In Response to Re: Goodell is really naive!
[QUOTE]RESPONSE: the facts show that the new commissioner made this one of his first emphasis points of his new regime via the memo. Belichick disregarded the memo, and the pats were reported to have been caught vs. GB, and not punished, then Belichick did it again vs. the Jets, then Belichick didn't follow the commissioners instructions about how to apologize as the commissioner AND Kraft agreed he would.RESPONSE: BB read a statement, which seemed to suffice. In any event, this was all much ado about nothing. A one game suspension of BB, or a $50,000 fine, would have been more than adequate punishment. His grossly unprecedented $750,000 in fines, and docking the Pats a #1 pick, was done to placate the media...and out of bias. Why say now that he wanted BB to grovel before the press? This is a clear showing of malice against BB and the Pats by "Jets".
Maybe Belichick demonstrated grossly unprecedented disregard for the commissioner of the league. Ever think of that?RESPONSE: If it was personal against BB, why also fine the team an additional $250,000, and dock them a #1 pick? Ever think of that?
Goodell did nothing to fuel the media. They can manage that all by themselves.RESPONSE: The grossly overstated punishment allowed the media to argue that the taping violation was a serious matter. Thus, Goodell's over-blown punishment was what fueled the alleged scandal.
Isn't any advantage through deceptive means enough? RESPONSE: No...not to justify the ridiculous punishment accessed by "Jets" Goodell. Cheating on the salary cap, as the Broncos did...and the tripping violation were far more serious offenses. Yet, the punishments meted out were far less onerous.
Welcome to the world of the media. When the media is not given what they want, they can bite. One of my former heroes was an early example of this - Bob Knight. The media hated him and he paid dearly for it. At the end of the day, an individual's own actions determine his legacy, not what someone writes about him. Belichick has plenty of defenders in the media and the profession. RESPONSE: The NY media wanted the Patriots destroyed, and BB forced to resign. Goodell worked with them to give them what they wanted. Notice how Goodell lavished Michael Vick with praise for having a fine season, and staying out of trouble, after his punishment. But, when BB rebounds with coach oof the year...Goodell still brings up spygate. Clearly, he has an agenda.
RESPONSE: ...the Pats' player didn't trip the opposing player in question, did he? Watch the video. If a man tries to rob a bank but doesn't succeed, does that mean he shouldn't be punished? If a kid cheats on a test off another's paper, but still gets an F (without getting caught because he copied the wrong answers) does that mean he didn't cheat? What was the player's intent? Was it any different than Alosi's? Should he and the organization be punished less because the gunner was aware enough to "jump" the trip? RESPONSE: Oh come now, Dog(gggg). Even if your bogus argument had any basis, how far do you want to go back to see whether other players did similar things? Ever hear of the old NBA adage, "No harm, no foul"? This situation is similar in nature. If the league wants to prevent this sort of thing from ever happening, than let Goodell do another of his famous memos to let everybody know that there will be a point of emphasis on "walling" the sideline on kick returns.
RESPONSE: Again, pats fans wanted other teams to be punished for taping.RESPONSE: If Goodell is going to use a tank to kill a mosquito, like he did with the Pats, surely even you can understand the anger and frustrations of most Pats' fans.
Thus, why wouldn't they expect punishment for trying to trip a player same as the Jets coach? Now, you are changing your opinion because the shoe is on the other foot. That's hypocritical. I just want pats fans to be consistent. RESPONSE: I am not "changing my opinion". My opinion has been that the punishment meted out was extremely excessive...and done out of bias. There's a huge difference in the punishments meted out in "spygate" and "tripgate". Plus, again, how far back do you want to go to check, and/or punish, all other possible violations?
RESPONSE: You're just trolling. Furthermore, I noticed that you never addressed my point on retroactive punishment. Why?? LOL!!! Your not staying on topic.RESPONSE: What a croc!! This serves as additional proof that you're nothing more than a troll...and why no one here should take you seriously.
What retroactive punishment? If I've made a logical argument, as I have on this subject, then I think it makes sense to take me seriously, RESPONSE: Oh come now, Dog(gggg). You know exactly what I mean. Former coaches have admitted to illegal taping, and worse. Surely, there were other incidents of illegal "walling", and or possible attempts to trip. We just need to go back and find them. How far back do you want to go?
...you've yet to effectively refute my points. As for being wrong frequently, its my opinion that we all are wrong frequently. RESPONSE: Obviously, you still have reading comprehension issues. As you have correctly pointed out, you are frequently wrong about most things. RESPONSE:
What difference does it make if a Pats' player committed or attempted to commit an infraction in the past? The bottom line is that the idiot Jets' coach actually tripped a player during a game...making his rule violation obvious for all too see, and creating a situation where the tripped player might have been seriously injured. As a result, that idiot coach deserved to be punished. Because the Jets' were caught, should we now go back and examine every past NFL game to see whether other teams or players committed, or attempted to commit, similar violations? as I recall pats fans here (including you) have been so upset over the fact that no other team was punished for committing the same spygate acts. Although we don't have evidence of other teams committing the same spygate infraction,
RESPONSE: Again, thats' a lie. There was ample evidence, both before and after the Patriots were accused. "Jets" Goodell chose to take no action. Excuse me? You want retroactive punishment for Spygate but not for the tripping.RESPONSE: Again...the punishment meted out to the Patriots was grossly out of proportion to the alleged violation. Do you agree or disagree? The fine for "tripgate" was just $100,000...a pittance by comparison. Violations of illegal taping were reported after the Pats were punished...and were never properly investigated.
