Welcome to PatsFans.com

Can Goodell screw us even more?

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by drew4008, Nov 17, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. drew4008

    drew4008 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,367
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    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.
  2. emoney_33

    emoney_33 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2005
    Messages:
    5,194
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    no

    10char
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2007
  3. Cannon Arm

    Cannon Arm Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    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.
  4. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    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.
  5. Michael

    Michael Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,005
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey

    Maybe he'll instruct the officiating crews to make every questionable call go against the Pats...oh wait that's already happening. Never mind.
  6. PatsSteve1

    PatsSteve1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    2,795
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    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.
  7. NYCPatsFan

    NYCPatsFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,402
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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.
  8. abejarano12

    abejarano12 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Messages:
    309
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

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

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0


    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.
  10. Pat the Pats Fan

    Pat the Pats Fan Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    2,857
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    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.
  11. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    19,949
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    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.
  12. Brarrell

    Brarrell Rookie

    Joined:
    May 1, 2005
    Messages:
    199
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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.
  13. ctpatsfan77

    ctpatsfan77 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,241
    Likes Received:
    33
    Ratings:
    +34 / 0 / -1

    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.
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2007
  14. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    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.
  15. godef

    godef Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,118
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

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

    spacecrime Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,329
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    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?
  17. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,088
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +37 / 2 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    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.
  18. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,528
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    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
  19. ctpatsfan77

    ctpatsfan77 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,241
    Likes Received:
    33
    Ratings:
    +34 / 0 / -1

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

    FrontSeven Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,464
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    Does this thread have an actual purpose?
  21. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,528
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    Angst, not much else.

    But then, do any of these threads "matter"?

    I'm just awaiting the language of the NFL decree that makes it indisputeable that we lose our own pick, not the San Fran pick.

    PFnV
  22. PatsFanSince74

    PatsFanSince74 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    9,806
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    is it possible? yes, he can do whatever he wants. unless Bob Kraft wants to take him to court to test it, the Commissioner's power is absolute, except as defined by the CBA and Network Contracts.

    Is it likely? I don't think so. He wants to get this behind the league as fast as possible. He can't afford a darkening cloud over one of the handful of franchises that attracts viewers in droves and that is a model for building its value from the dregs to over a billion dollars.

    And, never forget that it was Bob Kraft (along with Jerry Jones) who held the CBA together a couple of years ago and it is Bob Kraft who could scuttle it when the owners' "opt-out" option comes up after the 2008 season. I'm amazed that more isn't made of this when the Media-morons talk about the "unfairness" of the spygate punishment and Goodell's destruction of the tapes.
  23. PatsFan-NH

    PatsFan-NH Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    176
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    No, I don't think so. In fact it may be just the opposite.

    The last game we play is on the NFLN. If we are still undefeated, it will become the next game of the century.

    The problem is that only those who have NFLN, or who are in the teams' local markets will see it (don't know about satellite TV). The rest of the country will be left out, and the outcry will be horrendous.

    In the most recent owners meeting (Oct, Nov) they were
    b i t c h ing about the cost of the NFLN, and the fact that the games that were on there (8) were worth more if sold to the networks, due to the reduced viewers, ad prices and revenue. The NFLN was in like 78 million homes until Comcast moved it to the sports tier and now they say its like 35 million. The 'poorer' owners were making noises to shut NFLN down, because they want more revenue.

    The country is fascinated with the Pats, even if only to see us lose, or behave badly (in their eyes). I think the NFL would try to use the Pats and that national attention to try to force the cable companies to carry the NFLN, and Comcast to put it back in the Digital Basic package.

    I can imagine people calling their cable companies, media outlets and even Washington if they can't see the game. Its a way to generate a lot of pressure in favor of the NFLN.
    Remember the storm around spygate, and even Michael Vick, imagine that type of hysteria about not being able to see such a historic game ?

    On top of that the FCC is doing something to make cable channels carry more stuff, because they have finally decided they are acting like a monopoly. It is still in discussion, and maybe has to have comment before they enact it, but this could force their hand. Of course I am sure they are only doing this public service action so they can give the cable companies something else they want.

    But if the Pats are not undefeated then all this pressure goes away. Now if we screw up and lose, fine. But it is against the best interest of the NFL to screw us, and make us lose.

