PFT: Herm Edwards accuses Rams, Bucs of tampering - New England Patriots Forums

BPF · 03-25-2008, 10:11 AM

Does this mean that everyone team tries to gain a competitive advantage?? Does this mean that everyone does it?? We all know the answer to that but maybe now everyone else will.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/...s-of-cheating/

Quote:

EDWARDS ACCUSES BUCS, RAMS OF CHEATING
Posted by Mike Florio on March 25, 2008, 8:30 a.m.

The tampering floodgates could be opening.

On the same day that the NFL nailed the Niners for talking to Bears linebacker Lance Briggs without formal authorization while the two teams were talking about a possible trade of the Pro Bowler, Kansas City Chiefs coach Herm Edwards bemoaned the fact that his team’s effort to sign a couple of coveted free agents was hampered by the fact that other teams apparently had an improper head start.

Regarding the Chiefs’ inability to acquire guys like center Jeff Faine (who signed with the Bucs on the first day of free agency) and kicker Josh Brown (who landed quickly with the Rams), Edwards said, “There were probably some deals done before [the launch of free agency]. We didn’t cheat. We abided by the rules. That’s how you’re supposed to do it, and that’s what we did.”

Implicit in Edwards’ remarks is that the Bucs and Rams did cheat.

And though the tampering rules as currently drafted prevent the league from taking action absent a complaint from the team to whom the tampered-with player belonged, Edwards’ remarks prove that there really isn’t only one victim when tampering occurs. In the cases of Faine and Brown, the Chiefs (and possibly other teams) lost out when they didn’t get a fair shot at pursuing the players.

Of course, the Chiefs were victims under this formula only if they were one of the rare teams (if there even are any) who refuse to engage in the pre-free agency discussions that allow agents to outline the contours of the market. Indeed, Faine wouldn’t have signed with the Bucs on day one and Brown wouldn’t inked with the Rams if either player’s agent thought that more money would be available elsewhere. The fact that deals can be signed so quickly with one team means that discussions with multiple teams preceded the finalization of the contracts.

The irony of Edwards’ remarks is that his leap from the Jets to the Chiefs a couple of years ago occurred under circumstances that could cause a reasonable person to believe that discussions were occurring between Edwards and Chiefs G.M. Carl Peterson while Edwards was still the property of the Jets. So it’s possible that the Chiefs’ chief is speaking with forked tongue when it comes to whether or not they cheated. The truth could be that they simply didn’t cheat as effectively as the Bucs and Rams did.

And that’s the point we keep coming back to. They all cheat. They all tamper. Everyone wants to get an edge, because the NFL is the ultimate zero-sum game in which for every winning team there necessarily is a losing team, and the folks who work in the football operations of the losing teams are in jeopardy of losing their jobs.

So if the NFL is going to hammer the Niners for making two phone calls of unknown content to an agent who represents a lot more players than Lance Briggs and if that standard is going to be applied to every other team, then every other team should lose one or more draft picks.

The other possibility is that the 49ers were sacrificed by the league in order to demonstrate to folks like Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) that the NFL is willing and able to enforce its rules. But if those rules aren’t going to be enforced fairly and equally, it would be better not to enforce them.

Under such circumstances, it would be even better to not have rules at all.

***Rob0729*** · 03-25-2008, 10:28 AM

You know this is what ticks me off about this whole cheating thing. When it comes to tampering, much of the media writes it off that is no big deal because everyone is doing it. Yet, they slam the Patriots whenever they get. And whenever anyone argues that other teams do/did what the Pats did, they argue that it isn't an excuse and Patriots defenders are deflecting blame.

Tampering is cheating. It is far more harmful in many cases than anything the Pats have ever been accused of. All you have do is look at the whole Lawyer Milloy or Deion Branch situations. Tampering can irreparably damage a relationship between a player and their current team.

BadMoFo · 03-25-2008, 10:32 AM

Why's everyone trying to be like us?

