Do you wish the Patriots challenged Goodell (like the Saints are doing)?

[Armchair Quarterback]

Should they have challenged this megalomaniac? Called into question his evidence (the destroying of) and motives? They let a fool define their dynasty, their glory years as being earned through "cheating".

The Saints are doing a fairly good job of exposing Goodell's true colors.

 

[Joker]

heh...I'll say YES....

 

[QuantumMechanic]

No, I don't. I would have made any difference and if anything would have made NE look worse. And how could you "call into question" the evidence? NE was unquestionably doing the taping. As for questioning Goodell's motives, I doubt it's wise for a club to start a long-running feud with its league's commissioner.

As for the Saints, it's the Saints players that are doing the challenging. What have Saints ownership, management, and coaches challenged?

 

[Joker]

No, I don't. I would have made any difference and if anything would have made NE look worse. And how could you "call into question" the evidence? NE was unquestionably doing the taping. As for questioning Goodell's motives, I doubt it's wise for a club to start a long-running feud with its league's commissioner.

Jets videotaped Patriots last season in Foxborough - NFL - ESPN

right...wouldn't have made a difference...Pats bad...every one else innocent...tra la la

 

[ausbacker]

No, I don't.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

No, I don't. I would have made any difference and if anything would have made NE look worse. And how could you "call into question" the evidence? NE was unquestionably doing the taping. As for questioning Goodell's motives, I doubt it's wise for a club to start a long-running feud with its league's commissioner.

As for the Saints, it's the Saints players that are doing the challenging. What have Saints ownership, management, and coaches challenged?

Problem is the tapes got destroyed so we'll never know what was on it good or bad. Were other teams taping? And did the Pats catch them on tape? Who the hell knows. Fact is the Patriots couldn't have looked worse no matter what was on the tapes and the did nothing to dispute, challenge or confront Goodell. They bent over and politely took everything Goodell gave them. I'm not trying to relive spygate, just asking an opinion as to whether the Pats should have fought back a little. My personal opinion is that a pea brained idiot made a name for himself at the expense of this teams glory years.

 

[reflexblue]

Problem is the tapes got destroyed so we'll never know what was on it good or bad. Were other teams taping? And did the Pats catch them on tape? Who the hell knows. Fact is the Patriots couldn't have looked worse no matter what was on the tapes and the did nothing to dispute, challenge or confront Goodell. They bent over and politely took everything Goodell gave them. I'm not trying to relive spygate, just asking an opinion as to whether the Pats should have fought back a little. My personal opinion is that a pea brained idiot made a name for himself at the expense of this teams glory years.

Let us not forget that it wasn't what was on the tapes, it was where the taping took place. A few yards farther back and it would have been legal. Goodell made it worse by having the tapes destroyed, it looked like there was a cover up.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

The stubborn, asinine, competitive part of me does, but the rest of me knows it wouldn't have changed anything for the better. I think the Pats were in a much better position taking their medicine and moving on from the distraction; the Saints are in a bit different situation since the punishments handed down make it pretty hard to just move along and focus on the season.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Let us not forget that it wasn't what was on the tapes, it was where the taping took place. A few yards farther back and it would have been legal. Goodell made it worse by having the tapes destroyed, it looked like there was a cover up.

Exactly, it looks like a coverup in the Pats favor where in reality if every last tape was released, the Pats could not have possibly looked any worse than they did and do to this day.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

Let us not forget that it wasn't what was on the tapes, it was where the taping took place. A few yards farther back and it would have been legal. Goodell made it worse by having the tapes destroyed, it looked like there was a cover up.

Yep the Pats got nailed for breaking the letter of the rule rather than the intent. The innocuous nature of what they were doing was so out of line with the punishment it caused people to invent shenanigans that never happened.

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

The stubborn, asinine, competitive part of me does, but the rest of me knows it wouldn't have changed anything for the better. I think the Pats were in a much better position taking their medicine and moving on from the distraction; the Saints are in a bit different situation since the punishments handed down make it pretty hard to just move along and focus on the season.

Unfortunately for me the stubborn, asinine, competitive part of me usually wins out in my decision making process.

 

[pdangle]

In retrospect yes. I wish the true nature and extent of the offense was hammered home to the public instead of letting the media speculate vaguely and editorialize.

Do it just to get the facts out. Even if the penalty reduction was nominal or on existent. The pats let a bunch of dumbasses sully their name.

Again, all in retrospect. Which begs the question, I wonder if their strategy would be the same if they could do it over.

 

[DarrylS]

Not sure what the Saints are doing will reap anything positive, it all looks and sounds good.. but end result is not known.

Sean Payton and his crew are silent, the players are making noise.

In the Patriots Case the players weren't even players in the allegation, so it would have been BB and his crew making noise and still do not see it.

Then you factor in what Blue said..

Let us not forget that it wasn't what was on the tapes, it was where the taping took place. A few yards farther back and it would have been legal. Goodell made it worse by having the tapes destroyed, it looked like there was a cover up.

So after going around the block, the answer is no...

 

[pdangle]

In retrospect yes. I wish the true nature and extent of the offense was hammered home to the public instead of letting the media speculate vaguely and editorialize.

Do it just to get the facts out. Even if the penalty reduction was nominal or on existent. The pats let a bunch of dumbasses sully their name.

Again, all in retrospect. Which begs the question, I wonder if their strategy would be the same if they could do it over.

