Are you anti-Roger Goodell?

[PatsFanInVa]

Let me rebut a few points you raised in your defense of Goodell.

I have no reason nor inclination to defend Goodell. I am sometimes aware of points of view that rise above pretty natural emotional reactions. This leads to sometimes making unpopular points.

You say that they both have an interest in making the case go away and stopping the further investigation of the Pats.
Up until this point Goodell has done absolutely nothing in his power to make this case go away.

Wrong and incorrect. His entire difficulty at the moment is that he attempted to levy a stern punishment and simply move on. To do so is in the Pats' favor. The Specter investigation is of the Commissioner, not the Patriots. The whole basis of the claim is that Goodell destroyed tapes to lessen the damage. Regardless of what was on the tapes the Pats handed over, Goodell's actions were consistent with trying to call it a day and move on. With other fans, the media, and now a Senator calling for things like Belichick's suspension or banning, we New England fans can just pocket the victory of Belichick's safety at this moment, and move on. It was not predestined that Belichick would not be suspended or banned. Goodell is defending his own right to say "enough is enough." In this case, that is to the advantage of the Patriots, who have already paid the penalties.

He has refused to investigate other teams that would show that there are other rules violators in the league, he has destroyed the tapes that may have proven that there were other teams doing the same thing.

You can not go from "may have showed" to a proof that Goodell hates the Pats. They also may have showed New England doing the same things over and over, in a way that would cause a media s h i t storm had it been aired. Bad for the Pats, bad for the league. No league wants asterisks next to the outcomes of its premiere event. We have every right to say there is no proof of the assertion that the destruction of the tapes is a "coverup." We have no right to therefore infer that one counterexample to the "coverup" theory therefore must be true.

He has refused to say that Walsh has been investigated and proven to be a liar and thief.

He has also not said that there is an organized smear campaign against Walsh -- who, as it happens, is eminently smearable. You really think it is the NFL commissioner's place to stand at a podium and say "Matt Walsh is a liar and a theif?" Really? See, to me that seems not only stupid, but actionable in court.

Most of all the one investigation he went on record as saying he would conduct, the leak of the Pats tape nobody has heard anything about. It is beyond belief that with all media on this case if a real investigation had been conducted with findings, the news wouldn't have come out.

Eh, no rebuttal, but I would like to see what he said on this count. It's interesting to me.

As I said before it is in Goodell's best interest to show that the Pats are an isolated team and that he can control them

Then why is Goodell consistently broadening the range of teams he needs control over? His actions speak to a league that he believes needs "cleaning up." I don't think he really "believes" that. I think he wanted to make his big mark by "returning integrity" to the game. I think it's somehow market-driven, and I wonder who it caters to. But it is certainly not in Goodell's favor to paint the Pats as a rogue team. The Specter answer is, "Yeah, and one you went easy on because of their place in the record books and their market power." Now, if the Pats are only one of a number of cases in a league he is "cleaning up," Specter is not needed. There is a new sherriff in town, and he's going after everybody not riding a white horse. Rest easy, Senator. Chief Goodell is on the job.

It is in the Pats interest to show they have been singled out by a biased and incompetent commissioner for doing things that other teams have done.
They know the media will never let this die until another team is found out.
The Pats don't fear what Walsh has and will be more than happy to destroy him and watch the Commonwealth find a spot for him in Walpole.

I understand your contention that the ownership of the Patriots is not a partner in the National Football League, and in fact operates a franchise outside of the NFL model of competition against other leagues in business, and against one another just on the field.

I note that you believe that teams compete to destroy each other as businesses.

I disagree. The NFL is an inherently collusive venture at this point. Kraft and Goodell work together. Long term, the health of the league is key to the success of the local product. That's why it's called a Franchise.

As for interference from Spector,it is common knowledge that he is owned by Comcast and this is all about the NFL network and the NFL package and that he has no power whatsoever in the Judiciary committee with the power Held by Leahy and Kennedy. He is just a blowhard bogeyman.

Glad you finally got to the Specter angle. It's pretty much where we are right now in the story, except as told over a pitcher or two at the local sports bar. I agree with your assessment. I disagree that there is much reason to believe at present that Leahy and Kennedy would squash him. Let me know if you have links to statements to that effect. I have not seen them.

As for his new power grab, what makes you think he wouldn't use against the Pats again. Aside from the ridiculous wrist slap he gave the 49ers who have a history of rules violations, he has done absolutely nothing except sweep things under the rug for his favored teams like the Colts and Jets. Frankly I don't trust him as far as I can throw him.

Nope, no proof, and I don't like the power grab any more than you, or the whole "No Fun League" attitude. It's kind of nice that thugs like Pacman sit out for a year, and it kind of sucks that in making his point about taping so pointedly, Goodell ended up kicking our team in the nuts.

But at this moment in the Pats/Goodell saga, like it or not, he is an ally. He can only defend his own power by saying the investigation yielded only what the Pats were punished for. He must stay open to new evidence and take it seriously. It is not his job to engage in smear tactics against Walsh.