Draft well, sign role players, stay out of trouble and cheat. That's our thing.

Patsmaniac · 03-25-2008, 11:44 AM

God does this piss me off. Maybe we have tampered in the past as well, but the point is that all these Holier than Thou NFL a-holes need to be B*itch slapped by the NFL and media as BB and the pats were. THe hypocrasy is staggering. They should investigate this further and levy fines, etc.

***jmt57*** · 03-25-2008, 12:23 PM

Perhaps this is overly simplistic, but perhaps there should be two dates for the start of free agency. The first would be when teams can talk to free agents, which should start the day after the Super Bowl. The second would be the first day that free agents can sign a contract with any team - at least a week, or maybe two weeks later.

This way even though many teams may continue to jump the gun and talk to a player early, the others that are playing by the rules will still have a chance to talk with any free agent, and make him an offer. The current advantage gained by teams that do tamper with free agents and sign them early would be for the most part lost. Any other team would still have time to make an offer to these free agents that have already made deals.

***blackglass3*** · 03-25-2008, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmt57

Perhaps this is overly simplistic, but perhaps there should be two dates for the start of free agency. The first would be when teams can talk to free agents, which should start the day after the Super Bowl. The second would be the first day that free agents can sign a contract with any team - at least a week, or maybe two weeks later.

This way even though many teams may continue to jump the gun and talk to a player early, the others that are playing by the rules will still have a chance to talk with any free agent, and make him an offer. The current advantage gained by teams that do tamper with free agents and sign them early would be for the most part lost. Any other team would still have time to make an offer to these free agents that have already made deals.

That does seem like a pretty good idea. It makes alot more sense than the way it is now.

signbabybrady · 03-25-2008, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmt57

Perhaps this is overly simplistic, but perhaps there should be two dates for the start of free agency. The first would be when teams can talk to free agents, which should start the day after the Super Bowl. The second would be the first day that free agents can sign a contract with any team - at least a week, or maybe two weeks later.

This way even though many teams may continue to jump the gun and talk to a player early, the others that are playing by the rules will still have a chance to talk with any free agent, and make him an offer. The current advantage gained by teams that do tamper with free agents and sign them early would be for the most part lost. Any other team would still have time to make an offer to these free agents that have already made deals.

Interesting Idea....

the date would have to be a few weeks after the Super Bowl to give the teams in the Super Bowl time to catch up and to give everyone one last chance at dealing with their own guys.

***Gwedd*** · 03-25-2008, 02:05 PM

Heck,

There is an even easier way. You set down 1 rule.

1.) No free agent may sign with any team within the 1st 7 days of the free agency period.

Respects,

JoeSixPat · 03-25-2008, 02:27 PM

Give Florio credit - he listens to his readers!

This is the point I've been making for awhile with him and other members of the media.

Selective enforcement of unenforceable rules makes the punishment as bad as the crime.

The 49ers punishment is a perfect example of that.

The goal here is to make sure that all teams have an even playing field. Since the only way to catch a team tampering is to have one of the parties mistakenly divulge improper contact in public, Goodell takes what was an even playing field and makes it uneven.

His motivation is PR value only, to make himself look tough - just as he did with the Patriots in Spygate.

He's done the same thing with Spygate, allowing teams to videotape games (only with permission though - and looks the other way when MangIdiot is caught taping without permission) but does nothing to police what they are taping (what was on MangIdiot's illegal video from Gillette? No one knows and Goodell isn't interested.)

If you can't enforce it the fairest thing to do is don't have a rule - or at the very least, don't selectively enforce it.

***Deus Irae*** · 03-25-2008, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeSixPat

Give Florio credit - he listens to his readers!

Florio was one of the biggest problems with spygate's refusal to die. He was so intent on pimping his NFL version of the National Enquirer that he pissed away any semblance of integrity that he might have had in order to keep the story alive and make it bigger than it was.

If he really listened to his readers, he'd already have shaved his head and moved to Tibet to take up a life of monastic solitude.