Could you be anymore obviously biased?RESPONSE: Could anyone be more biased than the NY media, "Jets" Goodell, or you? No.
And which teams were caught and punished for taping prior to the memo?RESPONSE: The rule was never previously enforced.
Doesn't make it right if they did it, but as far as I know, they weren't punished.RESPONSE: Goodell and the media , as I have stated numerous times previously, used tthis mole hill of a violation, and created a mountain. The purpose of this was to destroy BB and the Pats.
Which teams were caught taping after the memo besides the pats?RESPONSE: There was evidence against the Jets, and, I believe, the Packers.
I think commonplace is an incorrect word. A couple of coaches said they did it, as I recall, and one was back in the 90's. RESPONSE: This is a monumental waste of time. As I recall, you have previously acknowledged, in one of your more lucid moments, that spygate was a bunch of BS.
...I know nothing...but it has no bearing on this case. RESPONSE: LOL!!! Is that why you are wrong most of the time? How does that have no bearing on our discussion?
The pats were not mistreated by the Goodell.RESPONSE: So...$750,000 in fines, and the docking of a #1 pick, seems fair to you?? LOL!!!
Maybe they were mistreated by the media, but Belichick has control over that.RESPONSE: What control? The media concocted lie after lie to try to drive him from the league!!
I am not concerned by the length of time of the negotiation. I think you make a valid point about risking injury, but cannot say why Manning would allow such a thing. It certainly provides you and anyone else with enough to question Manning's loyalty to the colts. I have a couple of thoughts on it, but they are only "left field" thoughts. There's really no way to know why he's done what he's done without him telling us. I imagine that if Manning takes "max money", he will be left out of all say in the future of the team. If he helps the team by taking less, then he will want some say. Further, and I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, I know why I would want Manning to take less, but why would Manning want to do so? Brady is the perfect example. After 3 superbowls, Brady took a discount with the thought being the team will use the money to maintain excellence. I'll tell you, that I think they did that, but the pats and pats fans after 3 sbs in 4 years view success differently from most. Since the discount the team went to only one SB and lost. What did the discount produce? On the other hand, Manning took max money and went to 2 superbowls and won 1. Given these outcomes (although I don't agree with them), its hard to argue for taking a discount. RESPONSE: They be no home town discount. Either they give Peyton what he wants, or he's gone.
RESPONSE: What difficulties did the Pats have that you're referring to? They were able to put together an extension for Brady. Why couldn't Indy do the same with Peyton? The pats demonstrated that they wanted to wait to do a deal with Brady because of the CBA. Brady complained - See Michael Silver - growing disconnect article. Brady pressured. Brady got the deal done, but it was not immediate. I don't know why Indy couldn't, wouldn't do the same for Manning at the same time. I don't know why it took them to mid season. Its a valid question.RESPONSE Indeed it is a valid question.
RESPONSE: Obviously, there is no "they". Peyton and his agent made that decision...not Indy management. I think so, too. Ultimately, I think Manning will be a colt, but when the colts didn't come to the table initially (like the pats), and then we heard nothing after the brady deal, I think Manning and Condon said lets wait. Waiting only gives Manning more leverage. It worked out for him. I also think the NFLPA may have a bit of their hands in this as well.RESPONSE: All joking aside, the Colts should trade Manning now...and rebuild. He wants to much in power and money.
RESPONSE: How would this serve the union? The Colts were quite prepared to pay Peyton whatever he wanted. Do you really think that Peyton, at age 35, is considering the Players' Union in his decision? Manning is the most powerful player in the league. Holding, as a negotiating chip, the most powerful player in the league as an uncontracted free agent is worthwhile. The NFLPA cannot break the owners as a whole, but they can try to break them piece by piece, team by team. Manning is a useful piece to break the colts. Yes, I think Manning cares about the Union.RESPONSE: Where's your evidence to show that Manning cares about the players' union?
