Josh Brent met with Roger

[TheRomoSexual]

The only brain that matters is Goodell's brain and the precedent has been set. It's pretty black and white to me.

But to you its blue and silver. There's the disconnect.

Yes, keep ignoring the fact that Goodell has always considered time served as equivalent to a suspension. Care to put your money where your mouth is? I bet you $100 that Brent's suspension is half a season or less.

 

[Idgit]

No I hear you. I'm really talking about the last sentence. Why are we diving through fire hoops to bring in a starting 1 tech? That is sad by itself.

Honestly, I think this is one Jerry has taken on personally, though I'm not sure why. Somebody in the organization is behind the support, though. Or they all are. And I think it's not entirely about football, too.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

Some fans have held that perception for decades. It's not something new.

What is a more recent perception is the belief in a standard cause-and-effect for punishing players. Some observers believe that the league should discipline players on a strict type of infraction basis. For example, smoking weed should equal ________ suspension, domestic abuse should equal _______ suspension, vehicular manslaughter should equal _________ suspension, etc. In other words, a codified infraction system similar to legal misdemeanors and felonies.

Such a system does not exist in the NFL. The NFL Personal Conduct policy provides the commissioner with wide latitude in dispensing punishment. No two similar incidents of player stupidity will always equate to similar punishments. Those wishing or even demanding standard punishments are wasting their time and will continue to do so as long as the current policy is in place. In this instance, Josh Brent's ultimate punishment may mirror that of a previous punishment handed down to another player, but there is no guarantee of that actually happening.

Personally, I'm glad that is the case. Let everyone, especially the players, gnash their teeth before and/or after the decision is made. Maybe the anguish will somehow influence players from committing unnecessary and completely preventable nonsense in the future. One can only hope.

Great post.

 

[BigStar]

Some fans have held that perception for decades. It's not something new.

What is a more recent perception is the belief in a standard cause-and-effect for punishing players. Some observers believe that the league should discipline players on a strict type of infraction basis. For example, smoking weed should equal ________ suspension, domestic abuse should equal _______ suspension, vehicular manslaughter should equal _________ suspension, etc. In other words, a codified infraction system similar to legal misdemeanors and felonies.

Such a system does not exist in the NFL. The NFL Personal Conduct policy provides the commissioner with wide latitude in dispensing punishment. No two similar incidents of player stupidity will always equate to similar punishments. Those wishing or even demanding standard punishments are wasting their time and will continue to do so as long as the current policy is in place. In this instance, Josh Brent's ultimate punishment may mirror that of a previous punishment handed down to another player, but there is no guarantee of that actually happening.

Personally, I'm glad that is the case. Let everyone, especially the players, gnash their teeth before and/or after the decision is made. Maybe the anguish will somehow influence players from committing unnecessary and completely preventable nonsense in the future. One can only hope.

Love your posts usually but a dirty weed test never killed anybody. Why are we acting like killing someone by your own destructive behavior is the equivalent of testing positive for erb or coke (effects no one outside of themselves unless arrested) That makes no sense and we are being willingly ignorant to excuse this certain circumstance (and we know it). Let him earn on another team...

 

[DallasEast]

I post this link from time-to-time:

http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/2012 Personal Conduct Policy.pdf

Not many people pay attention to it though.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

Love your posts usually but a dirty weed test never killed anybody. Why are we acting like killing someone by your own destructive behavior is the equivalent of testing positive for erb or coke (effects no one outside of themselves unless arrested) That makes no sense and we are being willingly ignorant to excuse this certain circumstance (and we know it). Let him earn on another team...

Dude, did you even read his post?

 

[jobberone]

Love your posts usually but a dirty weed test never killed anybody. Why are we acting like killing someone by your own destructive behavior is the equivalent of testing positive for erb or coke (effects no one outside of themselves unless arrested) That makes no sense and we are being willingly ignorant to excuse this certain circumstance (and we know it). Let him earn on another team...

DWI includes mj and coke. Accidents due to DWI are on the increase esp in states like CO and that's due to weed esp.

 

[Tabascocat]

DWI includes mj and coke. Accidents due to DWI are on the increase esp in states like CO and that's due to weed esp.