    Also I believe that someone (probably on the Competition Committee) leaked that first tape. I think they gave it to Fox, because it would make Goodell look bad and guilty, and they were trying to force Goodell to do something he didn't want to do. Perhaps they wanted Goodell to whack the Pats more, or to say we were cheating which he never did. Making sure there is no meddling to make us lose would be a way for Goodell to get back at the perp (Polian?), and to exert his power within the NFL.

    I know its popular to assume the worst of Goodell, but I don't see that its really all that warranted. I don't have a problem with what he did to us (we broke the rules and got caught), after all he could have suspended BB, and for multiple games. I do think how he did it was wrong, because it gave the media and our enemies a chance to build it up.

    I also think that so many saw the Pats-Colts and thought it was unfairly officiated that he is more worried about tarnishing the NFL image than dumping on the Pats.
  24. ctpatsfan77

    ctpatsfan77 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,241
    Likes Received:
    33
    Ratings:
    +34 / 0 / -1

    I believe Goodell addressed this specific topic, but I can't find a link.

    In any case, though, taking the SF pick would be tantamount to saying, "We're out to screw the Pats."
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2007
  25. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -7

    How paranoid can you get? Why would you even think this?

    Do you just sit around wondering what bad things can happen to the Patriots? C'mon man, just enjoy the ride.
  26. Sunqueen212

    Sunqueen212 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    True. But, do you remember the feeding frenzy from that week? If Goodell had only fined us a couple Gs and taken away a 5th rnd pick or something, it wouldn't have satisfied the craving the public desired. Also, Goodell had to make an example out of us. So I don't think the harshness of the penalty really tells us much about the gravity of our transgression.
  27. ColtinIraq

    ColtinIraq Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2007
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    If there is any possible way to feel more paranoid you found it.
  28. Terry Glenn is a cowgirl

    Terry Glenn is a cowgirl Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    7,883
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    We are already seeing this happen before the playoffs... but I do expect more BS calls along the way during the playoffs.
  29. spacecrime

    spacecrime Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,329
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    Cable channels carry plenty of stuff. That isn't the problem.

    The problem is that the NFLN charges the cable companies a buck a viewer. The cable companies don't want to make every customer pay a buck a month extra (rates are already to high and they know it) and so puts NFLN in a bundle where the only people who pay for it are those who order it. NFLN wants all subscribers to pay a buck a month for it.

    I don't think that is fair. I pay for the NFLN, and don't mind doing so, but I sure hate to see content suppliers dictating to the cable companies what they must carry in basic packages. Once the floodgates are open, all special content providers can force the cable companies to make THEIR programs available to all at a buck a viewer, and I don't want my basic rate to go up for the crochet channel and the pet channel and the Wiccan channel.

    What I'm really afraid of is that Comcast is only putting up token resistance, because they realize they can pass the costs onto subscribers. They will be able to raise their rates to cover all the new programs foisted on them with the perfect excuse: "We fought it and lost. We are FORCED to buy 40 different cable shows at a buck a viewer a month, and naturally you have to pay for them. Sorry, it's the law. P.S. the reason that your will went up $50 bucks a month is that our overhead increases with all the extra shows. Standby as Austrailian Rules Football, Rugby, international darts, soccer, cricket and croquet are demanding we carry them also. Look for a $10 rate increase next month."

    Stop the madness. My rates are high enough, thank you. I don't need the FCC requiring cable companies to buy programs and make all subscribers pay for them whether they want them or not. What's to stop HBO, Max, Starz, and every premium channel in the world from saying, "You made the cable companies put NFLN in the basic lineup, why not us?"

    Stop the madness. You want a channel that most people don't want, YOU pay for it, not everyone else.
  30. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,528
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    If he has not specifically addressed it, here's my logic:

    You can ask anybody other than us whether the punishment was harsh enough, and I would say the majority would still say no.

    Add to that the allegations/indignation/digging in the dirt the moment we win another super bowl.

    Now: You confiscate the San Fran pick. Who cries? Just the Pats fans, and not that terribly much, having just won yet another super bowl.

    You confiscate the Pats' own pick. Who cries? Every whiny ***** fan of any other team in the NFL.

    It's like jury nullification - it wouldn't be about the "justice" of the specific case, it would be attempting to equalize an in- equity (as opposed to an iniquity) through the judgment. Every other team would eat it up.

    "Serves em right. That's not enough either. But we'll take it..."

    Unless there's a statement out there about which pick, I'd say the buttholes still have the SF pick on the table.

    PFnV
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page