Hypothetical Situation: You are Jerry Jones in 1993...

[AdamJT13]

... and Jimmy Johnson has just been caught by the NFL having a team employee videotape the Commanders' defensive signals in the first game of the season.

Commissioner Paul Tagliabue fines you $250,000, fines Jimmy $500,000 and lets you choose one of the following other forms of punishment --

a) Jimmy Johnson gets suspended for five games and can have no contact with the team during that time period.

— or —

b) Your team loses its first-round draft pick if it qualifies for the playoffs, or its second- and third-round picks if it misses the playoffs.

Which option would you choose?

Personally, I would have chosen option B. I wouldn't have wanted to risk derailing our season just to save a future draft choice. And that would have been true even if Emmitt had signed before the season. Remember, Emmitt was unsigned and missed the first two games that season. The other thing to remember is that the salary cap was coming in 1994, and we had a lot of players who were going to become free agents, including Ken Norton, Kevin Gogan, Jimmie Jones and Tony Casillas — all of whom we lost. Without a first-round pick (who ended up being Shante Carver), we would have had a little more cap room to try to re-sign one of those free agents.

Does anyone agree or disagree? Would losing Jimmy Johnson for five weeks during that season — no practices, meetings, games or anything — have been less of a punishment than losing a first-round draft choice? Or would you rather keep the pick and go without Jimmy for a while?

 

[NMfan]

I think I would rather lose Jimmy Johnson than the draft picks. We had two good coordinators to keep things going.

The Draft picks were still signed. They were probably going to be cheaper than free agents.

I am basing this on not knowing that Carver will be a bust but what would I have done at the time.

 

[Big Dakota]

I agree, i'd take the draft pick loss.

Good thread Adam, because most Cowboys fans can't or won't be honest and admit if this were the Boys they'd say that stealing signals was no big deal and would be applauding the commish's decision.

 

[lane]

I think I would rather lose Jimmy Johnson than the draft picks. We had two good coordinators to keep things going.

The Draft picks were still signed. They were probably going to be cheaper than free agents.

I am basing this on not knowing that Carver will be a bust but what would I have done at the time.

jimmy was nothing more than the enforcer.

norv, dave and joe were the coaches of those teams.

 

[VACowboy]

I take the suspension, no question.

 

[blindzebra]

Draft pick, no question...it's a no-brainer.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Low first round picks are not that valuable when you consider the grouping each team does of that year's talent pool. Typically there will be 8-10 true blue chippers and then a group from 10-40 players, 40-70, etc.

There is NOTHING to stop the Pats from packaging their 2nd round pick or a mid round pick to trade up and get a player they target in the draft next year.

The sad fact is it's a slap on the wrist as far as football punishment goes. It is a hefty fine for Belichik personally but in the operating budget of the 3rd most valuable franchise in the NFL, $250,000 is a traffic ticket. Ridiculous. Goodell let his personal friendship with Kraft affect his judgment.

 

[blindzebra]

What is missing in that hypothetical is that we'd have 2 firsts, a second and two thirds in the 94 draft and the pick we'd be keeping is likely to be in the teens.

Anyone giving up Jimmy when we'd still have our full draft picks the next year?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

i realize what youre trying to get at but if the punishment is being handed out to fit the team rather than the crime then that is a problem in and of itself.

i doubt very seriously that most teams would rather give up a first over a coaches suspension.

 

[Hostile]

No hesitation at all. Option B.

 

[AdamJT13]

i realize what youre trying to get at but if the punishment is being handed out to fit the team rather than the crime then that is a problem in and of itself.

Punishment tailored to the criminal rather than the crime happens all of the time. Do you think some home-based business run out of someone's garage would ever be fined $500 million for a white-collar crime?

i doubt very seriously that most teams would rather give up a first over a coaches suspension.

Most teams aren't in the position of being a Super Bowl favorite and being virtually guaranteed to make the playoffs, thereby not being at much of a risk of ever losing that No. 1 pick.

And as Blindzebra said, most teams aren't already stockpiled with extra early draft picks next year, either.

 

[THUMPER]

Jimmy was one of the best game-day coaches in the game. Yes we had good coordinators but come game-day, it was Jimmy who ran the show and made the decisions.

I would give up the draft choice(s) in a heartbeat rather than lose Jimmy for a significant part of the season. Even losing one game that you would have won can mean the difference between making the playoffs and missing them. We only finished 1 game ahead of the Giants that season (thanks to Emmitt on both ends of the season) and had home field throughout the playoffs. Would you have rather faced the Packers in Green Bay and the 49ERs at Candlestick? Not me.

They should have suspended Belichick for 8 games and not allowed him any contact with the team during that time (to the best of their ability to enforce that) as well as take their day-1 pick.

 

[LeonDixson]

I'd take the loss of the draft pick in a heartbeat over losing Johnson for 5 games. I still think the hypothetical suspension should be longer than 5 games though in the interest of fairness. Wade got 5 games for something that cannot impact the outcome of the game. Cheating on the playing field should garner more than 5 games.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Punishment tailored to the criminal rather than the crime happens all of the time. Do you think some home-based business run out of someone's garage would ever be fined $500 million for a white-collar crime?