Is that speculation or fact? I haven't seen any studies on that yet and was wondering if weed(excluding alcohol) had any influence on that.

 

[Risen Star]

Yes, keep ignoring the fact that Goodell has always considered time served as equivalent to a suspension. Care to put your money where your mouth is? I bet you $100 that Brent's suspension is half a season or less.

I have no idea what he'll do as this commish flies by the seat of his pants but to remain consistent he would have to suspend him for a year.

You are suspended for your conviction not for your charge.

I'll bet you one meeeelion dollars you wouldn't have this stance on Brent if he played for another team.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

I have no idea what he'll do as this commish flies by the seat of his pants but to remain consistent he would have to suspend him for a year.

You are suspended for your conviction not for your charge.

I'll bet you one meeeelion dollars you wouldn't have this stance on Brent if he played for another team.

You would owe me a million dollars. I don't believe the NFL should suspend anyone beyond using banned substances and on-field antics.

 

[BigStar]

Dude, did you even read his post?

Yeah, everyone gets different punishments depending on? A neg. drug test gets this, a dwi (with special cirumstances) gets this?

 

[BigStar]

DWI includes mj and coke. Accidents due to DWI are on the increase esp in states like CO and that's due to weed esp.

Come on now, no one gets a DUI for MJ. It would be referenced in the police report if drug possession were involved (further charges).

 

[DallasEast]

Love your posts usually but a dirty weed test never killed anybody. Why are we acting like killing someone by your own destructive behavior is the equivalent of testing positive for erb or coke (effects no one outside of themselves unless arrested) That makes no sense and we are being willingly ignorant to excuse this certain circumstance (and we know it). Let him earn on another team...

It's cool. If I had my way, Josh Brent would not be playing NFL football for at least two years. Possibly never again.

The reality of the situation is not debatable. Unless challenged, the commissioner has the final say on discipline. It is as simple as that.

Another reality is this. Real laws created to deter criminal activity are codified. For example, if you kill someone in a car accident, there are set legal consequences the accused must face. Depending on the state and circumstances of the case, the court may find the defendent guilty and enact probation or sentencing.

Practically everyone may not know exactly what the legal ramifications are for killing someone while driving under the influence. What practically everyone does understand is that the law will hold them responsible if caught. Even so, people drive drunk anyway.

Codified laws (not rules or policy, l-a-w-s) have a minimum effect on people thinking about doing something they should not do. That is a fact of life. If the NFL adopted a codified system of punishment, there is zero reason to believe it would prove any more effective in prompting players to think twice before doing something stupid either.

I have no clue how effective the NFL's conduct policy influences its players. In truth, it may not do squat for every single player thinking of being an idiot (shout out to Josh Gordon!). Still, I hold out hope that the neverending discussion about the fairness of the conduct policy does weigh on the minds of a certain number of players. If that is the case, the anger of uncertainty about NFL punishments may prevent a future player from doing something stupid--like getting drunk and killing their teammate in a car crash.

Reality number two: I'm some guy who goes by the handle of DallasEast. Just last year, Roger Goodell was paid $44 million dollars. What is a job duty which the owners and players association authorize Roger Goodell to do to earn that 8-figure income?

Why, it's handing out punishments that no one has a freaking clue will be until handed down.

I'm just keeping it real.

It matters less than spit what anyone thinks about fairness. It does not matter what people think is moral and what is not. It does not even matter what the level of tragedy ends up being after a player does not call himself and his buddy a cab to get home after drinking.

The only thing that matters, in real life, soon, for Josh Brent, is what Goodell decides. And guess what everybody? You may agree with what he decides. You may absolutely disagree with his decision. Whatever may be the case, it is totally out of everyone's hands.

Find a silver lining in the insanity. Or rage against the situation no one has any control over. It's a personal choice. Me? Well, I'm a Goodell fan. Everybody here knows that (or should for as often as I mention or imply it).

 

[jobberone]

Is that speculation or fact? I haven't seen any studies on that yet and was wondering if weed(excluding alcohol) had any influence on that.

Those are facts based on DWI in CO and WA. I don't know how much is combined intoxicants. I do not know how they collected those facts though. My guess would be most of it is admitting to pot, observations by the officer and absence of alcohol on toxicology and/or positive for pot.

