BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open

    Polian will petition to fill it while maintaining his current spot as well. Snake.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open

    Interesting comment.  I know that board participants have been clamoring for a patriot employee to sit on the committee. 

    With Fisher's departure, it was assumed that the seat would be taken by a coach.  Would Belichick do it?  Would the committee allow him to do it given past transgressions?  Would the pats org even try to get someone on it?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open

    Honestly, that's a very interesting point about BB and past transgressions. How do you put someone on the Competition committee after already paying such a hefty fee for a violation? Although, I could point to Vick/Little Ben as reasons to give a second chance, but their trangressions were off the field.

    I don't think BB would want it, he commits, overcommits himself to his duties in Foxboro as it is. I could see Jonathon Kraft taking a run at it. He and his father were a big part of the last CBA getting done on time, he seems to have an interest in that sort of thing.

    I don't care about a Patriot employee so much, but what I'd like is a true neutral person without any alterior motives. You can't deny that every single change Polian has pushed strongly for would directly benefit his team. The whole lining up and setting thing at the ends of halves is debatable, I'm still not clear on what that rule actually is, and enforcement seems to have happened only a handful of times all year. I'd like people on the committee who actually were concerned with making the game "right". I've often thought people not otherwise involved in the NFL would make perfect sense. Maybe a few ex-players and ex-coaches of note. People like Tagliabue should fill that committee, not current GMs and coaches. It's a clear confilct of interest.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open

    Frankly, with the pats being as powerful an org within the league as they are, you'd think they'd be interested in some association with the committee.  I think you are right on both parts - 1) if the seat does go to a coach because a coach was dropped, belichick's past may hamper his ability to be selected, and 2) belichick seems to be a guy who doesn't care for distractions beyond his domain.  While certainly NFL related, he may not desire the distraction from his immediate responsibilities. 

    As for Kraft, I think (but don't actually know) that the committee is made up of "football" guys as opposed to business guys.  I don't know if he would fit. 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open

    Polian's kid. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open

    As for your comments on Polian, I wholeheartedly disagree.  As much of an a&& as Polian is, I think he has a real idea of how he thinks the league rules should be set.  I think he looks at this not just from a football perspective but also from a business perspective (what does the paying and viewing public want?). 

    Now, that he builds teams that also reflect that vision, I can't really deny. 

    But I honestly do not believe it is the other way around - that he has built a team and thus wants the rules set to its benefit. 

    Finally, the purpose of having a committee is to ensure that one person's ideas are not the only ideas that exist, and that consensus is required to effect change.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open

    Except when you are the Chairman of the committee and use your leverage as chairman to target a specific team you constantly lost to, hoping your rule adjustments favor your team's style of play.

    Let's call it like it is.  His finesse offense wasn't getting the clean releases they wanted prior to the 2004 season, especially outside on grass or in inclement weather/slower conditions.

    So, he put a focus on this by using examples from games his team lost.

    They need to rotate this committee's personnel with term limits every 2 years.

    All GMs and coaches must participate.   This way, there is no self-centered agendas specific to one or a few teams.

    Half from AFC, half from NFC.



     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open

    Rusty, as you know, the 5 yard chuck rule had been in place for quite some time before the infamous AFFCG where the pats where practically riding colts receivers well beyond 5 yards? 

    As I've said many times before, I don't fault the pats, but the rules were not being applied.  You may also know that the colts weren't the only team who had an issue with this. 

    As I said before, a committee is in place so one individual cannot simply push through his own agenda.  Some consensus must be achieved. 

    Now, you may think that Polian's position was only in order to benefit the Colts, but I disagree and am happy to challenge you on that point. 

    With the rule in place, if it is not being appropriately applied, then doesn't Polian (or anyone else) have a legitimate concern?  What good is a rule is it is not enforced?  

    Did Polian ask for a change to the rule?  No. 
    Did he ask for enforcement of the rule?  Yes.  What is the issue there? 

    If you were on the committee and there were a rule on the books that was not being appropriately enforced and it was proven, wouldn't you agree that either it should be enforced or removed?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from PerryM. Show PerryM's posts

    Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open

    How about Bill Parcells, just asking. I have a hard time liking him now after thinking he was a God up to 1996. But you can't argue his Knowledge of the game. And I am not sure how connected he is with the league now and if even he could be considered. Just a thought.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open

    In Response to Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open:
    [QUOTE]They need to rotate this committee's personnel with term limits every 2 years. All GMs and coaches must participate.   This way, there is no self-centered agendas specific to one or a few teams. Half from AFC, half from NFC.
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    Whatever else you may believe about perceived (or actual) biases and/or agendas within the committee, the above suggestion makes sense.

