The NFL needs a new strategy

mattjames2010

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,838
Reaction score
20,694
Your suggesting a higher tolerance which isn't going to clean the league up.

The league doesn't need this 1% of problem talent. You don't miss what you never had .

What do you mean "clean the league up"? There won't be a ton to clean up if they remove the polices I just mentioned. These players wouldn't be considered problems - because honestly, they aren't with some exceptions.

The league may not need all of that 1%, but when you start losing star players for policies that are overstepping bounds or for mundane issues, it's a negative.
 

PA Cowboy Fan

Well-Known Member
Messages
25,354
Reaction score
51,350
No question but what that's what happened during the last contract. The owner's heavy-handed ways with suspensions are getting out of hand more than ever, though. I'm just hoping the players take up for some of those who are getting bludgeoned with harsh penalties.
The NFL is just not trustworthy either anymore. Don't believe them especially after this.
 

Diehardblues

Well-Known Member
Messages
58,295
Reaction score
38,881
We want justness, fairness and truth. If the player is guilty then disciplinary action is required. The NFL has demonstrated their incompetence on both ends of the spectrum when a middle ground is required; one that is fair for both the accused and the accuser. If you want to advocate for zero tolerance banishment then fine but the NFL better have some irrefutable evidence before enforcing that policy.
Would your employer need irrefutable evidence to fire you?

I'm not suggesting Zero Tolerance just cutting out the Public image liability players. These suspensions are pampering them and providing them a path to play. Just fire them. Cut the losses and move on.
 

Diehardblues

Well-Known Member
Messages
58,295
Reaction score
38,881
What do you mean "clean the league up"? There won't be a ton to clean up if they remove the polices I just mentioned. These players wouldn't be considered problems - because honestly, they aren't with some exceptions.

The league may not need all of that 1%, but when you start losing star players for policies that are overstepping bounds or for mundane issues, it's a negative.
A negative to who? Fans who's only objective is winning games at any cost ?That's not the owners objective.
 

Reverend Conehead

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,953
Reaction score
11,860
Do you have any examples of what you're fearing to? How are they trying to win favor with the media?

The media has run with feminazification in the way that it has embraced their "guilty until proven innocent" standard of accusations. There's no proof whatsoever that Zeke committed any act of domestic violence. All they have is one accuser who admitted she has an ax to grind to destroy his life. The media has been jumping all over this story, hungering to claim that the NFL promotes domestic violence. So with the 6-game suspension, they're saying that maybe the NFL will be on board with Feminazis and we'll stop domestic violence, but it's only a temporary placating. They'll come back and claim that the NFL is all about "toxic masculinity" (a hate term invented by feminazis). It's because you can only placate these extremists temporarily. They don't care about violence. They only care about their power. They're programmed to continue their witch hunt. That's why the league needs to stop this NOW before it escalates to using more of their spectral evidence. You will never satisfy the hunger that is feminist hate. You can only feed it and make it grow or starve it. Starve it! Do the just thing. Proclaim: "No proof, no suspension!" They'll throw greater hate tantrums now, but at least it won't feed the beast.
 

Diehardblues

Well-Known Member
Messages
58,295
Reaction score
38,881
What do you mean "clean the league up"? There won't be a ton to clean up if they remove the polices I just mentioned. These players wouldn't be considered problems - because honestly, they aren't with some exceptions.

The league may not need all of that 1%, but when you start losing star players for policies that are overstepping bounds or for mundane issues, it's a negative.
"Cleaning up the league "meaning removing this negative element of behavior.

Fans lose focus that this isn't just about the NFL. This protecting the image is about the networks, sponsors and all of those contributing financial resources .

The NFL is not just a football league. It's a sports entertainment business.

I understand we all don't like the business associated with football but it's vital to its popularity and financial gain and what this is all about.

I'm old enough to recall a league where all games weren't televised and playing in the NFL was an underpaid part time job where they made less than most of us do now and basically a hobby for rich businessman not a very profitable venture .

My uncle turned down an offer to play for the Packers in 1962 because it wasn't enough to move his family up there and decided not to play in the NFL. And I'd be fine going back to a league like that .
 

MeTed

Member
Messages
80
Reaction score
85
Would your employer need irrefutable evidence to fire you?

I'm not suggesting Zero Tolerance just cutting out the Public image liability players. These suspensions are pampering them and providing them a path to play. Just fire them. Cut the losses and move on.
Yes, in fact, you are. And I have no objection with that opinion. However, employers *should* use a higher standard of proof.
 

