NeverEnough
Footballguy
No Fun League
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Will Roger Goodell create a Civil War in the NFL? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Ministry of Pain
- Start date
cobalt_27
Footballguy
I think it's a fun league.
OrangeCurtain
Footballguy
Can't speak to the as always part, but the part of this post about the players is dead on. These guys are old enough to sign contracts, go to war, vote, etc. So the argument that they're just kids and are blindly following orders without being able to process what the consequences could be for them and/or the player(s) they go after is just silly. They'll get no pass of that sort from me, and apparently not from Goodell either, which is a good thing. They knew what they were doing was wrong and against the rules, and they did it anyway. These suspensions will not be life changing for any of them, and they'll send a message to the entire league that will last for a long time, and that's a good thing for the players, the fans and the NFL.
Honestly, they could change it to flag football and a good majority of us would still watch the game. So the "wussy" comment doesn't really fly. It's a balance and right now, the league *has* to err on the side of player safety or the owners will lose a ton of money to lawsuits (let alone have any chance of expanding the number of games played a season). Goodell may seem a bit capricious at times, but he's moving in the right direction.
Doug B
Footballguy
I don't agree, and here's why: I don't believe it's difficult to hide intent to injure within the confines of accepted physical play.Another way to phrase that: if intent to injure is never expressed out loud, does it exist? Of course it does, but it never sees the light of day and never gets held against the person holding that intent. No one re-evaluates the careers of widely-accpeted greats like Deacon Jones or **** Butkus or Jack Tatum or Ronnie Lott and brands them "thugs".
I'm not wound that tight about that, just because I brought it up doesn't mean that it's keeping me up at night. I only brought it up because it did stick out to me and made a first impression about Goodell that he looked like an idiot on his first try at the draft. Just like the saying goes, you only get one time to make a first impression...
sho nuff
Footballguy
And guys from those eras look like what now?How many of them have long lasting physical ailments due to that style of play?
How many of them in a heartbeat will take up litigation with the league in order to get their bills paid?
Those greats were great...no doubt. But in today's game, with what we know about the long term effects of the game...yes, those guys would be thugs and their style of play is no longer acceptable in the league.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
That was partly my point. Fans seem content to continue to watch the games no matter what...it's incredible. No one has to like what I am saying but it's the truth. He has changed the fabric of the game and found millions and millions of folks who will lap it up no matter how it's served. That's fine but I am still allowed to question and comment.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
Well what do we have here...it's my good buddy Dan LeBatard and what might he be writing about today in the Miami Herald? A Civil War? Well, he didn't quite phrase it like that but...
Dan LeBatard "Roger Goodell cares more about cash than player safety"
It really has been fascinating to watch the flames climb on this New Orleans Saints story, the emperor of a very violent business feeding a howling and eager media one crumb at a time, keeping this dirty story in front of the eyes of his customers for more than a month now. You remember how NFL commissioner Roger Goodell became famous, right? For unprecedented penalties against players who dared to bring bad publicity for extended periods upon the league’s shield. That’s what he calls it, the shield. He did not want arrests and negativity in front of his paying customers in the news cycle, staining his shield, so he’d come down on misbehavior from repeat offenders with a punitive fury previously unseen in major American sports.
But the Saints bounty story has been so different, prepared and packaged for our consumption by the NFL. That’s unusual, and not only because every ex-jock on TV is telling you that everybody in the NFL workplace did the kinds of things the scapegoated Saints are being sacrificed for today. Goodell clearlywants this in the news. He wants people to be shocked and outraged and clucking. And, yes, safety is his primary concern ... if by that you mean keeping his league safe from lawsuits. This is all a shield for his shield, you might say.
First, in this media age when no one can keep a secret, nobody broke the Saints bounties story. The NFL volunteered it. Revealed it in an announcement after a private investigation. How often does that happen, exactly? And Goodell was quoted in that initial statement saying very sternly that this wouldn’t be tolerated. That marinated in the news cycle for weeks. Then came the jaw-dropping punishments for the organization and executives. That marinated in the news cycle for a few more weeks. Next up: The players. And a few more weeks. Drama building over time, like with all the best dramatic soap operas.