RESPONSE: It already is interesting how Peyton has responded, thus far. agreed. RESPONSE: He'll respond as he did last time. He'll give no home town discount. Why? Because I thing he sees that the Colts are getting old, and are clearly declining. He'll either want top dollar, or out of Hooterville. You have as much an opportunity to be right as the alternative. Old? at .4 years older than the pats? Not so sure. Declining? why, because they put more people on injured reserve than maybe any other team? RESPONSE: You are once again demonstrating how stats can be twisted to make a point. Do you deny that the key Indy players are all over 30 years old? Other than Tom Brady and Matt Light, what key Pats' players fall into this category? I think the colts number one issue is their Oline, and maybe d end. They have young players at wideout. They have young players at tight end. They have young players at LB. They have young players at DB. They have young players at RB. Oline is a problem - although it is not completely age driven. D end could become a problem. Clearly Hughes was not what the colts expected. Maybe he can get it together next year.RESPONSE: Indy has huge issues on both the OL and DL. Hughes has been a major disappointment...as has RB Donald Brown. Once Freeney wears himself out, the Colts "D" is in big trouble.
As for the pats: Faulk 34; (has been replaced and upgraded by Danny Woodhead)
Neal 34; (he was all but washed up this year...and has been adequately replaced by Dan Connelly)
Warren 32; (as I've stated on many occasions...the Pats can't count on him...of course, they did alright in 2010 without him...and have 3 of the top 33 picks in the draft to replace him)
Branch 31;(can always find WRS)
Koppen 30;(still can play...has at least 2 good years left)
Banta Cain 30; (he's nothing special...the Pats need an upgrade at OLB)
Welker and Wilfork will be 30 next year.(both players are still in their primes...although Welker appears to be fading some, Julian Edelman is a capable replacement).
RESPONSE: Another asinine comment...LOL!!! How can you get top dollar when you give a discount? I mean he will be paid well. Maybe it 17 mill a year; 18 mill. Less than Brady but still top dollar (top dollar is a range) RESPONSE: You're dreaming.
RESPONSE: What "question" is that? The Colts have already assured Manning of that. The proper question is, "How much higher"? How is Peyton "on the spot"? He'll be more reasonable if management cedes him power. Otherwise, he's gone. After stating he would be highest paid, they asked him if he'd be willing to take less in order to go out and get players. You know this.RESPONSE: No way this happens...unless they cede him power. Polian will never do that.
RESPONSE: Brady already does have some influence. Why do you think that the Pats forked over a very high 4th round pick to get Brady favorite, Deion Branch? Ok, so does it seem you are being critical of Manning for possibly seeking the same? RESPONSE: Who is being critical?
RESPONSE: Of course, we'll never know...but the added motivation of a perfect season and football immortality might have been enough added incentive to push the Colts over the top. Throwing away that perfect season seemed to effect they mojo. If giving up the perfect season affected their mojo, then why didn't they lose to the Ravens who creamed the pats? Why didn't they lose to the Jets? I think you are grasping.RESPONSE: My opinion. The Ravens beat a wounded, very flawed Pats team. The Jets shouldn't have even made the play-offs in 2009.
RESPONSE: He's gone, unless management gives him a strong say in personnel decisions...and in decisions like whether or not he plays, or sits out games. You mean, influence, like Brady, don't you? RESPONSE: Brady has some influence, but is far from being a silent GM. That what Peyton wants...and, likely, won't get.
RESPONSE: The idea sounds radical. But, I can't see Polian ceding Manning the power he wants. Furthermore, if the 35 year old Peyton asks for the moon to stay, I believe that it would be in the best interests of the franchise to cut ties with him now, and start rebuilding, by getting the king's randsom in draft choices that such a trade would command. The Colts could also use the money that would have been paid to Peyton to add some quality free agents. Don't you agree? Radical indeed. Pure patsfan fantasy. As for money to sign Qualtiy FA's, that's never really been the colts MO. In the last decade name for me "quality" vet FA's that the colts have signed who provided a significant contribution. I can name 2 quickly. I can name one that failed.RESPONSE: Sorry...but the Colts are better off ditching Peyton now, while he's worth plenty...than 2 years from now, when he'll be worth far less. If he's unhappy, and wants too much money and power, it's the thing to do.
RESPONSE: It is the league, not the Pats, that needs consistency. Where and when has any team been punished to the degree the Pats were...and over such a relatively menial thing as video-taping in the wrong area. Even if Goodell felt slighted because BB disregarded his memo, he and the media used this incident to try to drive perhaps the greatest coach in NFL history from the game, and to tarnish his legacy. Furthermore, the franchise itself was descended upon, in an effort to close the gap between it and the rest of the league's franchises. Docking the team a first round pick was a devastating blow. You have every right to believe that the taping incident was insignificant. But if insignificant, then why the league memo. Goodell must not have thought it insignificant. Then the pats get caught not once but twice (GB, Jets) (so you say)...
after the memo was distributed. What would you have Goodell do after being given the middle finger over something he thought was important enough to distribute a league wide memo on it? To make matters worse, he provides specific instructions about how the apology should be handled, gets buy in from Kraft, and then Belichick snubs Goodell AGAIN? I wonder why Belichick wasn't suspended.RESPONSE: Goodell is nothing but a biased hack, who likely has political aspirations in NY. The penalty accessed on BB and the Pats was grossly unprecedented, was done to gain favor with the NY media, and to help the Jets. Bob Kraft should do everything in his power to oust him.
Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]