Anyone still under the impression Jonathan is less of a Goodell rumpswab than Robert?

[ReverendMaynard]

Jonathan Kraft wants to keep Roger Goodell (or any commissioner) out of the ‘firing line’ of discipline

I think when Roger became Commissioner, the league didn’t need a marketing guy and it didn’t need a world-class lawyer. We needed a world-class business person to take this now-incredibly strong organization and modernize and make sure we were doing everything we could as a business to fire on all cylinders to make sure we could keep improving the product, which was building stadiums, creating media deals so we could put our product in front of the fans more and more. And Roger, having grown up in the league, was obviously somebody that had the knowledge and experience to do that. So, I think each of the three of them in succession played an important role and a timely role for what the need was at the time

Still holds him on par with Rozelle and Tagliabue.

 

[IllegalContact]

 

[Kontradiction]

As I said when people were clamoring to have Jonathan take control, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Money is the motive here and he'll follow the same path his dad did. This is just evidence of that.

 

[oldrover]

"Puny commissioner."

 

[Shockt327]

Guys, read the entire article; you are misinterpreting Kraft's comments. He's inferring that Goodell is a business-minded commissioner and the NFL now needs a legal-minded commissioner to bring about a "clearly defined" role in increasingly complicated legal issues regarding disciplinary matters.

He's saying that when Goodell first took over, the biggest issue in the NFL was business related; so they hired a business-minded commissioner to focus on new media deals, stadiums, making their product visible to fans, etc. And in that sense? Goodell has been a success (and by all accounts, this is genuinely true).

But, when Kraft points out that these legal issues are "extremely important" and getting more and more complicated; he's really not supporting Goodell. Rather, he says that the NFL needs a clearly defined role for the commish (i.e. they don't currently have one; which is a veiled criticism of Goodell) and because Goodell keeps handling legal issues - without such a clearly defined process - he keeps finding himself on the firing line (i.e. it's been a disaster; which, again, is a veiled criticism of Goodell). So how does the NFL fix this current problem?

Well, he then points to the NFL's past issues and how the Commissioner was hired specifically to handle it. So, when the NFL's biggest issue was marketing? They brought in Pete Rozelle because that was his specialty. When the league's biggest issue turned to anti-trust litigation? They brought in Paul Tagliabue. When the NFL wanted to focus on media? They brought in Goodell....

"So, I think each of the three of them in succession played an important role and a timely role for what the need was at the time.”

But this? It tells me that Goodell's very need, and his role, is a thing of the past....

 

[Deus Irae]

I think Jonathan would gladly stick the knife in Goodell.

 

[ReverendMaynard]

I think Jonathan would gladly stick the knife in Goodell.

There's zero evidence of that.

 

[Deus Irae]

There's zero evidence of that.

We disagree

 

[ReverendMaynard]

Guys, read the entire article; you are misinterpreting Kraft's comments. He's inferring that Goodell is a business-minded commissioner and the NFL now needs a legal-minded commissioner to bring about a "clearly defined" role in increasingly complicated legal issues regarding disciplinary matters.

He's saying that when Goodell first took over, the biggest issue in the NFL was business related; so they hired a business-minded commissioner to focus on new media deals, stadiums, making their product visible to fans, etc. And in that sense? Goodell has been a success (and by all accounts, this is genuinely true).

But, when Kraft points out that these legal issues are "extremely important" and getting more and more complicated; he's really not supporting Goodell. Rather, he says that the NFL needs a clearly defined role for the commish (i.e. they don't currently have one; which is a veiled criticism of Goodell) and because Goodell keeps handling legal issues - without such a clearly defined process - he keeps finding himself on the firing line (i.e. it's been a disaster; which, again, is a veiled criticism of Goodell). So how does the NFL fix this current problem?

Well, he then points to the NFL's past issues and how the Commissioner was hired specifically to handle it. So, when the NFL's biggest issue was marketing? They brought in Pete Rozelle because that was his specialty. When the league's biggest issue turned to anti-trust litigation? They brought in Paul Tagliabue. When the NFL wanted to focus on media? They brought in Goodell....

"So, I think each of the three of them in succession played an important role and a timely role for what the need was at the time.”

But this? It tells me that Goodell's very need, and his role, is a thing of the past....

Completely disagree. This is like Mrs Lincoln constantly pointing out how great the play was, if it wasn't for that minor incident.

 

[upstater1]

I used to be able to argue with friends who preferred baseball that for all of its red meat, football was the best sport at preserving a solid middle class of players and at keeping parity between teams. Always mentioning the salary cap.

But now that's gone when you have the league putting their finger on scales and behaving like pro wrestling.

I mean, Goodell kind of reminds me of Vince McMahon in the ay he carries himself.

 

[ReverendMaynard]

I used to be able to argue with friends who preferred baseball that for all of its red meat, football was the best sport at preserving a solid middle class of players and at keeping parity between teams. Always mentioning the salary cap.

But now that's gone when you have the league putting their finger on scales and behaving like pro wrestling.

I mean, Goodell kind of reminds me of Vince McMahon in the ay he carries himself.

McMahon is much, much better. At least he's not pretending to run a legitimate competition.

 

[ReverendMaynard]

We disagree

Care to share some of that evidence?

 

[Deus Irae]

Care to share some of that evidence?

No. It would clearly be a waste of time.

 

[ReverendMaynard]

No. It would clearly be a waste of time.

After all, you've tried so hard already.

 

[Froob]

I really hope Joker wins the lotto someday and ends up with the team.

 

[Deus Irae]

After all, you've tried so hard already.

I saw your response to Shockt327. Given that, there's no real need to continue this. We disagree about the answer to your OP question. Time to move on.

 

[Joker]

I think Jonathan would gladly stick the knife in Goodell.

well...if he doesn't , I DEFINITELY know someone who would...with extreme, joyous pleasure may I add.

 

[borg]

the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

The booster seat doesn't fall far from the sky box.

Wondering out loud here but I'm thinking Jonathan has to ask permission from Papa Krafty to take a leak during games.

 

[Tony2046]

Completely disagree. This is like Mrs Lincoln constantly pointing out how great the play was, if it wasn't for that minor incident.

Incidents in the case of Goody.

Defamegate
Bullygate
Camera position gate
Bountygate
Elevatorgate
Lying during the appeal gate
$100,000 Tamper gate
Call the Kennebunkport Police Gate

This article simply adds fuel to my Roger is planning his exit and run for office conspiracy.

Johnathan is just paving the path. "He's been great but now we need a different type of leader" fits that narrative.

Hey Johnathan, It's Goodell's actions that created the need for a legal minded commissioner.

 

[zydecochris]

well...if he doesn't , I DEFINITELY know someone who would...with extreme, joyous pleasure may I add.

Hypothetically, of course (remember: plausible deniability, plausible deniability).