That’s quite a bit different than how Goodell handled Spygate, when his most famous coach was caught cheating and Goodell had to defend the NFL destroying the incriminating tapes and investigation notes before a United States senator. Goodell doesn’t want this buried. Quite the opposite. He wants his handling of this out in front of everybody for as long as he can keep it there. That’s why the NFL’s initial release went out of its way to use the word “bounty.” That’ll get the media’s attention every time. Call it a “big-hit pool” instead of a “bounty,” and you’ve got a nation of football fans shrugging instead of a national debate about right and wrong.
The barbaric nature of football hasn’t merely been tolerated for decades; it has been celebrated. Everyone in the pipeline teaching it and learning it embraces the violence, and everyone who doesn’t is viewed as a sissy. That’s the culture, these bounties not unlike the Code Red in A Few Good Men. If Goodell had wanted this story to be about merely safety and punishment and protecting the league from bad publicity, he would have done it more privately, and punished everyone at once so that it would stay in the news for a couple of days instead of a couple of months. But he has made a big show of this with the help of an enabling media. The punishments, excessive and unprecedented as they are, aren’t as important as everyone noticing them.
Why?
Because there is one thing the NFL cares about far more than player safety, image or anything else: The dollar. The NFL is an absurdly profitable violent business, recently doubling TV dollars that were already insane. It somehow keeps getting even bigger, even though it is already the biggest. And about the only thing that can derail that is your sad, old, former employees limping through a courtroom en masse with canes and wheelchairs and a multibillion-dollar lawsuit accusing you of negligence because you were dishonest about the brain dangers of your workplace. And Goodell, a bit too late, is suddenly very interested in giving off the appearance that he won’t tolerate this violence that, you know, was sold in big-hit videos just a few years ago.
In 2006, the NFL’s concussion committee and appointed rheumatologist — not a neurologist, mind you — declared that concussions “in professional football are not serious injuries.” This was after Hall of Fame center Mike Webster died homeless and demented at age 50, concluding dinner parties back when he had a home by urinating in the oven in front of his family and friends because his brain wasn’t working right. Medical scientists contradicted the conclusions of the NFL’s committee, and torched the methodology, while the NFL tried to discredit doctors such as Bennet Omalu, the pioneer who discovered the obvious link after studying the brains of the NFL’s deceased. Goodell, so very late to this particular party, is in a huge hurry to catch up, and the Saints are the ones being trampled in his overzealous wake.
All over the country right now, former players with depression and dementia are gathering with lawyers. Christmas week, lawsuits were filed in Miami and Atlanta with dozens of players. On Jan. 31, a multidistrict federal judicial panel approved six cases being tried together in Philadelphia, former Vikings guard Brent Boyd quoted as saying, “Here might be the weapon that brings the mighty billionaires to their knees and forces them to accept their liability.”
The emperor of a very violent business wants his barbaric gladiators to stop behaving like barbaric gladiators, right now, today, this minute, and he’s filing it under safety because that’s a lot easier to cheer than the real reason — liability. And he’s in such a big hurry to do it that it is disorienting for menacing people such as Steelers linebacker James Harrison. It is like the porn industry waking up one morning and deciding that sex is bad.
Former Dolphins player Oronde Gadsden is named in the Miami lawsuit. Contacted Saturday to talk about his ailments, he politely declined, saying he didn’t want to say anything that might dissuade other players with brain injuries from coming forward to join the suit. Very publicly, Goodell might have gotten the little ol’ Saints, but there’s an army of his violent former employees gathering in strength more privately. Bounty hunters, you might call them, as they prepare to hit the NFL in the place it hurts most.
<br style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; ">Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/08/2736942_p2/nfls-roger-goodell-cares-more.html#storylink=cpy
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/08/2736942/nfls-roger-goodell-cares-more.html#storylink=cpy
Dan LeBatard "Roger Goodell cares more about cash than player safety"
It really has been fascinating to watch the flames climb on this New Orleans Saints story, the emperor of a very violent business feeding a howling and eager media one crumb at a time, keeping this dirty story in front of the eyes of his customers for more than a month now. You remember how NFL commissioner Roger Goodell became famous, right? For unprecedented penalties against players who dared to bring bad publicity for extended periods upon the league’s shield. That’s what he calls it, the shield. He did not want arrests and negativity in front of his paying customers in the news cycle, staining his shield, so he’d come down on misbehavior from repeat offenders with a punitive fury previously unseen in major American sports.
