New York Post: Make teams pay

[aikemirv]

I don't think the teams should be punished at all. Keep the punishment upon the individuals. teams are already basically punished by losing their services during suspensions and by the perception of their teams.

Keep the blame on the responsible party, don't transfer it.

A Canton, Ohio cop killed his pregnant girlfriend. Does that mean all cops in Canton, Ohio are tainted? I don't think so, but there will be a stigma from this incident to overcome.

A wrestler just killed his wife and child before killing himself. Does that mean all wrestlers are dangers to their families and themselves?

You can't force organizations to keep their players under lock and key. All you can do is offer them the best environment you can provide, make them want it more than they want the "high life" and pray they use good judgment.

Michael Irvin deserved to be punished for his misdeeds. I fail to see where the Cowboys forced him to do drugs and chase ******.

Keep the punishments focused on the guilty.

I completely agree with you here. The league should do the enforcing period. Otherwise you would have different rules by different teams for player conduct and could possibly get diff. suspensions based on the club you worked for. That would not be fair and would bring up suits by the union and so forth.

Let the league come up with the standard. For Ex. Drunk driving - 2 games, steroids - 4 games and so forth. They need to get the ambiguity out and the rules in force so the players know exactly what is coming if they proceed with those actions.

 

[Hostile]

If a team allows a player to continue with their team despite multiple off field trangressions (like Chris Henry, for example)...

Hold them accountable for keeping him on the roster.

Cinci would cut him, no team would sign him for risk of losing a pick, and he gets flushed out of the league....

One less turd in the league. I thought that was what some wanted. A quick cleanup. This is offereing that. If you want to protect the teams some, then fine. Make it so that someone like Chris Henry falls under this category, but someone with a one time offense doesn't penalize the team.

Because there is way too much room for error.

Look what happened to Chris Henry just a few weeks ago. Accused of failing a drug test. Wasn't true. Accused of assaulting a 16 year old. Wasn't true.

If you put sanctions on a team they can't even risk anything. As soon as a player screws up they would need to get rid of him. Forget it being one goof after another. They won't be able to afford the scrutiny.

Then by your system teams picking these players up could be penalized. So, they will be less likely to pick anyone up who was released for an error in judgment.

Pretty soon you are watering down the NFL too much because teams can't take the risk of sanctions.


Okay, now let's look at the current goal of the NFL. Keep the players in check by making the penalties of violating their contracts stiffer. Until this proves to be a colossal failure, why amp it up?

 

[Vintage]

Because there is way too much room for error.

Look what happened to Chris Henry just a few weeks ago. Accused of failing a drug test. Wasn't true. Accused of assaulting a 16 year old. Wasn't true.

If you put sanctions on a team they can't even risk anything. As soon as a player screws up they would need to get rid of him. Forget it being one goof after another. They won't be able to afford the scrutiny.

Then by your system teams picking these players up could be penalized. So, they will be less likely to pick anyone up who was released for an error in judgment.

Pretty soon you are watering down the NFL too much because teams can't take the risk of sanctions.


Okay, now let's look at the current goal of the NFL. Keep the players in check by making the penalties of violating their contracts stiffer. Until this proves to be a colossal failure, why amp it up?

I am not saying that the NFL should ignore due process and just take them away with regard to drug tests, etc.

Its simple.

Wait. And when the facts come out, fine them money and picks as necessary.

And the league wouldn't get watered down. Unless losing a Chris Henry, PacMan Jones, or a Tank Johnson constitutes as such (repeat offenders).....I mean, there are people who want them banned from the league as it is...this essentially does that AND holds the teams responsible (although, in the Bears case, they wouldn't fined a pick since they released him and didn't hold onto him). Set up a series of scenarios and clearly define them and you can avoid the "what if" instances of a player repeating actions versus first time offenders.

The league wont miss someone like PacMan, Tank, or Chris.... Hell, the league wouldn't have missed it if Roger Staubach got kicked out of the league back during his playing days....the NFL would continue to prosper and grow. Losing a couple of players wont mean much.

 

[ZeroClub]

One of the first rules of being a successful corporation is that you continually strive to remain unaccountable.

In the NFL, only the most extreme forms of franchise misconduct will ever be subject to penalty. And in those cases, penalties will be light. example

The NFL is fine with playing hardball with labor, but the good ole boys aren't stupid or masochistic - they aren't about to play hardball with the franchises.

 

[THUMPER]

I don't believe that the 5-6 % you speak of actually scratches the surface. Those are only the ones we hear about or can be verified.

Then we disagree about the percentage.