Diehardblues

Well-Known Member
Messages
58,295
Reaction score
38,881
Yes, in fact, you are. And I have no objection with that opinion. However, employers *should* use a higher standard of proof.
We had tolerance back in the day for some wild behavior but not all bad or illegal behavior . Landry released some very talented players like Rentzel , Hollywood and Duane who were important parts to our championships without any mandates from the league.
 

haleyrules

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,060
Reaction score
42,877
No question but what that's what happened during the last contract. The owner's heavy-handed ways with suspensions are getting out of hand more than ever, though. I'm just hoping the players take up for some of those who are getting bludgeoned with harsh penalties. Especially so, considering the way they're taking up for some of these tramps who look to con young players out of their hard-earned wages.
Agreed. I can not understand the leagues actions regarding their greatest asset. Changes certainly need to be made.
 

mattjames2010

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,838
Reaction score
20,694
A negative to who? Fans who's only objective is winning games at any cost ?That's not the owners objective.

A negative for the NFL - Jesus.

Marijuana isn't going to impact a player today - it's not a hard crime, but the NFL punishes players as it is. It's in no way on the level of enhancement drugs on the market. Again, removing star freakin' players from the field or even removing them for an entire season is not a positive for the league. Star players are needed, how exactly are you struggling with this?

I will respond to your next post and that will be it. This shouldn't be hard to grasp and I don't go around in circles.
 

Diehardblues

Well-Known Member
Messages
58,295
Reaction score
38,881
A negative for the NFL - Jesus.

Marijuana isn't going to impact a player today - it's not a hard crime, but the NFL punishes players as it is. It's in no way on the level of enhancement drugs on the market. Again, removing star freakin' players from the field or even removing them for an entire season is not a positive for the league. Star players are needed, how exactly are you struggling with this?

I will respond to your next post and that will be it. This shouldn't be hard to grasp and I don't go around in circles.
I'm arguing this very small percentage of star players about 1% is not needed.

I'm lobbying for the 99% who abide instead of this 1% who's weighing the league down.
 

mattjames2010

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,838
Reaction score
20,694
"Cleaning up the league "meaning removing this negative element of behavior.

Fans lose focus that this isn't just about the NFL. This protecting the image is about the networks, sponsors and all of those contributing financial resources .

The NFL is not just a football league. It's a sports entertainment business.

I understand we all don't like the business associated with football but it's vital to its popularity and financial gain and what this is all about.

I'm old enough to recall a league where all games weren't televised and playing in the NFL was an underpaid part time job where they made less than most of us do now and basically a hobby for rich businessman not a very profitable venture .

My uncle turned down an offer to play for the Packers in 1962 because it wasn't enough to move his family up there and decided not to play in the NFL. And I'd be fine going back to a league like that .

"Negative elements of behavior" - And I'm stating, if you stop viewing smoking weed as "negative behavior", you are not going to have a ton of problem players.

We are not discussing hard crimes here.

AGAIN, and this will be the last time I post this: The NFL is hurting ITSELF with these policies.
 

mattjames2010

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,838
Reaction score
20,694
I'm arguing this very small percentage of star players about 1% is not needed.

And I already addressed that - we get it, it wasn't in some foreign code.

Removing star players or potential star players from the football field over mundane and petty issues is not a positive for the NFL, we have seen this.
 

ShortRound

Well-Known Member
Messages
24,167
Reaction score
84,122
I agree. The NFL is in a weird place where it tries to be an arbiter of law and justice. I mean, I can't think of any other entertainment business like that.

This is what I don't get. How come the NBA, MLB, and NHL doesn't have drama over player suspensions like the NFL seems to be having last few years. Maybe they do and I haven't paid attention. But the other sports seem relatively quiet compared to football.
 

Diehardblues

Well-Known Member
Messages
58,295
Reaction score
38,881
"Negative elements of behavior" - And I'm stating, if you stop viewing smoking weed as "negative behavior", you are not going to have a ton of problem players.

We are not discussing hard crimes here.

AGAIN, and this will be the last time I post this: The NFL is hurting ITSELF with these policies.
I don't agree with this. The NFL is protecting itself . Is there collateral damage publicly . Of course.

As long as Marijuana is a Federally illegal drug sponsors don't want to be associated and then it could gain Congress attention with their Anti Trust exemption.

This is about the business of the NFL. I'm not sure fans are weighing in all of the collateral damage associated with allowing a substance this country is prosecuting and incarcerating our citizens on to be allowed by the most visible sport in the country is dangerous business.

I'm all for abolishing Prohibition but until that occurs our laws in the country are the defining issue.
 

