Cowboys | No word on T. Johnson's suspension

[Big Dakota]

YET ANOTHER UPDATE FROM ANOTHER FORUM: Probably won't hear anything till probably Thursday.

It wont matter in all honesty...if he is reinstated this week...he wont play against the Vikings. He will take this game and the bye week to get ready for playing up in good ol' Philly after the bye week.

I attended a online chat with Todd Archer of the Morning News and I asked him that question regarding Tank and he believes that Tank may not get his suspension reduced to 6 games. He believes he will get reduced to only 7 games...not 6...which would have him on the practice field in the bye week.

There is no rush in getting him game ready.

I can see that. Throwing a player a bone because there has been a lot of talk fron current and retired players about the commish not caring about the players but cutting the Pats slack. Make no mistake, that gets back to the commish. Cutting Tanks suspension by 1 game makes him look like he's cutting a player slack. I know Nate has been very critical of Goodell on Talkin Cowboys

 

[DragonCowboy]

I'm glad we signed Tank... but let's get real here.

Would anyone here be lobbying for his sentence to be reduced if he wasn't a Cowboy right now? No, of course not.

If anything, we'd be collectively outraged if the sentence was reduced.

I can hear it:

"How come Wade Wilson had to serve his whole suspension and Tank gets off early? It's an anti-Cowboys conspiracy!"

Seriously.

Why should Tank get his suspension reduced?

Did he do something that I didn't know about?

I doubt his sentence will get reduced, and I really can't blame Goodell (although I can heap a lot of other stuff on him) for it.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Seriously.

Why should Tank get his suspension reduced?

Did he do something that I didn't know about?

I doubt his sentence will get reduced, and I really can't blame Goodell (although I can heap a lot of other stuff on him) for it.

The suspension details things he had to accomplish in order for the suspension to be reduced.

Its readily apparent that Tank and the NFLPA think he has done said things.

Goodell just makes crap up as he goes along so who knows.

 

[DragonCowboy]

The suspension details things he had to accomplish in order for the suspension to be reduced.

Its readily apparent that Tank and the NFLPA think he has done said things.

Goodell just makes crap up as he goes along so who knows.

Oh ok.

See, this stuff I don't know because i'm "ignant"

Thanks!

 

[Dcz84]

I swear people act like it some slam on the Cowboys that he hasn't had his suspension reduced yet.

Not like he got arrested during the suspension. Thrown out? Yes. Still that was a ton of bad press for the league and it is pretty clear that generating bad press for the league is going to bring the hammer.

Not really you can cheat and pretty much nothing is done about it so i guess this rule only applies to the Cowboys.

 

[Jarv]

The suspension details things he had to accomplish in order for the suspension to be reduced.

Its readily apparent that Tank and the NFLPA think he has done said things.

Goodell just makes crap up as he goes along so who knows.

I don't have a problem if Tanks suspension is not reduced. One caveot tho, as long as no other suspension is reduced. Apples to apples is all I ask of from the commish.

 

[sacase]

Godell was supposed to rule on this LAST week. I don't think he is going to be commish very long.

This is the problem when you give all that power to someone and they have free reign to do whatever they want without any guidelines whatsoever. I bet the next time the players go to the CBA there is going to be a huge change.

 

[AbeBeta]

Not really you can cheat and pretty much nothing is done about it so i guess this rule only applies to the Cowboys.

Yeah, nothing is done.

I'm sure the Pats won't miss those draft picks at all. That's pretty much the steepest penalty I've seen any team pay EVER.

 

[AbeBeta]

Godell was supposed to rule on this LAST week. I don't think he is going to be commish very long.

This is the problem when you give all that power to someone and they have free reign to do whatever they want without any guidelines whatsoever. I bet the next time the players go to the CBA there is going to be a huge change.

There is no way in hell that the CBA is going to cover the commish - the players association knows that isn't even an opener.

Also keep in mind -- it was the players who WANTED a crackdown on guys who contributed to the negative image of the league -- the players WANT suspensions for guys who go out and break the law.

And FMI -- how was Goodell "supposed" to rule on this last week? That's the first I've heard of that - he indicated at the start of last week that he wouldn't have a decision that week.

 

[DallasDW00ds0n]

i dont think it would be unfair to make Tank serve the whole suspension.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Yeah, nothing is done.

I'm sure the Pats won't miss those draft picks at all. That's pretty much the steepest penalty I've seen any team pay EVER.

Umm...that would be ONE draft pick.

And it would be the Pats' draft pick (one most likely to be the last in the first round or near to it), and not the 49ers pick which may end up HIGHER than our pick from Cleveland.

That wasn't a stiff penalty, especially if you have TWO first round picks. It's less significant if you're already a SB competing team.

As for the fines, who gives a crap? 500K is nothing for a billionare owner, and 250K is nothing for someone who gets paid close to 5 million a year and got extended with more money as a result of cheating!

The penalty is laughable, just like the commish is.

 

[Verdict]

Yeah, nothing is done.

I'm sure the Pats won't miss those draft picks at all. That's pretty much the steepest penalty I've seen any team pay EVER.

That is true, in part, but if Wade Phillips had committed the infraction he would have been suspended at leat 5 games because "Coaches must be held to a higher standard".

