PFT: Brees applauds looming reduction in Goodell’s power

[CCBoy]

Brees applauds looming reduction in Goodell’s power
Posted by Mike Florio on September 24, 2014, 10:48 PM EDT
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/24/brees-applauds-looming-reduction-in-goodells-power/

Getty Images



While Commissioner Roger Goodell has yet to confirm that the new personal conduct policy will result in less power for the man who runs the sport, it’s pointing in that direction.

And that’s good news to Saints quarterback Drew Brees.

“I think this has been a long time coming,” Brees said Wednesday, via Nick Underhill of the Baton Rouge Advocate. “It’s really unfortunate that all of this had to happen for this to transpire, for this to become evident. I think that a lot of us on the Players Association side have known for a long time and have pushed for a long time. Now the public knows, now the fan community knows. It’s the right thing.”

Brees, a strong critic of the league’s handling of the bounty scandal in 2012, echoed some of the parallels to the botched Ray Rice investigation that have become popular in the past two weeks...

 

[65fastback2plus2]

did they just kiss or going to kiss in that pic? ew

 

[Rogah]

How ironic that the players don't like Goodell because he is too strict and then he gets into trouble for being too lenient. I think the players would be wise to keep their yaps shut on this matter since one of their own got away with a very light punishment.

 

[Iago33]

How ironic that the players don't like Goodell because he is too strict and then he gets into trouble for being too lenient. I think the players would be wise to keep their yaps shut on this matter since one of their own got away with a very light punishment.

While I agree that it is ironic, I don't think they should keep their mouths shut. The concern is the arbitrary nature of Goodell's power, which was on display in the Rice case.

 

[Rogah]

While I agree that it is ironic, I don't think they should keep their mouths shut. The concern is the arbitrary nature of Goodell's power, which was on display in the Rice case.

How is it arbitrary? I know people love to point to the fact that Rice got 2 games while a marijuana smoker got 16, but drug penalties are spelled out in the CBA, so those are all predetermined.

It's impossible to have total, complete consistency in any set of rules and punishments. I think the players' main beef is simply how strict he is. They preferred Tagliabue where players could literally get away with murder.

 

[WoodysGirl]

I've got no issue with Brees stance. I also feel if they felt that strongly about it, they should've held out for it in the last CBA.

“The same things I’ve heard, the quotes that were thrown out at members of the Saints’ organization in regards to why they were being punished — things such as ‘ignorance is no excuse’ and ‘if you didn’t know you should have known’ — would absolutely apply in this case,” Brees said. “Except the roles are reversed and it’s going back at Commissioner Goodell and the league office.”

Brees, like most people, hopes that the revised personal conduct policy will have a greater sense of fairness to players.

“I think anytime somebody has unilateral decisions over the decision and appeals process, there’s no system of checks and balances,” Brees said. “I think this, with the addition of experts in the fields, in which these policies — new policies will be created and certainly oversight of those policies, the actual handing down of punishment and handling the appeals process, if you got the [NFL Players Association], the NFL front office, independent experts involved in those decisions, you feel like the right decision will be made every time. . . .

“You want due process, you want fair process, you want transparent process. Too many times, especially over the last few years, punishment has been handed down and nobody has really seen the evidence except the league office, supposedly. Decisions were made, ‘Hey, trust us.’ At the end of the day did the public see any of the facts, did the accused see any of the facts? I think in most cases no.”

 

[Passepartout]

Seems like it has been a long time coming indeed for Goodell and the league.

 

[Iago33]

How is it arbitrary? I know people love to point to the fact that Rice got 2 games while a marijuana smoker got 16, but drug penalties are spelled out in the CBA, so those are all predetermined.

It's impossible to have total, complete consistency in any set of rules and punishments. I think the players' main beef is simply how strict he is. They preferred Tagliabue where players could literally get away with murder.

I'm not talking about the drug suspensions. I'm talking about the conduct suspensions (why 2 games?) and the lack of checks and balances.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I'm not talking about the drug suspensions. I'm talking about the conduct suspensions (why 2 games?) and the lack of checks and balances.

and the lack of process

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

and the lack of process

Goodell has been watching Red's Process and quite frankly sees no need for any Process.

 

[BAT]

I'm not talking about the drug suspensions. I'm talking about the conduct suspensions (why 2 games?) and the lack of checks and balances.

Because knocking a woman unconcious and then dragging her around is not as horrific as putting a bounty on a QB. One gets you 2 games and the other is suspension for a year. Who needs checks and balances when it is so obvious .... at least to Goodell.

There would have to be much more ACTUAL damage to the woman/kid for it to equal the POTENTIAL damage to a QB.

 

[Rogah]

I'm not talking about the drug suspensions. I'm talking about the conduct suspensions (why 2 games?) and the lack of checks and balances.

2 games was very much inline with previous domestic violence arrests and suspensions. In fact, it was more harsh than most. But no video of any of those incidents exists, so no one cared.