But the Saints bounty story has been so different, prepared and packaged for our consumption by the NFL. That’s unusual, and not only because every ex-jock on TV is telling you that everybody in the NFL workplace did the kinds of things the scapegoated Saints are being sacrificed for today. Goodell clearlywants this in the news. He wants people to be shocked and outraged and clucking. And, yes, safety is his primary concern ... if by that you mean keeping his league safe from lawsuits. This is all a shield for his shield, you might say.
First, in this media age when no one can keep a secret, nobody broke the Saints bounties story. The NFL volunteered it. Revealed it in an announcement after a private investigation. How often does that happen, exactly? And Goodell was quoted in that initial statement saying very sternly that this wouldn’t be tolerated. That marinated in the news cycle for weeks. Then came the jaw-dropping punishments for the organization and executives. That marinated in the news cycle for a few more weeks. Next up: The players. And a few more weeks. Drama building over time, like with all the best dramatic soap operas.
That’s quite a bit different than how Goodell handled Spygate, when his most famous coach was caught cheating and Goodell had to defend the NFL destroying the incriminating tapes and investigation notes before a United States senator. Goodell doesn’t want this buried. Quite the opposite. He wants his handling of this out in front of everybody for as long as he can keep it there. That’s why the NFL’s initial release went out of its way to use the word “bounty.” That’ll get the media’s attention every time. Call it a “big-hit pool” instead of a “bounty,” and you’ve got a nation of football fans shrugging instead of a national debate about right and wrong.
The barbaric nature of football hasn’t merely been tolerated for decades; it has been celebrated. Everyone in the pipeline teaching it and learning it embraces the violence, and everyone who doesn’t is viewed as a sissy. That’s the culture, these bounties not unlike the Code Red in A Few Good Men. If Goodell had wanted this story to be about merely safety and punishment and protecting the league from bad publicity, he would have done it more privately, and punished everyone at once so that it would stay in the news for a couple of days instead of a couple of months. But he has made a big show of this with the help of an enabling media. The punishments, excessive and unprecedented as they are, aren’t as important as everyone noticing them.
Why?
Because there is one thing the NFL cares about far more than player safety, image or anything else: The dollar. The NFL is an absurdly profitable violent business, recently doubling TV dollars that were already insane. It somehow keeps getting even bigger, even though it is already the biggest. And about the only thing that can derail that is your sad, old, former employees limping through a courtroom en masse with canes and wheelchairs and a multibillion-dollar lawsuit accusing you of negligence because you were dishonest about the brain dangers of your workplace. And Goodell, a bit too late, is suddenly very interested in giving off the appearance that he won’t tolerate this violence that, you know, was sold in big-hit videos just a few years ago.
In 2006, the NFL’s concussion committee and appointed rheumatologist — not a neurologist, mind you — declared that concussions “in professional football are not serious injuries.” This was after Hall of Fame center Mike Webster died homeless and demented at age 50, concluding dinner parties back when he had a home by urinating in the oven in front of his family and friends because his brain wasn’t working right. Medical scientists contradicted the conclusions of the NFL’s committee, and torched the methodology, while the NFL tried to discredit doctors such as Bennet Omalu, the pioneer who discovered the obvious link after studying the brains of the NFL’s deceased. Goodell, so very late to this particular party, is in a huge hurry to catch up, and the Saints are the ones being trampled in his overzealous wake.
All over the country right now, former players with depression and dementia are gathering with lawyers. Christmas week, lawsuits were filed in Miami and Atlanta with dozens of players. On Jan. 31, a multidistrict federal judicial panel approved six cases being tried together in Philadelphia, former Vikings guard Brent Boyd quoted as saying, “Here might be the weapon that brings the mighty billionaires to their knees and forces them to accept their liability.”
The emperor of a very violent business wants his barbaric gladiators to stop behaving like barbaric gladiators, right now, today, this minute, and he’s filing it under safety because that’s a lot easier to cheer than the real reason — liability. And he’s in such a big hurry to do it that it is disorienting for menacing people such as Steelers linebacker James Harrison. It is like the porn industry waking up one morning and deciding that sex is bad.