Diehardblues

Well-Known Member
Messages
58,295
Reaction score
38,881
This is what I don't get. How come the NBA, MLB, and NHL doesn't have drama over player suspensions like the NFL seems to be having last few years. Maybe they do and I haven't paid attention. But the other sports seem relatively quiet compared to football.
Great question .

The NBA had some issues several years ago with their image and made several new league mandates including their attire on the bench.

The NBA and MLB of course don't have a league wide agreement with the networks to broadcast all of their games. They all negotiate individually.

The changing demographics in the NFL play a major role as well with about 70% now African American. The NBA has been there for decades and MLB hovers around 10% with Latinos and Dominicans the largest growth segment.

Throw in the sheer numbers of players in the NFL compared to the NBA and the exposure they receive nationally . Plus today's culture and influence plays a huge role as well in the behavior . Much more for those with the financial influence . And all this is truly about . As usual follow the money trail. The NFL is afraid they could be become a NBA or WWF.

And the NBA forbids Marijuana as well.
 

Diehardblues

Well-Known Member
Messages
58,295
Reaction score
38,881
And I already addressed that - we get it, it wasn't in some foreign code.

Removing star players or potential star players from the football field over mundane and petty issues is not a positive for the NFL, we have seen this.
So, your argument is there won't be any financial fallout from sponsors, the networks or public outcry from activist groups legislatively if they abolish testing for marijuana and simply let the legal system determine who can play without any internal policies or discipline ?

Just play football and let the chips fall where they may. That's all great from a fans perspective but I don't think NFL owners are willing to take that chance .
 

Dodger12

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,142
Reaction score
3,532
I don't agree with this. The NFL is protecting itself . Is there collateral damage publicly . Of course.

As long as Marijuana is a Federally illegal drug sponsors don't want to be associated and then it could gain Congress attention with their Anti Trust exemption.

This is about the business of the NFL. I'm not sure fans are weighing in all of the collateral damage associated with allowing a substance this country is prosecuting and incarcerating our citizens on to be allowed by the most visible sport in the country is dangerous business.

I'm all for abolishing Prohibition but until that occurs our laws in the country are the defining issue.

Good post. This isn't just about negative behavior and characterizing something that is clearly illegal (federally) misses the boat. But what people fail to take into account is that the players know well ahead of time when they'll be tested. It's not impossible to get around the testing. Gregory, for example, knew he was going to be tested before the combine and during his suspension and still couldn't stay off the weed. There's a far greater issue here than simply changing the NFL's policy on marijuana.
 

Montanalo

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,485
Reaction score
11,657
CowboysZone DIEHARD Fan
Ray Rice was suspended two games. The video was already out in the public and the NFL had a copy prior to suspending him those two games, but after the suspension, the media started showing the video and the NFL suddenly suspended Ray Rice indefinitely. Career over. Then they suspended Josh Brown for one game. They either had the details of his past alleged domestic violence incidents or they simply chose to move quickly to prevent it becoming a media story. Then the media got a hold of those past incidents and suddenly the NFL suspended Josh Brown indefinitely. Career over. Greg Hardy? Career over.

Don't get me wrong. All of those guys deserved to be suspended. I fully believe that NFL players who commit any violent crime like domestic violence should be suspended. That said, I believe the NFL should only do this when players are at least charged with crimes and even then, only when the evidence justifies a pre-conviction suspension, and once they suspend the player, that should be it. The player misses those games, then the player comes back. Instead, for many players, a domestic violence suspension, even if never really proven in actual court, means the end of their career unless they are a superstar and even then, there are no guarantees.
I like your take on the NFL and its relationship with the media. As someone who really doesn't follow the NBA, I am curious, what's the difference with the NFL? The NBA seems to have embraced the hip-hop culture and, yet, you don't seem to have as much attention on off-court behavior. It seems as though most of the dialogue in the NBA is around the formation of so-called supper teams and the political opinions of a hand full of players.

I think a contributing factor to the current mess the NFL finds itself is the inconsistent approach to disciplinary action. It really feels like a crap-shoot. I am all for holding people accountable for their actions, but feel that the NFL has
gone too far in trying to appease the media and perceived fan-base by instituting their own investigations.

Not to diminish the impact of DV, but if the NFL really wanted to protect the brand, they would get serious about officiating and about the unnecessary TV time outs after every little thing that transpires on the field. Again, I am not excusing the criminal behavior of a few players, but I daresay the the NFL ratings drop is more a function of game quality than off-field behavior
 
Top