Can Goodell screw us even more?

[drew4008]

Is it possible for Goodell to say that he feels the Patriots weren't punished enough and take away our SF pick as well now that it looks so good? Or is it written in stone that he can't do such a thing? With how much of a prick he is, I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to pull a move like this.

 

[emoney_33]

no

10char

 

[Cannon Arm]

The Top 5 pick isn't "our" pick. It's SF's pick, transmitted to us. Goodell can't take it away. He'd be nullifying a trade after the fact.

 

[BelichickFan]

Is it possible for Goodell to say that he feels the Patriots weren't punished enough and take away our SF pick as well now that it looks so good? Or is it written in stone that he can't do such a thing? With how much of a prick he is, I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to pull a move like this.

The easy answer is no.

But if you want the answer that is indisputable, when he punished us with the #1 taken away, it was "non playoff protected". We lose our #1 if we make the playoffs; our #2 and #3 if we don't make the playoffs. So if we had collapsed and not made the playoffs we wouldn't have lost a high #1; Goodall set it up that way so it's clear that we would never have lost a top 20 pick in any circumstance.

 

[Michael]

Is it possible for Goodell to say that he feels the Patriots weren't punished enough and take away our SF pick as well now that it looks so good? Or is it written in stone that he can't do such a thing? With how much of a prick he is, I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to pull a move like this.

Maybe he'll instruct the officiating crews to make every questionable call go against the Pats...oh wait that's already happening. Never mind.

 

[PatsSteve1]

Is it possible for Goodell to say that he feels the Patriots weren't punished enough and take away our SF pick as well now that it looks so good? Or is it written in stone that he can't do such a thing? With how much of a prick he is, I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to pull a move like this.

If I recall he said that as long as no evidence of new "wrongdoings" came forward the case was closed. I don't think he'd do anything because, IMO, he wants the whole thing to go away. It's not good for the NFL product.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

Well, the harsh punishment he gave is enough ammunition for anyone and everyone to claim that we did something quite serious to deserve such punishment and that there is more than that meets the eye.

 

[abejarano12]

If I recall he said that as long as no evidence of new "wrongdoings" came forward the case was closed. I don't think he'd do anything because, IMO, he wants the whole thing to go away. It's not good for the NFL product.

I agree to bring up spygate now would be a dumb move. He said that it was over so lets move on.

 

[DarrylS]

I agree to bring up spygate now would be a dumb move. He said that it was over so lets move on.

I think if he opened it up again, the crap would hit the fan, as the stuff turned over to Goodell by the Pats probably showed abuses of the current system leaguewide and it is best for everything to just go away and start anew.

 

[Pat the Pats Fan]

Maybe he'll instruct the officiating crews to make every questionable call go against the Pats...oh wait that's already happening. Never mind.

Maybe I believe in conspiracy, but I think Goodell would want to avoid handing the Lombardi to Kraft and Belichick.

Guestionable calls in the playoffs, a few at first, and then more as the Pats proceed deeper to game 18 and 19.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The easy answer is no.

But if you want the answer that is indisputable, when he punished us with the #1 taken away, it was "non playoff protected". We lose our #1 if we make the playoffs; our #2 and #3 if we don't make the playoffs. So if we had collapsed and not made the playoffs we wouldn't have lost a high #1; Goodall set it up that way so it's clear that we would never have lost a top 20 pick in any circumstance.

Few here pay enough attention to grasp the easy, let alone indisputable answer no matter how many times it has been given. Not to mention the easy answer doesn't lend itself to melodramatic rehashing of events and consequences thus failing to provide endless thread fodder. Ergo this question will surface at least a couple of dozen more times before the 2008 draft in April.

 

[Brarrell]

Just my thought but I think a #1 pick was taken not because of the filming of the Jets coaches but the arrogance of being told 4 days before the season began not to do this and they went ahead and did it anyway. It was message to the rest of the league and yes they all do it or did. Not one player or coach has come out and explained how this was such a advantage not one even the ex coaches. All Goodell did was save the rest of the league from the Pats running away with numerous Superbowls.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Just my thought but I think a #1 pick was taken not because of the filming of the Jets coaches but the arrogance of being told 4 days before the season began not to do this and they went ahead and did it anyway. It was message to the rest of the league and yes they all do it or did. Not one player or coach has come out and explained how this was such a advantage not one even the ex coaches. All Goodell did was potentially condemn the rest of the league to the Pats running away with numerous Superbowls.