Former Dolphins player Oronde Gadsden is named in the Miami lawsuit. Contacted Saturday to talk about his ailments, he politely declined, saying he didn’t want to say anything that might dissuade other players with brain injuries from coming forward to join the suit. Very publicly, Goodell might have gotten the little ol’ Saints, but there’s an army of his violent former employees gathering in strength more privately. Bounty hunters, you might call them, as they prepare to hit the NFL in the place it hurts most.
<br style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; ">Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/08/2736942_p2/nfls-roger-goodell-cares-more.html#storylink=cpy
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/08/2736942/nfls-roger-goodell-cares-more.html#storylink=cpy
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
The 1st bolded is just funny, the 2nd sounds an awful lot like war to me.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
I didn't want to wait for RN.Nice self-bump from page 3.
Doug B
Footballguy
Very few outside of New Orleans will buy into this ... but there is a strong, strong sense of artifice about the whole Bountygate affair. Yes, yes, it's all based on true things that actually happened, but the packaging of the coverage is highly contrived.
PranksterJD
Footballguy
Can you flesh this out a bit? My biggest issue with LeBatard's article is that I think the **last** thing that Goodell wants is this in the news. I imagine him sitting back and fuming over Pamphilon releasing the tape, because this crap had finally died down.It seems to me that Goodell **absolutely does** care entirely about the cash, but Bountygate as a news cycle is **hurting** that. Cash for Goodell is the equivalent of new viewers. Just like any business, a new customer is much more valuable than an existing one. The Saints news cycle is doing nothing more than alienating a group of people who might not have otherwise understood exactly how violent this sport is. He's lost way more traction than he's gained through this.'Doug B said:
Doug B
Footballguy
If that were true ... does Goodell still release the initial information about the investigation on March 2nd? Goodell controlled whether or not this would all be released to begin with.Bountygate shouldn't be hurting the NFL's bottom line a whit. Instead, it gives the perception that player safety is the first, second, and third thing that the league concerns itself with. That's important because some portion of the many lawsuits filed against the NFL by former players will be fought in the court of public opinion.
PranksterJD
Footballguy
You're going to have to give me a cliff's notes on the timeline, because I don't know it as well as you do, but I can give some reactions based on what I think it is...Let's start with "Goodell controlled whether or not this would all be released to begin with"... As soon as the investigation uncovered the bounties and the lies, this was coming out. No question. Goodell couldn't not penalize the Saints for obvious reasons, and he couldn't penalize them without publicly saying why, also for obvious reasons. The best he can do in this case was to control the news cycle by releasing it himself.
Next is the question of whether he releases on March 2. I assume this was because its relatively close to when he was handed the final results of the investigation, and he didn't want to risk it leaking before he released it. You're absolutely right that he needs the league to be perceived as safety first, and if this stuff had gotten out without him doing so, then there would always be corners of the media questioning whether his punishments and actions were because of the leak or not. I'm no political strategist, but it seems like this is all pretty standard PR stuff when you find your own dirty laundry.
---------------
As for Bountygate hurting the NFL's bottom line, I definitely have to disagree there. Absolutely the NFL needs to win the PR battle in the upcoming lawsuits with the former players... but its a pretty weird strategy to try and win the public's favor in a safety suit by reminding the public that the NFL's representatives are contributing to the fact that its an extremely violent game.
Additionally, the former players and that PR battle are really only a small part of what Goodell's interested in. His focus is the casual fan. In his best case, Jane the Soccer Mom is sitting at Starbucks and talking about how football players are role models and she's happy that her son has an Aaron Rodgers Fathead on his wall. He'll accept Jane the Soccer Mom sitting in Starbucks and talking about Vanity Fair without mentioning the NFL at all. He's got to absolutely **hate** Jane the Soccer Mom sitting in Starbucks talking about the neanderthals playing football and how she'll be taking her son to see the Spurs next week.
He's got the die-hards on this board. We're locked in. People like you and I and Dan Graziano and Matt Waldman can talk until we're blue in the face about how football shouldn't be like this and how despicable Williams' behavior was. But none of us are going to turn off Thursday Night Football go watch the Cubbies instead.
What Goodell wants are Jane the Soccer Mom ( or at least her son ). He wants women. He wants the guys in England. He needs **new** customers, and I'm dead certain that Bountygate being in the news like this is costing him that.