 

[AbeBeta]

Umm...that would be ONE draft pick.

And it would be the Pats' draft pick (one most likely to be the last in the first round or near to it), and not the 49ers pick which may end up HIGHER than our pick from Cleveland.

That wasn't a stiff penalty, especially if you have TWO first round picks. It's less significant if you're already a SB competing team.

As for the fines, who gives a crap? 500K is nothing for a billionare owner, and 250K is nothing for someone who gets paid close to 5 million a year and got extended with more money as a result of cheating!

The penalty is laughable, just like the commish is.

First, having two first round picks it TOTALLY irrelevant. They TRADED for one of them. T

The pick is the huge penalty -- please tell me the last time a team received a penalty that harsh and we'll talk. Otherwise you have no case.

 

[AbeBeta]

That is true, in part, but if Wade Phillips had committed the infraction he would have been suspended at leat 5 games because "Coaches must be held to a higher standard".

Yawn.

Still whining about Wilson. He got what he deserved.

 

[SultanOfSix]

First, having two first round picks it TOTALLY irrelevant. They TRADED for one of them. T

The pick is the huge penalty -- please tell me the last time a team received a penalty that harsh and we'll talk. Otherwise you have no case.

Why is it irrelevant? Because you say so?

Losing a first round pick hurts your team. But, it has a significantly greater impact if it's your only one. And it has an even greater impact if it's a high first round pick. In the Pats case, they won't be suffering either of the latter two scenarios. It's like they'll lose nothing when compared to what a team gets every year.

Please tell me the last time a team blatantly cheated such that it has caused questions concerning the integrity of the game, and then get back to me so we can have some precedent to base it on. Sheesh.

 

[zekecee]

Koren Robinson was re-instated..My Goodell is in a giving mood!!!

 

[AbeBeta]

Why is it irrelevant? Because you say so?

Losing a first round pick hurts your team. But, it has a significantly greater impact if it's your only one. And it has an even greater impact if it's a high first round pick. In the Pats case, they won't be suffering either of the latter two scenarios. It's like they'll lose nothing when compared to what a team gets every year.

Please tell me the last time a team blatantly cheated such that it has caused questions concerning the integrity of the game, and then get back to me so we can have some precedent to base it on. Sheesh.

They traded for the pick -- you can't base a penalty on whether someone made a draft day trade or not. Gee, we were going to take away a pick but since you made a smart move and got another pick, we have to up the penalty. Yeah, right.

Please tell me where the evidence is that the cheating HELPED the team win. The league can't establish exactly how the information was used or if they gained any real advantage over and above what you get from legal sign stealing practices.

Like a stopped clock, you are right about something a couple of times a day -- you are correct that there is NO precedent. There is no precedent and these are UNPRECEDENTED penalties - the LARGEST fine ever for a coach and this is the biggest draft pick penalty I can recall

 

[SultanOfSix]

A penalty is only harsh if it affects someone significantly. In other words, it's a releative term.

If I make 100K per year, and I get fined for half of it, then I'm going to consider it a harsh penalty. But, if I get fined 500K and I'm a billionare, which is the amount of interest I earn in a week, it's not going to affect me at all, and I probably would laugh in your face if you called it harsh.

The Pats' penalty may be harsh if you look at it in a VACUUM, but if you take into consideration the context, it's really insignificant.

They lose a first round pick. Big deal. They already have one, and it will be higher than the one they lose. A billionare is out 500K. He'll gain it back in a week. Whoopadeedoo. A multi-millionare head coach is out 250K, but he got an extension and more money as a result!

The penalty had no NEGATIVE impact on the games played this year because Belicheat got no suspension whatsoever, and probably will never in the future either unless the first round pick that they lost generates a high performing player which is unlikely because it's PURE speculation.

 

[AbeBeta]

A penalty is only harsh if it affects someone significantly. In other words, it's a releative term.

If I make 100K per year, and I get fined for half of it, then I'm going to consider it a harsh penalty. But, if I get fined 500K and I'm a billionare, which is the amount of interest I earn in a week, it's not going to affect me at all, and I probably would laugh in your face if you called it harsh.

The Pats' penalty may be harsh if you look at it in a VACUUM, but if you take into consideration the context, it's really insignificant.

They lose a first round pick. Big deal. They already have one, and it will be higher than the one they lose. A billionare is out 500K. He'll gain it back in a week. Whoopadeedoo. A multi-millionare head coach is out 250K, but he got an extension and more money as a result!

The penalty had no NEGATIVE impact on the games played this year because Belicheat got no suspension whatsoever, and probably will never in the future either unless the first round pick that they lost generates a high performing player which is unlikely because it's PURE speculation.

Largest fine EVER. That's relative.

First round pick. The most valuable draft day commodity. That's relative.

 

[ajk23az]

Largest fine EVER. That's relative.

First round pick. The most valuable draft day commodity. That's relative.

Not when the Commish knows they have 2 1st rd picks, one gonna be in the top 10 it looks like.

Largest fine ever, ill give you that, but what is 500k for Kraft? If they signed someone for a year and gave them a 500k salary, youd think thats piddly winks.