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

[AdamJT13]

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

Feel free. You never were on mine.

And I don't think you know the meaning of the word "credibility."

 

[JBond]

AdamJT13
I enjoyed your thoughtful posts and cap updates for six or seven years now here and on another board in the past. Thank you.

I'm disappointed in the leader of the NFL. I believed the punishment dealt to Wade Wilson was harsh (for the very personal reasons he did it) but Wade didn't complain. I expected at least a 8 game suspension along with fines and lost of draft picks based on how he has handed out suspensions and fines as of late.

Just to clarify, I don't believe BB did anything most teams haven't tried to do in the past. His issue was he was defiant. The NFL sent a major memo out towards the end of August stating they were going to look for this type of activity. King BB chose to ignore it or believed the press clippings of him being a football genius. Eric Mangini(sp) was in contact with the NFL six months ago according to ESPN and several other sources.

The Pats sure scored a lot of points in the second half of games and there are many players quoted after playing the Pats saying Tom B. and company seemed to know whatever they were going to do.

 

[Tusan_Homichi]

I'd take the suspension every day of the week and twice on Sunday. We would have been fine.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

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.

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.

First of all punishment or not Switzer isnt half the coach that johnson was and yet he performed only slightly less successfully. Wannstedt and turner were already setting up game plans etc and all the personnel decisions for the most part were already made.

i just think you are grossly overestimating the impact of the head coahc especially in comparison to the talent even moreso talent that can be found in the first round of the draft.

im well aware that 2 1st would be a much harsher penalty. My point wsa that it was the drafts that caused the downfall of the franchise and nothing to do with head coaching.

And if youre so interested in how the pats operate look at there draft history. They are always trying to keep 2 1sts every year and by taking away one of them you completely destroy their primary draft strategy which is centered around having 2 number ones. they cant trade out of the first anymore to keep stockpiling and still get a first round talent and they cannot package the picks to get someone really good. They are hamstrung from what they typically try and do.

Also look at the success rate the team has had since they drafted seymour in the first round. i think theyve missed once since then.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Why, (Wanstadt/Turner)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.

You cant equate their later coaching careers with filling in for a few games during RING Dynasty.




For the record... I see what you were trying to do with this thread. A different angle, perspective.

 

[5mics]

... 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?

Up until now, I've agreed w/ Goodell's rulings. Unfortunately, this recent incident shows the cracks in the commissioner's armor. Ultimately, Goodell still works FOR the owners and his ruling shows it. He should have also suspended Belichek, but just did not have the n@!$ to pull the trigger. The "Sheriff" just lost some of his luster.....

I would chose option B. Try to win it "now", damn the future...which is exactly what the Patriots did w/ a little help from the Commish.....

 

[AdamJT13]

For the record... I see what you were trying to do with this thread. A different angle, perspective.

It was just something that came up in an e-mail exchange I had with Rick Gosselin, and I wanted to see what people thought -- whether losing a late first-round pick was worse than or not as bad as losing an elite head coach for five games during a season in which the team is one of the Super Bowl favorites.

 

[blindzebra]

I think it's clear that if you have a team with championship talent and a good coach, disrupting the season is far worse than losing a late first.

If you are a bad team, with an average coach, obviously a first round pick has much more value.

Factor in that NE had 2 firsts, a second and 2 thirds it's a no brainer which punishment would hurt worse...it isn't even debatable.

 

[Big Dakota]

I think it's clear that if you have a team with championship talent and a good coach, disrupting the season is far worse than losing a late first.

If you are a bad team, with an average coach, obviously a first round pick has much more value.

Factor in that NE had 2 firsts, a second and 2 thirds it's a no brainer which punishment would hurt worse...it isn't even debatable.

It seems clear, but some would rather have a "David the Flower" than their HOF coach during a SB run

 

[Tusan_Homichi]

I think it's clear that if you have a team with championship talent and a good coach, disrupting the season is far worse than losing a late first.

If you are a bad team, with an average coach, obviously a first round pick has much more value.

Factor in that NE had 2 firsts, a second and 2 thirds it's a no brainer which punishment would hurt worse...it isn't even debatable.

I'm not so sure though. Losing a draft pick has a long term effect on your franchise. If the Patriots lose BB for 5 games, they're still going to be 3-2,4-1, or 5-0 because they're talented and have a good coaching staff. Their wheels aren't going to come completely off and their Super Bowl hopes would not go down the toilet.

It'll still be the same team running the same schemes.

 

[AdamJT13]

I'm not so sure though. Losing a draft pick has a long term effect on your franchise.

Not necessarily. Just look at the success rate of players drafted between Nos. 21 and 32.

And we didn't have first-round picks in 1993 or 1995 and won the Super Bowl after the 19995 season. The Broncos didn't have first-round picks in 1994 or 1995, and they won Super Bowls after the 1997 and 1998 seasons. The Colts didn't have a first-round pick in 2004, and they won the Super Bowl after the 2006 season. That wasn't much of a long-term effect on those teams.