Now, I'm not saying Goodell hasn't handled this thing well, because he has. I even say that as a Saints fan who doesn't think he's been a spectacular commissioner. I'm just saying that he'd be much happier if Peyton Manning and Tim Tebow were dominating the news cycles.
Last edited by a moderator:
GregR
Footballguy
I believe this was the case, that the NFL didn't go public with it until they were notifying the rest of the league of the investigation. At which point someone would have leaked it, so might as well just release it yourself where you can have some control. At least then you can set the tone of discussion about it and avoid speculation that makes people think it was worse than it was.
massraider
Footballguy
Was his other option NOT telling anyone why he was about to suspend a coach?
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
What did you think of LeBatard's article?'massraider said:
Doug B
Footballguy
He had some other options:a) a repeat of the sotto voce league-wide warnings of 2010, this time with penalties explicitly spelled out.'massraider said:
b) another approach entirely: make the initial investigations into NFL bounty and/or "pay for big plays" systems public back in 2010, fine/penalize any franchises that were then involved (well less than current Saints penalties, though), and carry on.
Although with the opportunity to execute (b) above passed, the league may have painted itself into a corner once the Saints' insider came forward with new information in 2011.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
So, do I take it now that the Saints fan base has shifted their cognitive dissonance now over to Goodell and that this is all done as part of creating the perception of valuing player safety? I see DougB and others go on record as saying "Yeah, I suppose what they did was wrong." Then, the argument goes on to deflect blame by blaming everyone else.
Blame Goodell.
Act like bounties aren't that bad.
Act like everybody does them.
Blame Goodell.
Compare Vilma offering $10,000 bounty on Favre to the behavior of all-time greats, such as Deacon Jones, Ronnie Lott, Jack Tatum, and **** Butkis.
Ignore the conspiracy to conceal the program.
Blame the culture of wussies and soccer moms who have Sallied up the sport because we can't incentivize cart offs.
Blame Goodell.
Does that about sum it up? Because if all of this is accurate, This is a serious martyr complex.
Blame Goodell.
Act like bounties aren't that bad.
Act like everybody does them.
Blame Goodell.
Compare Vilma offering $10,000 bounty on Favre to the behavior of all-time greats, such as Deacon Jones, Ronnie Lott, Jack Tatum, and **** Butkis.
Ignore the conspiracy to conceal the program.
Blame the culture of wussies and soccer moms who have Sallied up the sport because we can't incentivize cart offs.
Blame Goodell.
Does that about sum it up? Because if all of this is accurate, This is a serious martyr complex.
Doug B
Footballguy
Quote my posts where I posted any of this, please.My mentions of Deacon Jones, Lott, Tatum, and Butkus asked whether or not their careers and playing styles should be re-evalauted today using current sensibilities about player safety, as championed by Roger Goodell. Those guys are generally regarded as heroes -- should they retain that status based on what we know now about injuries and what we feel now about promoting player safety?
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Yes, of course they should retain that status. They would hold up just fine in today's NFL, most in part because they had nobility and character and would adapt just fine to changes in the game to make very reasonable measures to protect player safety.Can't link on iPad for some reason, but there is a great article on ESPN about retired players' reactions to the Saints. You should read it.
Doug B
Footballguy
Okay. I agree that they should be judged by the standards of the times.What this entire thread is about is that those standards are changing, and changing so rapidly that not everyone involved with the game is able to adjust.
I think you're making the mistake of filtering everything a Saints fan posts through a Bounty-gate lens.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Re-reading your post, I'm not sure how anyone would come away with anythin but your implication that these greats intended to injure other players, but they just hid it better. Thus, players like Vilma are no different except for the fact that they are playing in Goodell's NFL and should have not gotten caught.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Thank you.
Doug B
Footballguy
Not even hidden. Jones' head slap was a legal maneuver at the time. Butkus (and, earlier, Night Train Lane and others) used the then-legal clothesline tackle. The point being that injurious violence was inherent inthe game. The rules of the game curtailed a lot of that stuff, but I'd posit that that same ethic of "submission through violence" has been carrying through the NFL until recent times.One area that I know we'll never see eye-to-eye on is the relevance of any difference between "intent to injure" and "intent to hurt, intent to knock out of a game". I simply don't accept that old-school types actually wrung their hands over an opponent that left a game with cracked ribs or a separated shoulder. If we're putting injuries in a hierarchy, and accepting torso injuries as "OK" but head and knee injuries as "egregious" ... then I agree that the old-school greats generally avoided the more crippling injuries (excepting Jones' head slap, which wasn't on-the-spot crippling but obviously contributed to the now-understood repetitive head trauma).
