Michael Vick thread | Post #161 | Police: Vick not involved in shooting (NFL.com)

[Stautner]

What the hell are you talking about?

What part of 'they are destroying the image that they tried to portray' do you not get?

If the image that they are trying to portray is as paragons of virtue and they are blatantly doing just the opposite then thats a problem. Its not just a handful of people. With the exception of just a few people the overwhelming majority of people on this board were for the commissioners new stance when he came in.

Even you do not support his actions in and of themselves based on actual merit you just spout this bull**** about how it relates to public image. No one supports this crap that he is doing now.

Everytime he hands out a 3 game suspension for something for one player then hands out a different one for the same thing he alienates both teams fans. He does this type of thing over and over again.

You bring up baseball and then neglect that the perception that the front office were unable to ineffective in the steroid problem because major issues for them.

What part of IT'S A BUSINESS" don't you get? You have some really bizarre notion that they are trying to portray themseves as paragons of virtue, when the reality is they are just trying to say we aren't going to tolerate you screwing up our business. They aren't trying to make it a league of saints, they just don't want a league of F-ups and thugs.

Now, let's get back to this notion of handing out different punishments for the same thing. People have asked you to show examples, and you've avoided that like the plague. Where are these cookie cutter offenses that have such wildly different punishments. Give examples. Are you calling Ben and Vick's situations identical? Pacman and Matt Jones? Tank Johnson and Brandon Marshall? Which of these is identical? Until you can show us that you're typing with no meaning. It's as if you read someone else's comment about such inconsistent punishments and jumped on the bandwagon without even thinking about whether it was true or not.

You've also avoided like the plague the question of people accepting the words of the tabloid sports media as unbiased, accurate and complete. You are relying on people who have repeatedly been proven to stretch, bend, twist and even fabricate to sell a story. Do you really think you are getting the full and accurate details, and that there is no possibility of there being more to the story than we see on the surface?

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

His bro, Marcus definitely did according to reports. There are still some questions about how much Mike knew about it.

So, isn't Marcus a felon?
If so, wouldn't Michael be in violation for being in the comany of Marcus?

geez all this thinking makes mah head hurt. I need to go lay down with Ms. Busty who has been giving me them looks, iffin you know what ah means.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Interesting. Verrrry interesting.

In a Philadelphia Inquirer poll, the fans seem ready to git rid of Vick:

READER POLL
Should the Eagles release Michael Vick?
Yes.
1417 (75.8%)
No.
452 (24.2%)
Total votes = 1869

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

What the hell are you talking about?

What part of 'they are destroying the image that they tried to portray' do you not get?

If the image that they are trying to portray is as paragons of virtue and they are blatantly doing just the opposite then thats a problem. Its not just a handful of people. With the exception of just a few people the overwhelming majority of people on this board were for the commissioners new stance when he came in.

Even you do not support his actions in and of themselves based on actual merit you just spout this bull**** about how it relates to public image. No one supports this crap that he is doing now.

Everytime he hands out a 3 game suspension for something for one player then hands out a different one for the same thing he alienates both teams fans. He does this type of thing over and over again.

You bring up baseball and then neglect that the perception that the front office were unable to ineffective in the steroid problem because major issues for them.

From what I gather from your, um, post, you seem to think that disciplinary measures by Goodell are calculated to be even across the board. That is, everybody gets disciplined so no team thinks it is being picked on.

It can't be that way.
Goodell has to discipline players as the infractions occur. he will not always be fair, he will not always be consistent and not all fans will agree wit him.

It's not a democracy and the NFL has no mathematical formula that says, two DWIs from one player in one team are equal to one fistfight by another player on another team, or an accidental killing equals a manslaughter.

Goodell just has to take action in however method he deems is practical and whichever fits the infraction.

 

[Stautner]

It's not a democracy and the NFL has no mathematical formula that says, two DWIs from one player in one team are equal to one fistfight by another player on another team, or an accidental killing equals a manslaughter.