If the Patriots lose BB for 5 games, they're still going to be 3-2,4-1, or 5-0 because they're talented and have a good coaching staff. Their wheels aren't going to come completely off and their Super Bowl hopes would not go down the toilet.

It'll still be the same team running the same schemes.

All the more reason for Goodell to suspend Belichick. It strengthens the message without hurting the Patriots more than "a little."

 

[Spectre]

... 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?

It's easy to say that about that specific year...
the other side of the fence is what if it were the season before we drafted Aikman?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not necessarily. Just look at the success rate of players drafted between Nos. 21 and 32.

And we didn't have first-round picks in 1993 or 1995 and won the Super Bowl after the 19995 season. The Broncos didn't have first-round picks in 1994 or 1995, and they won Super Bowls after the 1997 and 1998 seasons. The Colts didn't have a first-round pick in 2004, and they won the Super Bowl after the 2006 season. That wasn't much of a long-term effect on those teams.




All the more reason for Goodell to suspend Belichick. It strengthens the message without hurting the Patriots more than "a little."

How about you look at the success rate of the Pats first rounders over the last 7 years since your saying that looking at team specific punishments. I think there worst rounders in that span was Watson and hes not a bad player. You keep on acting like first rounders arent valuable but teams have traded the likes of Parcells for a first rounder and that was for full time.

jerry was trading down in those years and was picking up relative value. He did not just lose those draft picks like it would be in this situation. At the same time you fast forward to 1997 and it was readily apparent that the lack of talent coming on from the draft was beginning to take its toll. Then there was the infamous Galloway trade which was the proverbial nail in the coffin.

They could no longer ride the succes of those early 90s drafts 8 years later.

The bottomline is that losing the HoF coach didnt cause our fall from grace but rather the lack of first round picks did.

 

[AdamJT13]

It's easy to say that about that specific year...
the other side of the fence is what if it were the season before we drafted Aikman?

Aikman was the No. 1 pick. The Patriots are in NO danger of losing a high draft pick. If they miss the playoffs (which, in my mind, is even more incriminating and more reason to punish them), they get to keep their first-round pick and have to give up only their second- and third-round picks.

 

[AdamJT13]

The bottomline is that losing the HoF coach didnt cause our fall from grace but rather the lack of first round picks did.

No, bad drafting in the first round (Carver, LaFleur and Ekuban), losing MULTIPLE first-round picks, losing the architect of our Super Bowl teams, some bad injury luck (Erik Williams, Michael Irvin) and the failure to develop replacements for our aging stars led to it.

Losing just one first-round pick when we had an elite team wouldn't have had any huge effect at all. I'm sure we could have won all three Super Bowls without Robert Jones or Super Bowl XXX without Shante Carver.

 

[big dog cowboy]

I'm sure we could have won all three Super Bowls without Robert Jones or Super Bowl XXX without Shante Carver.

Great thread Adam.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, bad drafting in the first round (Carver, LaFleur and Ekuban), losing MULTIPLE first-round picks, losing the architect of our Super Bowl teams, some bad injury luck (Erik Williams, Michael Irvin) and the failure to develop replacements for our aging stars led to it.

Losing just one first-round pick when we had an elite team wouldn't have had any huge effect at all. I'm sure we could have won all three Super Bowls without Robert Jones or Super Bowl XXX without Shante Carver.

i think the fact that the Jets traded a first rounder for Bill Parcells full time for a first rounder gives a pretty good indication of relative value ofa HoF coach and a first rounder. That team went to the SB in 1995.

In and of itself that was not the case but again the goal here should not be to destroy the franchise but rather have a tangible impact that is meaningful and dissuades other teams from doing likewise.

My entire point is that we lost Jimmy Johson full time and replaced him with Barry friggin Switzer yet we got a SB and were one bad PI call from two SB. Suspending Belichek for regualr season games has little tangible impact. Again a first round draft pick is the most valued commodity in the NFL.

 

[Sarge]

I'd take the loss of the draft pick.

Losing your coach and having no contact with him for nearly 1/3 of the year is too disruptive to the team. In 1993, a first round pick was not nearly as important to us as it has been the past few years.

 

[ZeroClub]

I'd take the loss of the draft pick.

Losing your coach and having no contact with him for nearly 1/3 of the year is too disruptive to the team. In 1993, a first round pick was not nearly as important to us as it has been the past few years.

Yup. I agree 100%

 

[DallasEast]

The second option. Every Super Bowl, each year, is THE goal. Pooling all of your resources into that singular effort, especially if you're trying to repeat, should be the primary action. The next year can take care of itself and you can consider your draft AND free agency alternatives for eight months before the draft.