No. Far from my point.
Doug B
Footballguy
This article is an excellent contribution to the thread. Maybe the "culture war" has been fought in small, individual ways over time.That said, cobalt, not sure why you aimed that article at me -- "former players are cool with it!" was never, ever something I advanced. Please don't throw us all in a hat.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
It was aimed more at Saints fans in general, as oppsed to you in particular. My sense has been that you've been conflicted on this, but at least haven't fully gone around blaming everybody else and minimizing what the Saints did, which has been more problematic for other Saints fans.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
I got to meet Deacon Jones and his wife in Southern California by accident, went straight for the head slap question. He was honest and said he did everything he could to force the NFL to create rules against that type of play. Meaning he knew what he was doing. I'm almost sure the NFL outlawed the head slap because of folks like Deacon Jones but maybe my NFL history is a bit off.
The bottom line for some of us is we do not believe Roger Goodell is truly concerned about player safety and we simply are calling a spade a spade. Does it mean we are 100% right? It's an opinion...I feel it is rooted in many truths however that said I totally understand the outrage by some posters over what New Orleans did. I get that some folks were shocked...too many casual fans as stated in the OP so of course this was front page news for some of them..."Look Dan, some of these guys were actually headhunting!"
And don't take this the wrong way folks but quite frankly the fact so many think Goodell is a God does nothing to deter us from expressing our opinions. I feel he has turned the game into something different than what I grew up watching and not by a little but a lot. You can feel different but it doesn't change our opinions and doesn't make you more right because you might be on the majority side for now. I think eventually folks will wake up and eventually more folks will write about this in the press.
The bottom line for some of us is we do not believe Roger Goodell is truly concerned about player safety and we simply are calling a spade a spade. Does it mean we are 100% right? It's an opinion...I feel it is rooted in many truths however that said I totally understand the outrage by some posters over what New Orleans did. I get that some folks were shocked...too many casual fans as stated in the OP so of course this was front page news for some of them..."Look Dan, some of these guys were actually headhunting!"
And don't take this the wrong way folks but quite frankly the fact so many think Goodell is a God does nothing to deter us from expressing our opinions. I feel he has turned the game into something different than what I grew up watching and not by a little but a lot. You can feel different but it doesn't change our opinions and doesn't make you more right because you might be on the majority side for now. I think eventually folks will wake up and eventually more folks will write about this in the press.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
1. Right about what? 2. The press will write about what?
I have not met Goodell, but am close to folks in neurology/neuropsychology who have. There is no question in their mind that he gets it when it comes to the concussion/head injury aspect of player safety. His predecessor, unfortunately, didn't give a hoot. But, what you see with Goodell on concussions is not window dressing or press appeasing. This is pretty legit.
If that's your beef with Goodell, that he's changed the game in a reasonable way to protect players in simple ways, then you belong in the minority, and it's best that you stay there. It's a serious issue, and those who are not serious about it can go find another sport to follow.
Doug B
Footballguy
You (and many others) have been giving me a lot to think about.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
You're just being a goof, that's cool. You can't possibly be this dense. First of all, can I take your hand and help you step down from that pedestal you are trying to put Roger Goodell on? You are trying to demonize posters who are not praising Goodell and instead see him for what he truly is. The OP shows that I clearly want player safety and while the idea that I have been pushing for a while revolves around player weights, it has just as much to do with the harmful things they do to these athletes going all the way back to when they enter college. Yeah, 200 lb "athletes" get put on a weight program that pushes many of them well over 300 lbs before they enter the NFL. Jay Ratliff weighted about 200 lbs when he entered college and was almost 300 when he left. Is that natural? Is that a serious enough issue to possibly grab the attention of someone as focused on player safety as you Cobalt? Your ammo on here is to act like you don't understand a word from the poster you are combating with and then just blasting your POV and acting as if it is the only logical way of thinking. To post something that says to folks "Go find another sport to follow"...that is some pretty self righteousness.