Goodell just has to take action in however method he deems is practical and whichever fits the infraction.

Good post. This is so blatently obvious that it's almost shocking that a reasonable person can't see it.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

From what I gather from your, um, post, you seem to think that disciplinary measures by Goodell are calculated to be even across the board. That is, everybody gets disciplined so no team thinks it is being picked on.

It can't be that way.
Goodell has to discipline players as the infractions occur. he will not always be fair, he will not always be consistent and not all fans will agree wit him.

It's not a democracy and the NFL has no mathematical formula that says, two DWIs from one player in one team are equal to one fistfight by another player on another team, or an accidental killing equals a manslaughter.

Goodell just has to take action in however method he deems is practical and whichever fits the infraction.

Tagliabue did and used it.

 

[Stautner]

Tagliabue did and used it.

Tagliabue did and used ........... it? What is "it"?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What part of IT'S A BUSINESS" don't you get? You have some really bizarre notion that they are trying to portray themseves as paragons of virtue, when the reality is they are just trying to say we aren't going to tolerate you screwing up our business. They aren't trying to make it a league of saints, they just don't want a league of F-ups and thugs.

Now, let's get back to this notion of handing out different punishments for the same thing. People have asked you to show examples, and you've avoided that like the plague. Where are these cookie cutter offenses that have such wildly different punishments. Give examples. Are you calling Ben and Vick's situations identical? Pacman and Matt Jones? Tank Johnson and Brandon Marshall? Which of these is identical? Until you can show us that you're typing with no meaning. It's as if you read someone else's comment about such inconsistent punishments and jumped on the bandwagon without even thinking about whether it was true or not.

You've also avoided like the plague the question of people accepting the words of the tabloid sports media as unbiased, accurate and complete. You are relying on people who have repeatedly been proven to stretch, bend, twist and even fabricate to sell a story. Do you really think you are getting the full and accurate details, and that there is no possibility of there being more to the story than we see on the surface?

Avoided what? I have avoided nothing. No one has asked for that in the last page and i have no idea about before. Nice pile of crap though.

Tabloids my ***. You have no idea where I get my information from as I have cited none of it. Spare me.

It should be obvious. Vincent Jackson just got 3 games for a second dui and Jared Allen got 4 games when he got his second DUI. there is wade wilson's punishment being in no way commensurate with other coaches when his infraction was much less. those are just off the top of my head.

Businesses especially large ones have PR, press corps, marketing etc. If you think that they did not brand Goodell when he came in 2 years ago then you just arent paying attention. There was all kinds of talk about a new sheriff in town coming to rein in player behavior.

Only a moron would market him as only interested in maintaining an image so they can make money. You are confusing what he actually is with what they tried to market him as. Of course he is a corporate toad.

Tagliabue was a great owner. After some issues with John Taylor in the beginning of his tenure he created a personal conduct policy that gave guidelines to follow and he did. Goodell tears it up under the auspices of improvement, just makes crap up and lookie here players are still involved in shootings, getting drunk at strip clubs and fighting, and beating their wives.

Tags along with owners like Jones and I hate to say it but Snyder made the NFL into the financial behemoth it is today. Tags in 1994 negotiated the massive Fox TV contract that is what really generated the revenue as it currently is. Goodell cannot even get the NFL network on cable.

The fanbase is really going to turn on him if he doesn't get a labor deal in place and how much you want to bet that without Upshaw bending over for him it gets really really ugly. He tried to strongarm the cable companies and see where that got him?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Tagliabue did and used ........... it? What is "it"?

the old personal conduct policy. were you even paying attention 2 years ago?

 

[Stautner]

Avoided what? I have avoided nothing. No one has asked for that in the last page and I have no idea about before. Nice pile of crap though.

Oh, you are only going back the last page and skip the multiple times it was asked before, including in responses directly to you. I'll refresh your memory ......