Most teams aren't in the position of being a Super Bowl favorite and being virtually guaranteed to make the playoffs, thereby not being at much of a risk of ever losing that No. 1 pick.

And as Blindzebra said, most teams aren't already stockpiled with extra early draft picks next year, either.

Ususally there are some sort of sentencing guidelines and then the jurors/presiding judge determines the precise sentence. Its not just some arbitrary nonsense. i think thats the major problem with goodell is he typically just makes it up as he goes along and it leads to gaffes such as this one.

that being said the value of their draft pick they lose is the same whether or not they have another one. the inherent trade value of the player picked at that relative position is the same regardless of whether or not another pick exists. The value of one pick doesnt effect the other other on some sentimental level.

im kinda confused about the whole SB favorites as the they have to make the playoffs in order to lose the first otherwise its a 2nd and a 3rd.

Regardless its not nearly as clearcut as you make it seem. The value of a first round pick is very high as there is nothing more valuable in the NFL and the relative value of a head coach for a few games is ephemeral at best.

Weve all see n what the loss of first round picks can do to a franchise thats aging like we experienced with the Galloway trade adn to me its a no brainer.

Also your analogy would be more aptly placed at about 1995 as the franchises as a whole were in similar states.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Does anyone agree or disagree? Would losing Jimmy Johnson for five weeks during that season — no practices, meetings, games or anything — have been less of a punishment than losing a first-round draft choice? Or would you rather keep the pick and go without Jimmy for a while?

I agree. It's been a similar point I've made throughout the thing. What's to really stop a team from doing this again in a crucial game, like the Super Bowl. If somebody told me you could get a distinct advantage that would help you win the Super Bowl and all it cost was 2 picks and your team $750K, I'd like to see Jones sign up *immediately* for that program.

But hey, we surely are just a bunch overeacting morons who act this way just because we are Pats haters. Or so they tell me.





YAKUZA

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And as for the Jimmy Johnson i present the following for comparison. After 1993 , johnson left and was replaced by Switzer. Switzer took them to the NFC championship game and the Super Bowl.

i think Wannstedt and Turner could handle the boat for 5 games.

Compare that to the Joey galloway trade which lost us two first rounders.

i would contend that the Galloway trade effected us musch worse than losing Johnson did full time.

Then there is the whole issue of the salary cap where the draft allows you to retain quality players on the cheap especially after the top 10.

you guys act as if doing this guaranteed someone enough of an advatage to guarantee a win and that is clearly not the case. Noone is going to take a slight competetive advantage for a guaranteed long term competetive disadvantage unless they have zero sense of risk versus reward.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

I think I would rather lose Jimmy Johnson than the draft picks. We had two good coordinators to keep things going.

The Draft picks were still signed. They were probably going to be cheaper than free agents.

I am basing this on not knowing that Carver will be a bust but what would I have done at the time.

I agree... but honestly... getting caught doing that would have rubbed me the wrong way. It would have diminished our accomplishments.

I always liked that we not only won 3 in 4 years... it was the way we did it. We dominated. Teams couldnt stop us.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

I'd take the loss of the draft pick in a heartbeat over losing Johnson for 5 games. I still think the hypothetical suspension should be longer than 5 games though in the interest of fairness. Wade got 5 games for something that cannot impact the outcome of the game. Cheating on the playing field should garner more than 5 games.

That team could have run on autopilot for a few games. We could have survived withour JJ for a few games.

 

[MetalHead]

*removing thread starter from the people with credibility list.*

 

[AdamJT13]

And as for the Jimmy Johnson i present the following for comparison. After 1993 , johnson left and was replaced by Switzer. Switzer took them to the NFC championship game and the Super Bowl.

That's hardly a good argument. Switzer wasn't thrown at the team all of a sudden as punishment, he had all offseason to prepare the team -- and he didn't get to the Super Bowl in his first season. And most people believe that Jimmy was more responsible for Switzer's success than Switzer was.

i think Wannstedt and Turner could handle the boat for 5 games.

Why, because they've been SO successful as head coaches? And if the coordinators can handle things themselves, then the Patriots shouldn't mind losing Belichick for five games. After all, you've convinced us that having a head coach isn't important. Heck, the Patriots should just suspend Belichick themselves, and they'll get back on everyone's good side.

Compare that to the Joey galloway trade which lost us two first rounders.

i would contend that the Galloway trade effected us musch worse than losing Johnson did full time.

That's debatable -- but the Galloway trade was TWO first-round picks, not one. And the second one ended up being a top-10 pick.

Had the Patriots been stripped of TWO first-round picks -- either both next year or one in 2008 and one in 2009 -- with NO regard for whether they made the playoffs, I'd consider that a MUCH harsher penalty than losing no worse than a late first-round pick. If they start losing because they can't cheat anymore, they should still have to give up their first-round pick. And Belichick should have been suspended, too.