I think my fix is a little closer to the truth. . . .

The easy answer is no.

But if you want the answer that is indisputable, when he punished us with the #1 taken away, it was "non playoff protected". We lose our #1 if we make the playoffs; our #2 and #3 if we don't make the playoffs. So if we had collapsed and not made the playoffs we wouldn't have lost a high #1; Goodall set it up that way so it's clear that we would never have lost a top 20 pick in any circumstance.

I understand your point, but as I have stated numerous times on this board, playoff teams are not automatically "stuck" with picks in the bottom twelve.

 

[QuiGon]

Is it possible for Goodell to say that he feels the Patriots weren't punished enough and take away our SF pick as well now that it looks so good? Or is it written in stone that he can't do such a thing? With how much of a prick he is, I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to pull a move like this.

Why is he a prick..? Because he punished the Patriots when they were caught violating the rules...?

Assuming that no new allegations come to light, I think it is quite safe to say our punishment has been determined and won't be changed. To come back at a later date and say "Ya know, I think the punishment wasn't strict enough so here's a little more" would be quite contrary to the spirit of the law.

 

[godef]

Is it possible for Goodell to say that he feels the Patriots weren't punished enough and take away our SF pick as well now that it looks so good? Or is it written in stone that he can't do such a thing? With how much of a prick he is, I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to pull a move like this.

Nothing is written in stone, but he'd sure start losing a lot of credibility fast if he did that.

 

[spacecrime]

I think my fix is a little closer to the truth. . . .



I understand your point, but as I have stated numerous times on this board, playoff teams are not automatically "stuck" with picks in the bottom twelve.

Explain it once more, please. You say playoff teams DO NOT pick after non-playoff teams? How is that? Can you give an example of a playoff team whose pick was before a nonplayoff team?

 

[BelichickFan]

Explain it once more, please. You say playoff teams DO NOT pick after non-playoff teams? How is that? Can you give an example of a playoff team whose pick was before a nonplayoff team?

His post on it is here :

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showpost.php?p=271832&postcount=1

While he is correct, my basic point still stands that our punishment was set up to be a playoff #1 or a non playoff #2 & #3 and Goodall never intended to take away a VERY high pick so he won't be suddenly changing his mind.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Just my thought but I think a #1 pick was taken not because of the filming of the Jets coaches but the arrogance of being told 4 days before the season began not to do this and they went ahead and did it anyway. It was message to the rest of the league and yes they all do it or did. Not one player or coach has come out and explained how this was such a advantage not one even the ex coaches. All Goodell did was save the rest of the league from the Pats running away with numerous Superbowls.

The memo you're talking about went out in the 2006 offseason. I thought this too, but was taken to the woodshed here. Basically you have media report discussing previous media report discussing previous media report... talking about the "September memo," the "offseason memo," the "memo at the end of the offseason..." and the source turns out to be from September 2006. Do the research on this one... it's a fascinating study of lie by omission (btw, if I'm wrong... supply me any link to a real memo on the subject circulated in 2007. I'm just giving you what I found when researching this very question, when I was on your side of it!)

That being said - does anyone have the league's exact language on the pick confiscation?

Because it will be brought up, that's a given. "Spygate" is guaranteed to be on everybody's lips come draft time, as every half-***** "fan" of another team in the country screams "NO! NO! The Pats CAN'T have a first round pick!!!!" Of course, they'll do it all the more if we have a top 5 pick. "Goodell's their pawn, their pawn I tell you!"

So it's not like playing it one way or another will cause more or less furor. The only determinant is the actual language the league used.

Me? I could easily see a "we never specified that the pick confiscated from the team would originate with the team. Yeah we'll take away that SF pick."

PFnV

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Explain it once more, please. You say playoff teams DO NOT pick after non-playoff teams? How is that? Can you give an example of a playoff team whose pick was before a nonplayoff team?

Yes--from this year's draft: the playoff-bound Giants finished 8-8, but picked before the non-playoff-bound 9-7 Broncos.

 

[FrontSeven]

Does this thread have an actual purpose?