What of those with no documented history? Say a team takes them and does not know. Do you punish them?

If they have been arrested then it is documented, period. If a player was never caught in college but is once he is in the NFL then it would be treated as a first offense. I didn't get into any kind of ramp up to a player being fired and I don't believe in zero tolerance policies because it tends to take common sense out of the equation.

And what's to say those that are documented are worse than those who are not? They might be stupider because they were caught, but you cannot assign a value to character.

This is really a weak argument. The issue is guys being arrested. You could accuse anyone of doing something that was never documented.

There are too many variables to simply impose sanctions across the board. A "warning" system or schedule of progression is about the only way to handle it.

A warning system does nothing. Imposing discipline is the only way to handle the problem. Again, I am not in favor of zero tolerance policies and would like to see common sense applied to how this is enforced. A guy who is arrested for unpaid parking tickets should not receive the same punishment as a guy who is arrested for a violent crime, like beating up his girlfriend.

There should also be varying penalties for the type of crime and whether this is a first, second, or third offense. Similar to what they do with the drug program.

 

[Hostile]

I am not saying that the NFL should ignore due process and just take them away with regard to drug tests, etc.

Its simple.

Wait. And when the facts come out, fine them money and picks as necessary.

I wouldn't be in favor of this even if it was the Eagles, Giants, or Commanders who had player conduct issues.

I applaud the new focus to clean up the league. I think fining and sanctioning teams goes too far. Keep the blame squarely on the shoulders of the guilty.

I don't see how a team can be fairly sanctioned when a player does something they obviously do not condone. I don't believe that is possible because there is too much open to interpretation.

Let the current system succeed or fail before we "fix it further." I am not anxious for a repeat of the Salem Witch Hunts.

 

[Vintage]

I wouldn't be in favor of this even if it was the Eagles, Giants, or Commanders who had player conduct issues.

I applaud the new focus to clean up the league. I think fining and sanctioning teams goes too far. Keep the blame squarely on the shoulders of the guilty.

I don't see how a team can be fairly sanctioned when a player does something they obviously do not condone. I don't believe that is possible because there is too much open to interpretation.

Let the current system succeed or fail before we "fix it further." I am not anxious for a repeat of the Salem Witch Hunts.

Because if a team is keeping someone on the roster that repeatedly does something wrong (ie, like Chris Henry) they are essentially enabling him by telling him he has nothing to fear from their end........

The team is failing to hold Henry responsible.

Why did the Bears cut Tank? To hold him responsible.

Why didn't Cinci do that with Henry but do it with Odell Thurman? Because one is more talented and more "benefical to keep" to that one team.

I am not saying EVERY team who has a one time offender or something like that will get fined a pick.

It probably will be a rare occurance. But to teams that continue to harbor these "bad boys" that are "turds" and should be "kicked out of the league", this does that....by making it inefficient for teams to keep such players on their roster.

I fail to see anything wrong with this....

 

[THUMPER]

I wouldn't be in favor of this even if it was the Eagles, Giants, or Commanders who had player conduct issues.

I applaud the new focus to clean up the league. I think fining and sanctioning teams goes too far. Keep the blame squarely on the shoulders of the guilty.

I don't see how a team can be fairly sanctioned when a player does something they obviously do not condone. I don't believe that is possible because there is too much open to interpretation.

Let the current system succeed or fail before we "fix it further." I am not anxious for a repeat of the Salem Witch Hunts.

The point of penalizing teams is so that they avoid problem players ins the first place. Guys like Lawrence Phillips and Adam Jones had serious problems in college and everyone KNEW what they were like yet the Rams and Titans drafted these guys anyway. I believe that the team should be punished in that case.

The same holds true for a team who signs a guy like Tank Johnson after he has been released by the Bears for this stuff. If the Raiders are stupid enough to sign him and he acts up again then they should be penalized for it.

The goal is to get this element out of the league but if there is no penalty to the teams then they will continue to draft and sign these guys.

I am against taking draft choices away from teams and I have already posted what I think should be the punishment for them.

 

[ZeroClub]

Because if a team is keeping someone on the roster that repeatedly does something wrong (ie, like Chris Henry) they are essentially enabling him by telling him he has nothing to fear from their end........

The team is failing to hold Henry responsible.

Why did the Bears cut Tank? To hold him responsible.

Why didn't Cinci do that with Henry but do it with Odell Thurman? Because one is more talented and more "benefical to keep" to that one team.

I am not saying EVERY team who has a one time offender or something like that will get fined a pick.