It was entertaining but you don't seriously believe that folks who are raising questions about Goodell's sincerity for player safety are wishing pain and injury to NFL players do you? Like I said you can't possibly be that dense, it's gotta be schtick.
GregR
Footballguy
Do you think that he's less concerned with it than previous NFL management was? If so, why?And could you share your thoughts on the rule changes that have gone into affect since Goodell became commissioner and how they fit into your conclusion that he isn't concerned about player safety? Here's a timeline: http://nflhealthandsafety.com/commitment/evolution/
Last edited by a moderator:
wazoo11
Footballguy
Yeah, the same commish who fought tooth and nail to keep chris nowinski away from talking to the media about his book on concussions in 2007.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
I think "great commissioner" is an inherent contradiction in terms.
Ironically, I think this is what others have been saying about your posts.'Ministry of Pain said:
Yes, the game has changed. You may not like that it reduces your enterainment value (although many of us still enjoy it greatly in its current form), but I think most of us believe that a player's health outweighs your entertainment. And I'm pretty sure that those changes would be made regardless of who the commissioner is because ignoring the health risks is just not something the NFL can do anymore. Goodell is taking it seriously and regardless of what you may think of his methods, enforcing player safety is his responsibility.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Who thinks Goodell is a God?I think a lot of people feel he is a good commimsh and is doing things that will be good for the game going forward.I think he is truly concerned about player safety...but it stems more from $$$. His league and his behind are on the line when it comes to that stuff. They can't keep putting out a product that ends with older players coming back asking for more $$$ because of the injuries sustained.He is trying to do something on the front end rather than just keep paying on the back end.And its hilarious how so many talked about sissification of the game and what older players would have thought...and now it seems the older players are agreeing with much of what is happening in the game to get rid of some of the plays that were bad for the players in the end.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Especially after the talk by so many that older players would be so pissed at how the game is changing and would think that the Saints type of thing was just normal talk.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
I agree with very little of the original post. But I do think there is a lot of piling on going on here. Somebody is going to get hurt. 
MOP is entitled to his opinion, and his tone wasn't the worst I've ever seen by a long shot.
One thing that always surprises me is that folks seem surprised that the man responsible for managing/promoting/protecting an organization collectively worth what - 40 BILLION dollars? - is all about the money. OF COURSE he's all about the money. The organization is all about the money too, as is damn near every company in the world. But in this case, protecting players (to whatever degree folks think that is really happening), falls into the good business decision category.
The NFL is as fun to watch now as it ever was IMO, maybe more. And if the NFL loses some of the "hard core" fans (which for most of them I very seriously doubt, no matter how much they #####), while picking up 3X that many in casual fans, that's a trade they are going to make every time.
In the grand scheme of things, a mangled knee is not a big deal compared to a mushy brain. Players don't appreciate that when they are playing, because they are thinking short term (as most young guys do). All in all, I think the push that is going on right now is about as good as can be expected. It's not perfect (or consistent, which is frustrating), but it's probably necessary.
MOP is entitled to his opinion, and his tone wasn't the worst I've ever seen by a long shot.
One thing that always surprises me is that folks seem surprised that the man responsible for managing/promoting/protecting an organization collectively worth what - 40 BILLION dollars? - is all about the money. OF COURSE he's all about the money. The organization is all about the money too, as is damn near every company in the world. But in this case, protecting players (to whatever degree folks think that is really happening), falls into the good business decision category.
The NFL is as fun to watch now as it ever was IMO, maybe more. And if the NFL loses some of the "hard core" fans (which for most of them I very seriously doubt, no matter how much they #####), while picking up 3X that many in casual fans, that's a trade they are going to make every time.
In the grand scheme of things, a mangled knee is not a big deal compared to a mushy brain. Players don't appreciate that when they are playing, because they are thinking short term (as most young guys do). All in all, I think the push that is going on right now is about as good as can be expected. It's not perfect (or consistent, which is frustrating), but it's probably necessary.