There is the grand prize question. Evryone keeps talking about it, but no one is providing examples.

Was Ben supposed to get the same punishment as Vick even though Vick was a convicted felon and Ben never was brought to trial? Was Pacman and his 10-12 run ins with the law supposed to be treated exactly the same as Ben or Vick? Was Tank and his DWI arrest exactly the same situation as the others? Matt Jones? Brandon Marshall?

I don't see the cookie cutter offenses out there that demand identical punishments.

Tabloids my ***. You have no idea where I get my information from as I have cited none of it. Spare me.

So, you have an inside NFL source that none of the rest of us have access to? Please enlighten us!

It should be obvious. Vincent Jackson just got 3 games for a second dui and Jared Allen got 4 games when he got his second DUI. there is wade wilson's punishment being in no way commensurate with other coaches when his infraction was much less. those are just off the top of my head.

Allen was being suspended for 2 DUI's in the same year, AND upon appeal his suspension was reduced to 2 games, so he didn't end up serving more than Jackson's 3 game suspension anyway. Vincent Jackson's previous DUI was 3 years earlier.

A one game disparity doesn't seem like such a wildly dramatic disparity in any case. Again, who knows what other circumstances there may have been for Goodell to consider. Any number of things could account for a slight disparity. Maybe Jackson had done a lot of good things in his 3 years since the previous conviction that Goodell took into account. Maybe your personal inside sources can tell us everything.

As for Wade Wilson thing - that is so far from apples to apples with Belichick it's ridiculous to suggest they are anything alike, and besides, the cowboys didn't lose a 1st round draft pick and NE did. If you think that doesn't hurt worse than having a QB coach miss a few games then you aren't thinking clearly on the subject.

Businesses especially large ones have PR, press corps, marketing etc. If you think that they did not brand Goodell when he came in 2 years ago then you just arent paying attention. There was all kinds of talk about a new sheriff in town coming to rein in player behavior.

WOW -there are 2 obvious points here.

1. You are tellling us that the MEDIA is supposed to define Goodell's job description rather than the people who hired him.

2. You acted incensed earlier at the suggestion taht you rely on the media for information, and now you are telling me that you allow the media, rather than the employer, to tell you what Goodell's job description is. Sounds to me all the media has to do is throw the line, set the hook and start reeling.

Only a moron would market him as only interested in maintaining an image so they can make money. You are confusing what he actually is with what they tried to market him as. Of course he is a corporate toad.

Where did I say anything about the NFL marketing themselves as only presenting an image to make money? You're mind is wandering. It aint that hard to understand - read slowly this time.

What I said was that the reason they market themselves and present an image is to make money - not that they tell everyone that's what they are doing.

Businesses don't try and create an image, or pay millions of dollars on ads and press conferences and PR opportunities just because they crave the love and affection of people everywhere, they do it to make their product more attractive to the consumer. Do you really not get that?

Tagliabue was a great owner. After some issues with John Taylor in the beginning of his tenure he created a personal conduct policy that gave guidelines to follow and he did. Goodell tears it up under the auspices of improvement, just makes crap up and lookie here players are still involved in shootings, getting drunk at strip clubs and fighting, and beating their wives.

Tags along with owners like Jones and I hate to say it but Snyder made the NFL into the financial behemoth it is today. Tags in 1994 negotiated the massive Fox TV contract that is what really generated the revenue as it currently is. Goodell cannot even get the NFL network on cable.

The fanbase is really going to turn on him if he doesn't get a labor deal in place and how much you want to bet that without Upshaw bending over for him it gets really really ugly. He tried to strongarm the cable companies and see where that got him?

I don't have any argument with Tagliabue, but you are going into entirely different stuff. Goodell knows the NFL is a good thing and can make lots of money, he just doesn't want to jeopardize it by allowing it to be perceived as a league of thugs.

the old personal conduct policy. were you even paying attention 2 years ago?