 

[SEA_Pat]

Yes. But without any certainty that this would have brought a better result.

I understand why they didn't - from my reading of Belichick, there's only one thing that matters, and that's getting ready for Sunday. All else is distraction and results in reduced performance, therefore should be eliminated. Thus, after getting the verdict, they decided to take the medicine and go back to what's important, getting ready to win on Sunday.

However, when it is now clear that a significant number of people are under the impression that the Pats were penalized for taping the Rams practices before the Super Bowl and other such patent nonsense, surely hammering home that it was a minor technicality would have resulted in a better public perception, and perhaps a reduction in the penalty given the number of coaches who came out and said "everyone does this, it's no big deal". But, having said that, it's likely this perception from outsiders doesn't matter at all to Bill.

With the 24-7 media, it's hard to predict the results of these things. I'm personally quite surprised that the Saints are fighting this as hard as they are. As more people love the Saints and hate the Patriots, I wonder if they had fought it then it would have had an opposite effect to what's happening with the Saints.

 

[BradfordPatsFan]

The amount of people who, in the national media, not fans or even former players but national media, show hosts, reporters, and the like who still bring up this story and lace it with untruths and speculation is truly amazing. The fact that the Saints story is the only real NFL news right now doesn't help as it draws natural parallels and keeps getting rehashed.

 

[lurker1965]

No because I apparently am one of the few that can think straight on this topic.

Let's look at the differences between the two.

Goodell was going after the team and Belichick. As he was going after the Saints and Payton.

No players were involved in cameragate.

If Goodell had vacated Super Bowls and asked for a penny of the post season reward money back, hell yes. But at that point you have nothing left to lose.

 

[Koma]

I'd love to say "Yes" for this, but I'm going with "No" because I think it would have made things worse for the Patriots.

I think it's important to remember how Goodell was perceived 5 years ago. He came down hard on players like Pacman Jones, which the majority of people agreed with and established himself and the "law and order" commissioner. He built on that reputation by hammering the Patriots, a move which non-New England fans and the media thought was 100% deserved and possibly too lenient. In my opinion, appealing the decision and trying to make their case to the public would have led to even more anti-Patriots venom. They would have gone from "cheaters" to "cheaters who cried after they were caught."

5 years later, after the "new commissioner smell" has worn off (plus a lockout, some mid-season rule changes, and attempts to reduce some hard hits in the name of making the game safer), Goodell isn't as popular as he once was. Fans and Media are more willing to question/criticize his decisions.

I do think it's interesting, though, that while people are questioning the league's approach and evidence about the Saints, no one is saying "Did we see the same thing 5 years ago? Did Goodell go overboard then, also?"

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Both Bill and Bob understand that the power of the wolf is in the pack, on and off the field. And the pack is the league. So no, they would not do it differently if they had a do over beyond Bill wouldn't attempt to get one over on the pack based on semantics or technicalities. Because he grasps that it was about culture change, something he should have up to speed or out in front of. Which at this point is what the players and not the organization in NO is attempting to do. Because they are purely, selfishly resisting culture change by attempting to drag the pack through the mud. It just underscores why they will never be full partners. They are transient and short sighted and self absorbed. You will occasionally see an owner or two take that tack, Dallas and the Skins cap shenanigans being an example, but they are quickly brought back in line by the pack. Players unfortunately tend to support (and in turn receive support from) whomever is challenging the pack leader, and in this instance it's the NFLPA. Players don't care that in the long run that leadership would destroy the league because most of them live in the moment and are only in it for the short haul. Heck, if they don't like what they net as it is they just sue after the fact. It's as if they don't grasp they are essentially suing each other and their future peers.

When Tagliabue retired Goodell was brough in specifically to clean up the image of the league in a new era when transgressions couldn't be swept under the rug or kept under raps. Upshaw was on board with that, as were most veteran players at the time, and that is how the personal conduct policy came to exist. Owners knew they needed a strong presence to keep each other in line and on point, and the union leader and leadership knew they too needed a force to do the unpopular dirty work too. Some are now bristling at the consequences because they are it. That's human nature.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

The Pats handled it right with the Commissioner's office.

No matter who else might or might not have done the same or similar thing and where and how often they might or might not have done it without being punished, the Pats were caught red-handed violating a pretty clearly drawn league memo, while offering a "the dog ate my homework" excuse built around a fictional and far-fetched "misunderstanding" of when the tapes were to be used or not used.

Even had they fought it publicly, the Commissioner had the majority of the media, teams and fans calling for far worse penalties, including the suspension of Coach Belichick for a season.

Most people outside of Patriot Nation still feel that the "fix was in" and that Goodell destroyed evidence of even worse behavior by the Patriots; that, of course, doesn't make it true, but it was part of the equation at the time.

And, as someone pointed out above, Goodell had a clear agenda to strengthen discipline in the league and, unfortunately, this played right into his hands. As a result, it's fair to say that both the Spygate and the Bountygate decisions were as much political decisions as they were decisions on the merits.

Finally, we don't know what happened between Mr. Kraft and the NFL Office behind the scenes. The Patriots organization is one of the most powerful and influential in the league, so I think we can assume that they pushed it as far as they could without undermining Goodell's broader agenda.

The question of whether the Pats should have defended themselves more vigorously in the court of public opinion when the HSPN lies were flying on a daily basis is a separate issue, so this comment applies only to the Pats' relationship with the League office.