Ksquared
Footballguy
I think the issue with MOPs opinion is the certainty he has of the "evil/only caring about the $$$" Goodell is without ever meeting him. As HS said, he is about protecting the company into the future. What turns me off is some how a person that has never met Goodell knows that he really does not care about player safety it is just all about the $$. The two positions are not mutually exclusive, but MOP obviously thinks they are and I don't.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Exactly. Any of us who consume football 365 days per year would qualify as hardcore fans. I am certainly one of them and have enjoyed football as far back as the mid -70s. The game is in no better shape now than ever before. Not without it's issues, some of which are systemic to the business aspect (incessant commercials, exclusive DirecTV contract, etc) that are not consumer friendly. But, for now, that's why the red zone channel exists. The physical style of play still exists, should exist, and is part of why I love the game. But, there are sensible rules that Goodell has spearheaded that do a lot to put limits on this physical play that protect the core assets (players) a little more and remove a little of the Neanderthal element exemplified by Gregg Williams, Jonathan Vilma, and the rest of the Saints players and coaches who either promoted injuries beyond metaphor ("kill the head and the body will die") and made them an integral piece of game day strategy (urging players to attack Crabtree's ACL, specifically targeting cheap shots to the head in a pile after the play is over to exacerbate a preexisting concussion, etc) or passively stood by and allowed it to happen.Not sure why any self-proclaimed football fan would take issue with these changes to the culture to clean this up.I agree with very little of the original post. But I do think there is a lot of piling on going on here. Somebody is going to get hurt.
Doug B
Footballguy
Forgetting the Saints angle for a moment:That article kind of does beg the question, though -- were any of these older players working to promote NFL player safety back int he 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s? To name one -- Mike Webster's condition was known long ago, and known by several high-profile 70s teammates who had a great platform to publicly promote player safety. Fred Dryer himself was a television star in the 1980s ... he also had a great platform from which to speak out. Peter Rozelle could have been pressured long ago to start the ball rolling on player safety.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
How did he exactly fight tooth and nail for this? Goodell was, like tags before him, skeptical and uninformed about concussions in the early part of 2000. This much seems to be true based on my colleagues who presented data to the NFL about 8 years ago or so. But, I was unaware of his attempts to conceal the issue.Anyway, since that time, he has been an essential/integral part of changing the culture and conditions in a tangible way to prevent and manage head injuries. This is just an undeniable fact. He has done a tremendous job in this regard. Whatever ignorance he and the powers that be within the NFL showed early on has evolved a fll 180 degrees to the extent that now the NFL is doing more to promote research, player safety, and filter this model down to the college, high school, and youth leagues. I cannot say enough about how important Goodell has been in making this initiative (concussion/head injury specific) a reality.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Probably not as much then as the long term effects were not as well known as they are becoming these days.That and some former players suffering those effects may not have seen the $$$ signs yet in their eyes as they do now that the league is making as much as it is.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The players.
I would like to ask you all something:
I don't know what you make or how old you are (see above about the issue about players' ages having a role) and I don't care and it does not belong here etc.
But one story is supposedly players getting paid $1,000-$1,500 ("$1,000 for knocking opponents out of the game and $1,500 if the player had to be taken off in a cart").
Another story is Williams offering $10,000 to knock out Favre and on another occasion (with the REDSKINS, but never mind that) offering $15,000 to knock out Brad Johnson (more than Favre!?).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203370604577263580381162426.html
http://atlanta.sbnation.com/atlanta-falcons/2012/3/23/2894954/saints-bounty-scandal-after-schadenfreude-the-fear-of-new-orleans-vs
$1,000 to a guy making $1,000,000 a year is the equivalent of $50 to a guy making $50,000 per year.
$10,000 to a guy making a million is the equivalent of $500 to a guy making $50,000 per year.
Let's say a guy here on this board is (naturally) in a FF league) and let's say he makes $50,000. Let's say the pot for winning that league is $500 and let's say some consolation prize like third place or something is $50.
Let's say you're that guy. Now I ask you, would you CHEAT, COLLUDE, underhandedly conspire to win your league or that third place prize for $500 or $50 (or less if you make less, or maybe more if you make more)?
My guess is you would say a "HELL NO". So if that's true, you wouldn't but an NFL football player would?
Why again?
Last edited by a moderator:
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Is your question more a statement on how you're struggling to come to terms with the fact that this program even existed with the Saints?
Doug B
Footballguy
Explaining, not advocating:His angle is that the bounty payments weren't big enough to change behavior. While this take is very strictly true IMHO, it discounts completely the non-monetary psychological motivation behind any kind of extra prize for performance.
Similar threads