 

[Rogah]

Because knocking a woman unconcious and then dragging her around is not as horrific as putting a bounty on a QB. One gets you 2 games and the other is suspension for a year. Who needs checks and balances when it is so obvious .... at least to Goodell.

There would have to be much more ACTUAL damage to the woman/kid for it to equal the POTENTIAL damage to a QB.

Your analogy doesn't work because one incident is from onfield activity and the other relates to personal conduct off the field. Trying to draw any equivalences between "which is worse" does not work. Apples and oranges.

 

[BAT]

Your analogy doesn't work because one incident is from onfield activity and the other relates to personal conduct off the field. Trying to draw any equivalences between "which is worse" does not work. Apples and oranges.

Placing a bounty on a player occurs OFF the field. No Saint was suspended for actually hurting anyone ON the field. Saints were penalized for condoning even encouraging what is considered an intolerable act, intentional injury to another. And comparison is always subjective if we are not comparing things that are NOT exactly the same. Making difficult comparisons to prevent future similar acts is the responsibility of any competent leader.

Bounties are considered over the line, unsportsmanlike, e.g. behavior that is too violent/frowned upon/not to be tolerated. Beating your spouse/partner senseless or injuring your child has no monetary incentive/game advantage but the these acts of violence should be as unacceptable as bounties. If you cannot see the correlation then I feel bad for you.

 

[Rogah]

Placing a bounty on a player occurs OFF the field.

That is an incredibly stupid statement. Bounties on opposing players are considered an on-field issue. Saying that it is not an on-field issue because the bounty was placed "off the field" is too idiotic to address.

To compare the league's role in policing on-field behavior versus off-field behavior is apples and oranges.

According to your logic, the NFL shouldn't punish a player for gambling on his own team's games because gambling is legal so it isn't a big deal, huh?

 

[BAT]

That is an incredibly stupid statement. Bounties on opposing players are considered an on-field issue. Saying that it is not an on-field issue because the bounty was placed "off the field" is too idiotic to address.

To compare the league's role in policing on-field behavior versus off-field behavior is apples and oranges.

According to your logic, the NFL shouldn't punish a player for gambling on his own team's games because gambling is legal so it isn't a big deal, huh?

Either take a reading comprehension class or say it to my face. I am the one who is stating that violent behavior whether it originates on or off the field should not be tolerated. Gambling and bounties are penalized more than domestic/sexual abuse in the NFL, at least before the current public backlash. Much much more. That is a huge disconnect, even more so than what is obviously going on between your ears.

 

[Rogah]

Either take a reading comprehension class or say it to my face. I am the one who is stating that violent behavior whether it originates on or off the field should not be tolerated. Gambling and bounties are penalized more than domestic/sexual abuse in the NFL, at least before the current public backlash. Much much more. That is a huge disconnect, even more so than what is obviously going on between your ears.

Like I said, comparing on field issues (like player bounties) to off field issues (like domestic violence) is apples and oranges. You may not like to hear it, but the analogy is epic fail. (And saying bounties are off field issues is only digging yourself deeper into the ground)

You should stick to comparing the domestic violence to marijuana. At least then we have 2 personal conduct off-field issues we are discussing.

 

[BAT]

Like I said, comparing on field issues (like player bounties) to off field issues (like domestic violence) is apples and oranges. You may not like to hear it, but the analogy is epic fail. (And saying bounties are off field issues is only digging yourself deeper into the ground)

You should stick to comparing the domestic violence to marijuana. At least then we have 2 personal conduct off-field issues we are discussing.

Excessive violence is excessive violence, whether on or off the field. Comparing the two situations should not be so confusing but I understand if there are medical complications interfering with comprehension.

 

[Rogah]

Excessive violence is excessive violence, whether on or off the field.

We are talking about how the league should deal with such situations so to compare something on the field to something off the field and call them the same is moronic.

Newsflash: The league will deal with onfield issues differently than off-field issues because they have a responsibility to create player safety.

And here's one more clue you desperately need: Janay can't sue the league because her boyfriend beat her up (well she could but she would lose - there is no league liability there). But any player targeted by a bounty that the league let happen or turned a blind eye to has a HUGE lawsuit on his hands. You obviously have no idea what the league's liability would be.

Your analogy remains epic fail

 

[BAT]

We are talking about how the league should deal with such situations so to compare something on the field to something off the field and call them the same is moronic.

Newsflash: The league will deal with onfield issues differently than off-field issues because they have a responsibility to create player safety.

And here's one more clue you desperately need: Janay can't sue the league because her boyfriend beat her up (well she could but she would lose - there is no league liability there). But any player targeted by a bounty that the league let happen or turned a blind eye to has a HUGE lawsuit on his hands. You obviously have no idea what the league's liability would be.

Your analogy remains epic fail

If it's epic fail then why is Goodell under such duress right now. Why are Rice, AD and others (McDonald, Hardy, Spillman) such huge black eyes to the league right now? Excessive violence should be treated with zero tolerance, whether it occurs on OR off the field. The league is learning this lesson right now the hard way. It's too bad you are still in the slow lane.