Goodell isn't changing what is accepted and what is not, he is just making a point of coming down hard and more publically. besides, suspensions dealing with substance abuse are easy to categorize and punish evenly, but that's not what we are talking about here.

You tell me how you set the same policy for a DWI (Allen/Jackson) versus a domestic abuse case (Marshall), versus a long history of incidents over a periofd of years (Pacman) versus an unsubstantiated sexual contact accusation in a club (Ben), versus a bar fight tha didn't really amount to much (Vince Young) versus long a federal convicition on dogfighting, animal cruelty, racketeering, etc ..... (Vick). These aren't exactly cookie cutter situations.

 

[cowboyjoe]

Eagles standing by Michael Vick, for now: PFT
Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on July 2, 2010 12:00 PM ET
The Vick brothers have spoken and proclaimed their innocence.

For now, that's enough for the Eagles. Jeff McLane of the Philadelphia Inquirer reports that Eagles team sources stand behind Vick. He remains their backup quarterback "unless further details emerge" about last week's shooting.

And that's the thing. The Eagles have nothing to gain, of course, from prematurely distancing themselves from Vick. They will wait for the facts to come out, just like the NFL.

One of Vick's problem is that he's not close to worth the $5.25 million he's due this year, whether the shooting happened or not. Once again, he needs this shooting case to be nipped in the bud quickly before he gives the Eagles an excuse to make a sound football decision by cutting him.

 

[Stautner]

Eagles standing by Michael Vick, for now: PFT
Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on July 2, 2010 12:00 PM ET
The Vick brothers have spoken and proclaimed their innocence.

For now, that's enough for the Eagles. Jeff McLane of the Philadelphia Inquirer reports that Eagles team sources stand behind Vick. He remains their backup quarterback "unless further details emerge" about last week's shooting.

And that's the thing. The Eagles have nothing to gain, of course, from prematurely distancing themselves from Vick. They will wait for the facts to come out, just like the NFL.

One of Vick's problem is that he's not close to worth the $5.25 million he's due this year, whether the shooting happened or not. Once again, he needs this shooting case to be nipped in the bud quickly before he gives the Eagles an excuse to make a sound football decision by cutting him.

If the Eagles still had both McNabb and Kolb I doubt they would be as patient. As it is they need some insurance behind Kolb, so they wont rush into any action.

 

[tyke1doe]

I certainly have my complete support going to the players in the labor dispute. I certainly view every action that man takes as contemptible.

I am a very poor choice when it comes to gauge the efficacy of Goodell. I am a lifelong hardcore fan of a particular franchise.

Just as in political dealings it is the independents that you worry about so it is in this market. When dealing with potential or lackadaisical fans then I certainly some are going to be turned off by the actions of the league executives.

Then you have corporate sponsorships, the labor negotiations and the like.

Neither of us are in a position to actually quantify what the impact of Goodell being grossly and unfairly arbitrary and his public image going in the toilet but to say it does anything but harm is laughable. There entire crusade to portray him as some sort of tough love caretaker has been thrashed.

Look at this board and its obvious what his perception has turned into after an auspicious beginning. Even the two of you, are not denying this but instead try and brush it off as it being his job.

What I read on this board is merely carping.

So tell me how all this complaining about Goodell translates into any tangible effect?

Again, I ask are you going to stop watching NFL games? Are you going to stop buying NFL products?

If you're not going to register your discontent with Goodell's actions in any tangible way that impacts revenue, who cares if you or a bunch of people on an Internet forum whine and complain?

We do know that the NBA's popularity declined in part because the league had a very negative perception, and people weren't "feeling" the thug image of the league. That's why the NBA tried to clean up its act.

Goodell is taking a similar approach. Of course, he's going to make mistakes. Everyone who tries to chart a new course which hasn't been explored or undertaken does because there aren't any established rules. But overall, I think more people are satisfied with his mission than those who are not satisfied.