    If the idea is actually to promote fair "competition" throughout the league, it seems a bit parochial to have the same people . . .  and the same team and market perspectives . . .  identifying and adjudicating the issues as they -- and only they -- see fit.


     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from harleyroadking11. Show harleyroadking11's posts

    Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open

    Archie Manning
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from apdynasty23. Show apdynasty23's posts

    Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open

    In Response to Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open:
    [QUOTE]Polian's kid. 
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open

    In Response to Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open:
    [QUOTE]Rusty, as you know, the 5 yard chuck rule had been in place for quite some time before the infamous AFFCG where the pats where practically riding colts receivers well beyond 5 yards?  As I've said many times before, I don't fault the pats, but the rules were not being applied.  You may also know that the colts weren't the only team who had an issue with this.  As I said before, a committee is in place so one individual cannot simply push through his own agenda.  Some consensus must be achieved.  Now, you may think that Polian's position was only in order to benefit the Colts, but I disagree and am happy to challenge you on that point.  With the rule in place, if it is not being appropriately applied, then doesn't Polian (or anyone else) have a legitimate concern?  What good is a rule is it is not enforced?   Did Polian ask for a change to the rule?  No.  Did he ask for enforcement of the rule?  Yes.  What is the issue there?  If you were on the committee and there were a rule on the books that was not being appropriately enforced and it was proven, wouldn't you agree that either it should be enforced or removed?
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]


    It's a farce that NE's defenders were "riding" Indy's receivers past the 5 yards.

    They played man, frustrated them with jams at the line and broke into disguised zones and picked Manning.

    Funny how it's never Manning's fault when he plays bad or collapses in inclement weather.

    You need to see long time patterns to start to tell officials to further enforce the 1978 Chuck Rule or basically tell them to specifically focus on it.

    One game where your team was affected does not mean the officials aren't enforcing it.  This is the point.

    This is the issue people have with Polian. Polian felt that one game was reason enough to make a stink about it. 

    Just admit your offense is finesse and that's why they were blistered off the field outside of that cozy dome.

    I question anyone who sits in a power position for that long who constantly has so much influence with rules and regulations.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open

    In Response to Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open:
    [QUOTE]As for your comments on Polian, I wholeheartedly disagree.  As much of an a&& as Polian is, I think he has a real idea of how he thinks the league rules should be set.  I think he looks at this not just from a football perspective but also from a business perspective (what does the paying and viewing public want?).  Now, that he builds teams that also reflect that vision, I can't really deny.  But I honestly do not believe it is the other way around - that he has built a team and thus wants the rules set to its benefit.  Finally, the purpose of having a committee is to ensure that one person's ideas are not the only ideas that exist, and that consensus is required to effect change.
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    Hahahahahahahahaha

    Mr "What, you mean moving the ref doesn't favor us and Peyton is whining so I'd better get it fixed" is unbiased? He even said he didn't realize how much the rule change would effect his team and implemented the change. 

    Too funny.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open

    In Response to Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open : Hahahahahahahahaha Mr "What, you mean moving the ref doesn't favor us and Peyton is whining so I'd better get it fixed" is unbiased? He even said he didn't realize how much the rule change would effect his team and implemented the change.  Too funny.
    Posted by EnochRoot[/QUOTE]

    Interestingly enough, when it was initially reported that the umpire was going to be moved, some nitwit started a thread here about how this would no longer enable Wes Welker to run picks off the umpire --  at which point reasonable minds pointed out that if any team was going to be unduly affected by the move, it would be Indianapolis, which relies on the no-huddle offense as much as (if not more than) any other team.

    Even a dyed-in-the-wool Indy homer cannot reasonably excuse what happened almost immediately. Forget the "point of emphasis," faceguarding or mythical offensive pass interference . . .  the decision to re-position the umpire (again) was made specically for and at the behest of Peyton Manning.

    And who chairs that committee again?


     
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open

    In Response to Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open : It's a farce that NE's defenders were "riding" Indy's receivers past the 5 yards. They played man, frustrated them with jams at the line and broke into disguised zones and picked Manning. Funny how it's never Manning's fault when he plays bad or collapses in inclement weather. You need to see long time patterns to start to tell officials to further enforce the 1978 Chuck Rule or basically tell them to specifically focus on it. One game where your team was affected does not mean the officials aren't enforcing it.  This is the point. This is the issue people have with Polian. Polian felt that one game was reason enough to make a stink about it.  Just admit your offense is finesse and that's why they were blistered off the field outside of that cozy dome. I question anyone who sits in a power position for that long who constantly has so much influence with rules and regulations.
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    Rusty, My absolute favorite dogg quote was when Indy Lost to Philadelphia in November this year, what confused underdogg most of all, was NOT that Philadelphia was called foe 2x as many penalties (awarded to Indy), for something like OVER 150 yards (given to Colts), BUT that Colts lost that game b/c Philly MUST have been holding the The Colts's wide receivers, And even though Philly's penalties were all across the board on their team (ST's, Offensive holding, Phantom Peyton Interference, lined up in neutral zone, "High" hits/Roughing passer)- The Philadelphia Eagles MUST have been holding those Colts's Wide Receivers (as dogg pointed out), BECAUSE: Colts eligible receivers usually get MUCH better seperation, AND since Dogg didn't SEE AS good seperation as he usually did, ALAS: The Defensive Holding from Philly's Secondary, was a given...   Imho, The very Best (& certainly, most sound) deduction ever...
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsRfineIn09. Show PatsRfineIn09's posts

    Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open

    Howard Mudd
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open

    In Response to Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open : Interestingly enough, when it was initially reported that the umpire was going to be moved, some nitwit started a thread here about how this would no longer enable Wes Welker to run picks off the umpire --  at which point reasonable minds pointed out that if any team was going to be unduly affected by the move, it would be Indianapolis, which relies on the no-huddle offense as much as (if not more than) any other team. Even a dyed-in-the-wool Indy homer cannot reasonably excuse what happened almost immediately. Forget the "point of emphasis," faceguarding or mythical offensive pass interference . . .  the decision to re-position the umpire (again) was made specically for and at the behest of Peyton Manning. And who chairs that committee again?  
    Posted by p-mike[/QUOTE]

    Right right,

    Because Welker doesn't pick, and other teams didn't have a problem with the positioning of the umpire.  Just because the colts are willing to be obvious (read: public) doesn't mean that other teams don't feel the same way and didn't express their feelings. 

    Geez - even the smat ones lose rationality. 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open

    In Response to Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open:
    [QUOTE]Polian's kid. 
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    LOL, don't think they'll buy into the nepotism
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open

    In Response to Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open : Interestingly enough, when it was initially reported that the umpire was going to be moved, some nitwit started a thread here about how this would no longer enable Wes Welker to run picks off the umpire --  at which point reasonable minds pointed out that if any team was going to be unduly affected by the move, it would be Indianapolis, which relies on the no-huddle offense as much as (if not more than) any other team. Even a dyed-in-the-wool Indy homer cannot reasonably excuse what happened almost immediately. Forget the "point of emphasis," faceguarding or mythical offensive pass interference . . .  the decision to re-position the umpire (again) was made specically for and at the behest of Peyton Manning. And who chairs that committee again?  
    Posted by p-mike[/QUOTE]

    Exactly.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open

    In Response to Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open : Right right, Because Welker doesn't pick, and other teams didn't have a problem with the positioning of the umpire.  Just because the colts are willing to be obvious (read: public) doesn't mean that other teams don't feel the same way and didn't express their feelings.  Geez - even the smat ones lose rationality. 
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    Peyton complained and Polian even said, publicly, that he didn't realize that the rule effected his team - that was on his weekly radio show, IIRC. Regardless of any other private team complaints, that Peyton complained about it, Polian acknowledged he should have thought it through better before pushing for it and then the rule being modified smacks of Colts influencing the CC.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from neali. Show neali's posts

    Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open

    In Response to Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open:
    [QUOTE]How about Bill Parcells, just asking. I have a hard time liking him now after thinking he was a God up to 1996. But you can't argue his Knowledge of the game. And I am not sure how connected he is with the league now and if even he could be considered. Just a thought.
    Posted by PerryM[/QUOTE]


    Terrific idea. Parcells would be an excellent counter point to the polian/godell pussification of the league.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open

    In Response to Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open : Peyton complained and Polian even said, publicly, that he didn't realize that the rule effected his team - that was on his weekly radio show, IIRC. Regardless of any other private team complaints, that Peyton complained about it, Polian acknowledged he should have thought it through better before pushing for it and then the rule being modified smacks of Colts influencing the CC.
    Posted by EnochRoot[/QUOTE]
    So what???????

    Are you suggesting that there weren't other coaches, executives, or players who thought it wouldn't be an issue until they realized that it was?

    Hey but if you can find something to bash, have at it.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostatewarrior. Show bostatewarrior's posts

    Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open

    Does geography play any part in representation on the committee?

    No team west of Dallas is represented.

    No Florida team.

    Isn't the only owner from the Giants?

    Usually active coaches or GM's.

    I'll guess...Mike Holmgren - Browns or Jerry Angelo- Bears

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: BOARD GM'S - Competition Committee Spot Now Open

    I obviously have no idea how people are selected, but I am willing to bet that not too many people want the position.  Owners generally have other things to manage and arent necessarily football people.  GM's and Coaches generally are very worried about getting fired and may not want to dedicate the time sitting on this committee requires. 

    Ultimately, what is the return for taking a seat? 
     

Share