It probably will be a rare occurance. But to teams that continue to harbor these "bad boys" that are "turds" and should be "kicked out of the league", this does that....by making it inefficient for teams to keep such players on their roster.

I fail to see anything wrong with this....

It might have merit, but it isn't realistic. The owners aren't about to penalize themselves. The owners remain safer when they focus on disciplining players only.

 

[Hostile]

Because if a team is keeping someone on the roster that repeatedly does something wrong (ie, like Chris Henry) they are essentially enabling him by telling him he has nothing to fear from their end........

The team is failing to hold Henry responsible.

Why did the Bears cut Tank? To hold him responsible.

Why didn't Cinci do that with Henry but do it with Odell Thurman? Because one is more talented and more "benefical to keep" to that one team.

I am not saying EVERY team who has a one time offender or something like that will get fined a pick.

It probably will be a rare occurance. But to teams that continue to harbor these "bad boys" that are "turds" and should be "kicked out of the league", this does that....by making it inefficient for teams to keep such players on their roster.

I fail to see anything wrong with this....

You keep bringing up Chris Henry. Let me address that for a minute.

The policies in place now are new. Cincinnati has done nothing wrong in following the previously established protocol of letting Due Process happen before anything was done.

Now the conduct detrimental polices have changed with the sanctioning of the NFLPA and before Due Process is complete players are being sanctioned by the Commissioner and the NFL. This is a great thing. I believe it will work. I believe it will be a detriment to these actions.

Now if we amp it up and place the team at risk for actions they do not condone we expect Cincy to release Chris Henry as soon as there are reports he failed a drug test or beat up a 16 year old. If you don't think the media won't smell blood in the water and provide plenty of yellow journalism to push teams to do this then you're being naive.

So what happens when the Bengals release an AJ Nicholson and then it turns out his girlfriend admits lying to the police? So what happens if it turns out Chris Henry did not fail a drug test or beat up a 16 year old?

Do we need that kind of paranoia in the NFL? You mentioned the Bears and Tank Johnson. The Bears did that without fear of NFL sanctions. That I would applaud and I do in fact applaud it. They've had enough. If other teams follow suit, I will applaud that.

If teams do this out of fear of league reprisal it will not be a good thing.

Let the current system fail miserably and I will listen to this idea. From where I sit it is working just fine and doesn't need any more fixing.

 

[Hostile]

The point of penalizing teams is so that they avoid problem players ins the first place. Guys like Lawrence Phillips and Adam Jones had serious problems in college and everyone KNEW what they were like yet the Rams and Titans drafted these guys anyway. I believe that the team should be punished in that case.

The same holds true for a team who signs a guy like Tank Johnson after he has been released by the Bears for this stuff. If the Raiders are stupid enough to sign him and he acts up again then they should be penalized for it.

The goal is to get this element out of the league but if there is no penalty to the teams then they will continue to draft and sign these guys.

I am against taking draft choices away from teams and I have already posted what I think should be the punishment for them.

But teams already have to weigh whether they will risk that or not because of these sanctions. The current sanctions on the player do affect the team. I don't think more should be added to punish them harder.

Let me give you a perfect example. Darrell Russell was a model citizen at USC and high moral character was considered a strength of his in the draft. The Raiders took him and money changed him.

So should the Raiders be penalized if a good apple they select turns bad?

I can't see the logic of this Thump. I want to clean up the NFL as much as anybody, but this is overboard and a bad idea.

 

[Vintage]

You keep bringing up Chris Henry. Let me address that for a minute.

The policies in place now are new. Cincinnati has done nothing wrong in following the previously established protocol of letting Due Process happen before anything was done.

Now the conduct detrimental polices have changed with the sanctioning of the NFLPA and before Due Process is complete players are being sanctioned by the Commissioner and the NFL. This is a great thing. I believe it will work. I believe it will be a detriment to these actions.

Now if we amp it up and place the team at risk for actions they do not condone we expect Cincy to release Chris Henry as soon as there are reports he failed a drug test or beat up a 16 year old. If you don't think the media won't smell blood in the water and provide plenty of yellow journalism to push teams to do this then you're being naive.

So what happens when the Bengals release an AJ Nicholson and then it turns out his girlfriend admits lying to the police? So what happens if it turns out Chris Henry did not fail a drug test or beat up a 16 year old?

Do we need that kind of paranoia in the NFL? You mentioned the Bears and Tank Johnson. The Bears did that without fear of NFL sanctions. That I would applaud and I do in fact applaud it. They've had enough. If other teams follow suit, I will applaud that.