 

[Tabascocat]

Those are facts based on DWI in CO and WA. I don't know how much is combined intoxicants. I do not know how they collected those facts though. My guess would be most of it is admitting to pot, observations by the officer and absence of alcohol on toxicology and/or positive for pot.

ok, just confused on what is considered a DWI, always thought only alcohol and DUI's were pills, substances, etc along with booze but less of it.

 

[jobberone]

Come on now, no one gets a DUI for MJ. It would be referenced in the police report if drug possession were involved (further charges).

Of course they do. If you are pulled for being erratic etc and can't pass a field sobriety test then you are arrested for DWI.

 

[BigStar]

It's cool. If I had my way, Josh Brent would not be playing NFL football for at least two years. Possibly never again.

The reality of the situation is not debatable. Unless challenged, the commissioner has the final say on discipline. It is as simple as that.

Another reality is this. Real laws created to deter criminal activity are codified. For example, if you kill someone in a car accident, there are set legal consequences the accused must face. Depending on the state and circumstances of the case, the court may find the defendent guilty and enact probation or sentencing.

Practically everyone may not know exactly what the legal ramifications are for killing someone while driving under the influence. What practically everyone does understand is that the law will hold them responsible if caught. Even so, people drive drunk anyway.

Codified laws (not rules or policy, l-a-w-s) have a minimum effect on people thinking about doing something they should not do. That is a fact of life. If the NFL adopted a codified system of punishment, there is zero reason to believe it would prove any more effective in prompting players to think twice before doing something stupid either.

I have no clue how effective the NFL's conduct policy influences its players. In truth, it may not do squat for every single player thinking of being an idiot (shout out to Josh Gordon!). Still, I hold out hope that the neverending discussion about the fairness of the conduct policy does weigh on the minds of a certain number of players. If that is the case, the anger of uncertainty about NFL punishments may prevent a future player from doing something stupid--like getting drunk and killing their teammate in a car crash.

Reality number two: I'm some guy who goes by the handle of DallasEast. Just last year, Roger Goodell was paid $44 million dollars. What is a job duty which the owners and players association authorize Roger Goodell to do to earn that 8-figure income?

Why, it's handing out punishments that no one has a freaking clue will be until handed down.

I'm just keeping it real.

It matters less than spit what anyone thinks about fairness. It does not matter what people think is moral and what is not. It does not even matter what the level of tragedy ends up being after a player does not call himself and his buddy a cab to get home after drinking.

The only thing that matters, in real life, soon, for Josh Brent, is what Goodell decides. And guess what everybody? You may agree with what he decides. You may absolutely disagree with his decision. Whatever may be the case, it is totally out of everyone's hands.

Find a silver lining in the insanity. Or rage against the situation no one has any control over. It's a personal choice. Me? Well, I'm a Goodell fan. Everybody here knows that (or should for as often as I mention or imply it).

Loved your post, but def no Goddel fan. These circumstances seem so cherry picked it becomes ridiculous. We have players like Gordon (no fan, gang affiliated) who shouldn't promot the league, but a "average" 1 tech that could supplant Hayden? This is the depths this team has to dig into to find a starting 1 tech bc the drafting/FA prowess failed? Give it up JJ.

 

[BigStar]

Of course they do. If you are pulled for being erratic etc and can't pass a field sobriety test then you are arrested for DWI.

Okay How many players arrest for DWI for marijuana?

 

[silver]

No I hear you. I'm really talking about the last sentence. Why are we diving through fire hoops to bring in a starting 1 tech? That is sad by itself.

Speaks volumes about the front office's abilities to find and develop personnel.

 

[starfrombirth]

And, whether you like this kid or not, I think EVERYONE saw why this team needs a LEGIT 1T that can plug up the middle. Hayden looked TERRIBLE, while Bishop and Coleman looked like rookies - lower round rookies (some good, but more "not so good").

Actually no.. I didn't see that. What I saw was a Bishop getting double teamed every play and still holding his own while Coleman was constantly disrupting the pocket. More awareness is needed but they showed well overall. The runs all came to the outside and the passing lanes were open instantly. No pass rush no matter how good is going to get there in 2 seconds. I'd still rather roll with the rook's than give Brent another chance.