Play Zeke anyway

[gimmesix]

1) Attempt to play Zeke.
2) Have him removed from field by security
3) Pay a massive fine and forfeit premium draft picks.
.
.
.
.
x) Profit!

He would not be removed from the field, but yes, Jerry would have to pay a massive fine and possibly forfeit picks. It's a tough stance, but I would take it if I believed I was in the right.

Jerry has bucked the league before and it got mad and sued him. This would be its legal recourse. As owner, Jerry can put who he wants out there on the field if he's willing to accept the consequences.

 

[Stash]

Throwing yourself on the sacrificial altar isn't going to change anything either except add massive problems. No owner is stupid enough to try anything like that.

Likely not. But I think the NFL needs Jones and the Cowboys more than the Cowboys need the NFL. IF Jones were to draw a "him or me" line in the sand between him and Goodell, with this farce of a behavior policy included, I know who makes money for everybody and I know who costs them a ton and does nothing to earn it.

 

[gimmesix]

Throwing yourself on the sacrificial altar isn't going to change anything either except add massive problems. No owner is stupid enough to try anything like that.

I don't at all agree with not playing. I'd state what I'm going to do, put my players out there and let the league make the call on whether they are willing to play the games. The league is not going to forgo the revenue, so they will allow the games to be played under forfeiture.

 

[SDCowboy]

He would not be removed from the field, but yes, Jerry would have to pay a massive fine and possibly forfeit picks. It's a tough stance, but I would take it if I believed I was in the right.

Jerry has bucked the league before and it got mad and sued him. This would be its legal recourse. As owner, Jerry can put who he wants out there on the field if he's willing to accept the consequences.

Do you not realize how absurd what you're suggesting is?

The situation is frustrating, but possibly forfeiting games and losing our draft picks is not a viable option. It solves nothing and only hurts the team and the fans.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

He would not be removed from the field, but yes, Jerry would have to pay a massive fine and possibly forfeit picks. It's a tough stance, but I would take it if I believed I was in the right.

Jerry has bucked the league before and it got mad and sued him. This would be its legal recourse. As owner, Jerry can put who he wants out there on the field if he's willing to accept the consequences.

He absolutely would not be allowed to play.

 

[gimmesix]

He absolutely would not be allowed to play.

The league does not own the teams and it does not own the stadiums. It is a cooperation between the owners of these teams. It can remove its other teams from the playing field, but it absolutely cannot force an owner to remove a player from the field. Now, there are measures the league can take to punish one of its members, just like it did when Washington and Dallas did not go along during the "uncapped" year, but that's the extent of its powers over ownership. (Notice on that that it could not force Dallas and Washington to not give those contracts.)

If Jerry said he was going to put Elliott out there, the league would have to decide to either A) not play the game or B) threaten Jerry in every way possible to get him to not play Elliott. Those are its choices.

 

[SDCowboy]

The league does not own the teams and it does not own the stadiums. It is a cooperation between the owners of these teams. It can remove its other teams from the playing field, but it absolutely cannot force an owner to remove a player from the field. Now, there are measures the league can take to punish one of its members, just like it did when Washington and Dallas did not go along during the "uncapped" year, but that's the extent of its powers over ownership.

If Jerry said he was going to put Elliott out there, the league would have to decide to either A) not play the game or B) threaten Jerry in every way possible to get him to not play Elliott. Those are its choices.

Again, are you saying that you're ok with the extreme ramifications that would likely follow?

 

[gimmesix]

Do you not realize how absurd what you're suggesting is?

The situation is frustrating, but possibly forfeiting games and losing our draft picks is not a viable option. It solves nothing and only hurts the team and the fans.

I disagree. If I believe that I'm in the right, that this player is in the right, then taking a stand against the league overexercising its power is the best thing to do. People just have a hard time accepting the ramifications of bucking the system.

 

[gimmesix]

Again, are you saying that you're ok with the extreme ramifications that would likely follow?

Yes. The only way I would not be OK with it is if the evidence shows that Elliott is in the wrong. I believe that if he is in the right, then standing up for him is the right thing to do.

I do not believe that standing up for him by not playing at all is the right thing to do, but rather playing him and forcing the league's hand.

 

[SDCowboy]

I disagree. If I believe that I'm in the right, that this player is in the right, then taking a stand against the league overexercising its power is the best thing to do. People just have a hard time accepting the ramifications of bucking the system.

You're right. I do have an extremely hard time accepting the prospect of possibly forfeiting games and completely destroying our draft.

This situation is between Zeke, the league, and the NFLPA. The fans shouldn't get screwed over, making a bad situation worse.

 

[gimmesix]

You're right. I do have an extremely hard time accepting the prospect of possibly forfeiting games and completely destroying our draft.

This situation is between Zeke, the league, and the NFLPA. The fans shouldn't get screwed over, making a bad situation worse.

Ultimately, I believe this would be better for the fans because the league is heading the wrong way with decisions like this one and someone has to put a stop to it. But yes, our team would have to pay the cost. If it's standing up for what's right, then I would be willing to accept it even if I didn't like the ramifications. Plus, I think ultimately some of those consequences will be mitigated.

 

[SDCowboy]

Ultimately, I believe this would be better for the fans because the league is heading the wrong way with decisions like this one and someone has to put a stop to it. But yes, our team would have to pay the cost. If it's standing up for what's right, then I would be willing to accept it even if I didn't like the ramifications. Plus, I think ultimately some of those consequences will be mitigated.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, my dude.

 

[BoysFanInPhilly]

NFL needs Jones and the Cowboys more than the Cowboys need the NFL

If there wasn't an NFL who would the Cowboys play?

 

[punchnjudy]

Nah, we can't play him.

Maybe make him Head of Security in April?

 

[Stash]

If there wasn't an NFL who would the Cowboys play?

They could start their own league. I think plenty of teams would join them if it came down to it.

Again, who makes all the other owners money, and who's costing them money?

 

[Proof]

The likely ramifications would not be hilarious at all.

Obviously. This is in make believe land

 

[jobberone]

Likely not. But I think the NFL needs Jones and the Cowboys more than the Cowboys need the NFL. IF Jones were to draw a "him or me" line in the sand between him and Goodell, with this farce of a behavior policy included, I know who makes money for everybody and I know who costs them a ton and does nothing to earn it.

All the owners and players would line up to condemn a move like that. Never going to happen.

 

[jobberone]

I don't at all agree with not playing. I'd state what I'm going to do, put my players out there and let the league make the call on whether they are willing to play the games. The league is not going to forgo the revenue, so they will allow the games to be played under forfeiture.

That helps no one. This is won or lost in the courts.

 

[CF74]

Hire more lawyers and sue the league

 

[Stash]

All the owners and players would line up to condemn a move like that. Never going to happen.

I'll disagree on that one. If the players have any idea of what's going on, they know that the precedent being said in this Elliott railroad job sets each and every one of them up for the same 'guilty until never proving your innocence' situation. And rolls out the welcome mat for each and every gold digging opportunist to do it to them.

I would say the current relationship with most owners and players is tenuous at best.