enough to convince just about every non-Steeler-homer in the country that Tomlin intentionally cheated, INCLUDING YOU! That is how you get labeled a troll and a hypocrite, and why obtuse works well too.

Have a great day!

I said, Good day.

Sorry. Have a good day.

 

[Godsbrother]

I'm a little confused by this whole situation. Shouldn't the league be more on the case of the refs than Timlin? If they had called a penalty on the play and awarded a TD for coming on to the field to stop a breakaway TD, things would have resolved themselves on the field. Then any future impact would be out the window.

Yes

 

[mbuehner]

I'm a little confused by this whole situation. Shouldn't the league be more on the case of the refs than Timlin? If they had called a penalty on the play and awarded a TD for coming on to the field to stop a breakaway TD, things would have resolved themselves on the field. Then any future impact would be out the window.

Yes

Point of order- can the refs look at the replay when considering a 'palpably unfair act'? I'm supposing no (since penalties typically aren't reviewable) and there wasnt a score or a turnover to give them a reason to look.

Without access to a replay, I'd say its damned hard for the refs to award that touchdown. Throwing the flag, yes, absolutely, Tomlin if nothing else was outside of the sideline box and the refs were actually supposed to be making an example of that even before this play. But obviously there isn't a ref watching the coach on the sideline to see what he might be doing. You got a player speeding down the sideline, blocks all over the place that need to be monitored, tacklers closing in you need to be watching.... this was such a crazy and unexpected thing I gotta think their first instinct was 'had to be an accident, he wasnt actually on the field, he didnt actually touch the runner'. Now they should still have thrown the flag, for sure, but that is a specific violation about standing in the wrong place. Awarding the touchdown on the other hand is like a referee equivalent of a nuclear weapon. I'm pretty sure that rule has never once been executed in the NFL. Its not meant to right every wrong (particularly an accident) its meant to be a last ditch correction to a BLATANTLY unfair play. I think it would have been almost impossible to have judged that in real time (though as i mentioned above, seeing the replay and especially Tomlin's expressions tells a lot more).

 

[Jercules]

So pathetic that it's impossible to debate this stuff in an objective manner without some diehard fanboy getting hysterical to defend their team and anyone being critical labeled a hater. What's the ####### point. All this stuff has been litigated already, time to move on.

I was attempting to have a debate with you. I asked a series of perfectly lucid questions. How is it logical to tarnish a team's accomplishments because they broke a rule that was established after the fact? It's like saying none of the New Jersey Devils' cup wins count because Brodeur was always entering the trapezoid!

How can you suggest the Pats' transgressions are so serious when they center around the mere location of the camera being used to record signals? If they'd had a guy with a notebook and a pen, or if the cameraman had been in the first row of the stands and used the zoom function, everything would be square!

You've been using a pretty standard debating tactic; simply act as if it would be outrageous to take any position other than the one you advocate ("It was obviously a 1000 times worse!!!")

I regret giving you a small compliment in my last post (because, you know, it's all cool), because it allowed you to completely ignore what I was asking (you clever devil).

So if you want to leave it to rest, fine--Mr.Gekko refuted your assertions more thoroughly than I could. But to have the gall to come back here and pretend you're the one trying to be objective, and pathetic fanboys who are totally not-at-all like you are getting in the way, is really too much.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Very late thoughts on this:

1) Tomlin should've been fined more. Fining him the same as the Jets special teams coach isn't enough. He's a head coach - one that's on the competition committee. $250,000 would've been more appropriate IMO.

2) He should have been suspended for 2 games. This would hurt the Steelers and I think it would send a stronger message about on the field conduct to the teams around the league. It's also appropriate as a result of his specific actions during a game.

3) The draft pick stuff is completely ridiculous and the NFL logic even more convoluted (when's the last time points score/against came into play in determining a pick - like never?). A coach acted essentially in the moment of an NFL game. It's too big a leap to prove this was a massive conspiracy and strategy thought out before hand and implemented as part of a larger team policy. This is where it's different than something, like say spygate, or say tampering with another team's player. An on the field decision that causes the forfeiture of a draft pick? Totally bogus.

-QG

 

[ebsteelers]

Very late thoughts on this:

1) Tomlin should've been fined more. Fining him the same as the Jets special teams coach isn't enough. He's a head coach - one that's on the competition committee. $250,000 would've been more appropriate IMO.

2) He should have been suspended for 2 games. This would hurt the Steelers and I think it would send a stronger message about on the field conduct to the teams around the league. It's also appropriate as a result of his specific actions during a game.

3) The draft pick stuff is completely ridiculous and the NFL logic even more convoluted (when's the last time points score/against came into play in determining a pick - like never?). A coach acted essentially in the moment of an NFL game. It's too big a leap to prove this was a massive conspiracy and strategy thought out before hand and implemented as part of a larger team policy. This is where it's different than something, like say spygate, or say tampering with another team's player. An on the field decision that causes the forfeiture of a draft pick? Totally bogus.

-QG

i think the problem is the nfl has no consistency with fines..

if you think tomlin deserved a 250k fine, doesnt spygate deserve more than a 500k fine. and a first rounder

bounty gate also seems worse then what tomlin did

agree with the draft picks... no way you can a first to 4th rounder away over that.

as an objective steelers fan 100k seems fine, then again that seems like a shyt load to my wallet idk how that really will effect tomlin

 

[QuizGuy66]

Very late thoughts on this:

1) Tomlin should've been fined more. Fining him the same as the Jets special teams coach isn't enough. He's a head coach - one that's on the competition committee. $250,000 would've been more appropriate IMO.

2) He should have been suspended for 2 games. This would hurt the Steelers and I think it would send a stronger message about on the field conduct to the teams around the league. It's also appropriate as a result of his specific actions during a game.

3) The draft pick stuff is completely ridiculous and the NFL logic even more convoluted (when's the last time points score/against came into play in determining a pick - like never?). A coach acted essentially in the moment of an NFL game. It's too big a leap to prove this was a massive conspiracy and strategy thought out before hand and implemented as part of a larger team policy. This is where it's different than something, like say spygate, or say tampering with another team's player. An on the field decision that causes the forfeiture of a draft pick? Totally bogus.

-QG

i think the problem is the nfl has no consistency with fines..

True. But this was light IMO.

if you think tomlin deserved a 250k fine, doesnt spygate deserve more than a 500k fine. and a first rounder

I don't think a pick should be involved with the Steelers. I think it's fundamentally different than spygate.

I think the fine should be significantly higher than the Jets special team got on the same exact infraction - he's a HC and on a key committee. That's a direct comparable.

I also think that a past light sentence for something shouldn't make all such infractions subject to light penalties.

bounty gate also seems worse then what tomlin did

Apples and oranges. Again if something from what is now a long time ago isn't punished sufficiently it doesn't mean that every infraction should be taken lightly forever anyway.

agree with the draft picks... no way you can a first to 4th rounder away over that.

Yup. It's on the field. It's like taking draft picks away for too many person fouls or something. It's dumb.

as an objective steelers fan 100k seems fine, then again that seems like a shyt load to my wallet idk how that really will effect tomlin

Either amount is noticeable but not that noticeable in the proportion of things. I'm a Bengals fan and while stripping a pick would help my team I guess it's just not an appropriate penalty in this case.

-QG