If teams do this out of fear of league reprisal it will not be a good thing.

Let the current system fail miserably and I will listen to this idea. From where I sit it is working just fine and doesn't need any more fixing.

Again, I have already addressed that. You don't just randomly take away picks.

You wait until the facts have been established and do so.

And its not for first time offenders/teams....its for multiple violations.

 

[Vintage]

But teams already have to weigh whether they will risk that or not because of these sanctions. The current sanctions on the player do affect the team. I don't think more should be added to punish them harder.

Let me give you a perfect example. Darrell Russell was a model citizen at USC and high moral character was considered a strength of his in the draft. The Raiders took him and money changed him.

So should the Raiders be penalized if a good apple they select turns bad?

I can't see the logic of this Thump. I want to clean up the NFL as much as anybody, but this is overboard and a bad idea.

And again, I already addressed that too.

First time offenders WITH a player can warrant nothing. Hell, stretch it to two even....but if a player repeats bad behavior and the team keeps him around...then you can address the loss of picks.

 

[Hostile]

Again, I have already addressed that. You don't just randomly take away picks.

You wait until the facts have been established and do so.

And its not for first time offenders/teams....its for multiple violations.

Yeah, you did address it and I simply don't agree. I don't want to see that happen. Not to any team. I think it is a bad idea to hold a team responsible for the actions of a player. I think it is a great idea to hold the individual players responsible and the NFL is doing that.

 

[Vintage]

Yeah, you did address it and I simply don't agree. I don't want to see that happen. Not to any team. I think it is a bad idea to hold a team responsible for the actions of a player. I think it is a great idea to hold the individual players responsible and the NFL is doing that.

I guess I don't understand why not to hold the teams responsible? Yeah, they can't force the players to act a certain way.

But they CAN enforce if that player makes their roster. Maybe the fear of never playing another down in the NFL (as opposed to a suspension) will

If no team is willing to sign a repeat offender for fear of losing picks, then the league has essentially rid itself of one bad person.

 

[Hostile]

And again, I already addressed that too.

First time offenders WITH a player can warrant nothing. Hell, stretch it to two even....but if a player repeats bad behavior and the team keeps him around...then you can address the loss of picks.

And again, I hate it. I think it is going overboard when the current system is working.

 

[Hostile]

I guess I don't understand why not to hold the teams responsible? Yeah, they can't force the players to act a certain way.

But they CAN enforce if that player makes their roster. Maybe the fear of never playing another down in the NFL (as opposed to a suspension) will

If no team is willing to sign a repeat offender for fear of losing picks, then the league has essentially rid itself of one bad person.

And I don't see why a team should be held responsible to the point of sanctions for acts they don't condone.

That doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

 

[ZeroClub]

And I don't see why a team should be held responsible to the point of sanctions for acts they don't condone.

That doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

They could be held accountable for taking wreckless risks, but they won't be held accountable because they don't believe in holding themselves accountable.

Franchise accountability is bad for business.

And this is all about business. It isn't about some sort of philosophical notion of justice or morality.

 

[Hostile]

They could be held accountable for taking wreckless risks, but they won't be held accountable because they don't believe in holding themselves accountable.

Franchise accountability is bad for business.

And this is all about business. It isn't about some sort of philosophical notion of justice or morality.

I agree, and look again at the example I used with Darrell Russell. He was clearly not a risky pick yet he turned into one of the NFL's all time screw ups once he had money. He's not alone, other players get stupid too who were raised with impeccable moral standards.

Can the Raiders then say, "hey wait a minute, he was considered no risk when we took him."

There are simply too many loopholes and suppositions for that kind of system to ever be fairly applied. Fairly is the key word for me.

Plus, as I have said several times, why add more until what they are doing now fails? That is a Salem Witch Hunt or a book burning. It's overboard and not needed. Let the system work before you fix it.

 

[THUMPER]

And I don't see why a team should be held responsible to the point of sanctions for acts they don't condone.

That doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

By signing a player with KNOWN problems they ARE condoning it and contributing to it and should be punished for it. My punishment is strictly to the cap which they take a hit on anyway even under the current system but I would expand it to the full contract.

Under the current system, if a player commits crimes, is put on probation, and he is released by the team, just as the Bears did with Tank Johnson. That worked exactly as it should. Now if a team like the Raiders signs him and he screws up again then the Raiders should take a hit to their cap for doing that.

If a team continues to do it then the penalties should be harsher, resulting in fines to the owner (never going to happen though). Other than that they would just take a bigger hit to their cap as they have multiple dead contracts hitting it.