Now when Goodell's actions result in a negative revenue flow, I'll concede your point. But, from where I stand, you and those who are against Goodell are like astronauts shooting in space. You're making noise, but does anyone really hear you enough for your voice to make a difference?

 

[Stautner]

What I read on this board is merely carping.

So tell me how all this complaining about Goodell translates into any tangible effect?

Again, I ask are you going to stop watching NFL games? Are you going to stop buying NFL products?

If you're not going to register your discontent with Goodell's actions in any tangible way that impacts revenue, who cares if you or a bunch of people on an Internet forum whine and complain?

We do know that the NBA's popularity declined in part because the league had a very negative perception, and people weren't "feeling" the thug image of the league. That's why the NBA tried to clean up its act.

Goodell is taking a similar approach. Of course, he's going to make mistakes. Everyone who tries to chart a new course which hasn't been explored or undertaken does because there aren't any established rules. But overall, I think more people are satisfied with his mission than those who are not satisfied.

Now when Goodell's actions result in a negative revenue flow, I'll concede your point. But, from where I stand, you and those who are against Goodell are like astronauts shooting in space. You're making noise, but does anyone really hear you enough for your voice to make a difference?

This is a great post, but it wont have an affect because some people doesn't recognize that the NFL is a business that has to involve economics in it's decision making process. He seem to believe that that the ability to enjoy the product the NFL puts out is an inalienable right of American citizens and the owners and commissioner have no authority to dictate how it is run.

Maybe they should stage a coup to free the fan from NFL owner opression.

Clearly the commissioner and the league in general have made the decision that the league will lose credibility and revenue if the thug image is allowed to prevail, so they are taking steps to deal with it. Obviously not everyone will agree with every choice, but as is the case with every business, a handful of squeaky wheels from the public cannot make those choices, those paid and specifically charged with running the business have to do that. The notion that every violation of whatever nature has to carry identical consequences, regardless of circumstances, is not rational, nor is it rational to think or expect that the NFL won't or shouldn't at times weigh in factors regarding the health and perception of the league in general when deciding how to handle some situations. They have a business to run and protect just like any other business owner.

Here's another point I think is worth making. While people are claiming such a wide disparity in how Goodell hands out punishments (despite such disparities actually being rather small and despite the fact they deal with different circumstanaces), Goodell has been very consistent in showing that he views each case independently, on it's on merits, which is fair, and that he is fair in listening to appeals, which have been accepted on numerous ocassions, and he will consider requests to cut suspensions short if the offender displays behaviors and tendencies during the suspension that indicate he has his act together. What could be more fair than that?

 

[tyke1doe]

I meant "shouting" in space not "shooting" in space. :

 

[Hoofbite]

the old personal conduct policy. were you even paying attention 2 years ago?

I wasn't paying attention.

But, I do remember that players went to Goodell and asked him to clean up the league.

So, whatever it was Tags was doing, it sure wasn't to the satisfaction of the good, honest players.

And based on Goodell recently getting an extension by unanimous vote, I'd say people are pretty happy with how he is doing.

 

[silverbear]

This was not part of Goodell's investigation. This was just the owner of the club coming out on his own.

How do you know Vick is not the shooter?

He doesn't care... DaBoys is the self-appointed champion of thugs everywhere... absolutely nothing Vick could do, could get DaBoys to disapprove of him...

DaBoys wishes he was Vick...

 

[silverbear]

Even experts don't know where the voices come from.

Or care...

 

[silverbear]

I suppose you could if you were to inject in some lipid form. Its just not soluble in water. Well the active ingredients that is.

Go drink a bong, and get back to me on that one...

 

[silverbear]

Would not be surprised. People in Blacksburg, VA and people I knew at Virginia Tech while both Vick brothers attended have said that Marcus Vick was a much worse human being than Michael Vick.

Seems Marcus thought that being a star football player at Tech meant he got to have sex with any woman on campus, whether she wanted to or not...