My read is that as of today, this is where his interests lie: To maintain that there is no evidence of further wrongdoing by the Pats, and that an accusation does not equal evidence.

The hate against our team by other teams, and in the media, and in every bar outside of the NE area, is not equivalent to the actual actions and statements by Goodell. I do think he miscalculated the consequences. I do not think we have evidence that he is on a mission against the Patriots.

PFnV

 

[PatsFanInVa]

yeah....you're real good at obfuscating the REAL issue with a torrent of minutiae,VA...as usual.

Refute THIS....Goodell is a lifelong New Yorker, a lifelong fan of New York teams, a former EMPLOYEE of the NEW YORK JETS and a lifelong HATER of all teams from New England, who, when he was younger, went to Jet games and Yankee and/or Met games and screamed for blood with the rest of his NY friends every time one of HIS NEW YORK teams played the Patriots or Red Sox.

Now REFUTE THAT you dyamed Neville Chamberlain....or else stop the barrage of pseudointellectual rationalizations

I see you come by your name honestly, Joker.

I'll refute your accounts of your keen knowledge of Goodell's childhood sports passions thus:

I have very strong opinions on a number of subjects. Let's say I really really like Peanut Butter and Jelly, and don't like Tuna Fish. But let's say my workplace has a policy of serving both in my cafeteria.

To do my job well, I am able to disregard my preference for peanut butter and jelly, and move on to the actual work I do for a living.

I think it unlikely that Tagliabue or Rozelle only started paying attention to football when they became commissioner. I also think it unlikely that they had no home teams. I won't bother doing so, but I could construct a case against either of them made by a rival team that would be every bit as convincing as your assertion that Goodell's "sports origins" are responsible for his behavior.

And again, the Pats were caught acting in violation of the damn operations manual. Call it what you want, but they were in violation. And by the way, nobody outside our fan base thinks it's a matter of interp. We knew we were on the edge. Well, that's what you risk when you're on the edge. There is an injustice in that other teams which operated on the edge did so prior to the start of The Goodell Show.

The penalty does not bother me. The media/fan angle does, because they tend to spew a bunch of crap about asterisks, and how "the Patriots cheat," and how all the super bowl losers should be legislated a retroactive ring.

But you guys are just gilding the lily here. It is what it is, and we're not angels in this case. We're also not the Satanic cult we're being made out to be.

By the way, just for you, I'll note that I can only look like Neville Chamberlain if you regard Goodell as analogous to Hitler. There is an old expression that when you spuriously invoke the Nazis in a debate, you've pretty much lost.

Also by the way, what precisely delineates an intellectual from a psuedointellectual? And more importantly... how could you tell?

PFnV

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Outside of this group and a few other pockets of educated media & fans of the NFL - most people are unaware of this fact.

Half the perception problem going on right now is a direct result of this misunderstanding.

It is about time that somebody step up and make things clear - perfectly clear - about what this entire mess really was all about.

Until people understand the infraction, there is no way they can come to any reasonable conclusion. Right now, we are viewed nationally as cheaters because we stole signals and used them in a game no less, for an unfair advantage.

Just a shout out to Frank and anybody else that participated in our effort to get some resources together to make exactly this sort of point - although that's cutting it a little finer than I would.

My take is that there was a line, and we were over it... but so were a lot of other guys. There is history there. But the bull*** out there about what a lousy bunch of cheaters the Pats are is pure jealous sour grapes. They couldn't really be that good... hey they got caught taping signals... let's say that's why they won.

But again, that puts us all in the realm of the media and the fans, rather than Goodell. Don't love the guy either, but right now, like it or not, he's on trial for "covering up" "further evidence." It's in his interest to say "no no, Senator... the whole league needs cleaning up. I'm on it."

PFnV

 

[flasox27]

Va
I don't doubt the fact that you are a Pats fan, but we definitely have different perceptions about who are allies are in this situation.
Let me rebut the points you are making.
1.Goodell has never taken the position that enough is enough punishment for the Pats and has always reserved the option of piling on further if he sees fit.In all other investigations, either the investigation doesn't take place like in the leak of the Pats tape, or Aiello is out front exonerating the teams before the facts are in like the Jets taping the Pats. Maybe that seems like fair treatment to you but I differ in that regard.
2 You say that Goodell destroyed the tapes for some other reason than protect other teams. He had already made the point that the Pats filmed the other teams for years and that the Pats admitted to it, no further damage could be done to them. It may not seem logicaL to you but why destroy the except to protect damaging information coming out about other teams. Perhaps the fact that Rooney and Polian advised him to do doesn't matter to you.
3. Do you actually believe that Goodell hasn't already investigated Walsh and knows hs character. Obviously, the Pats have made him privy to all the information they have on him. As a matter of fact Aiello has said that his story wasn't considered credible, until Goodell backtracked inconjunction with Spector and said the league would like to hear from Walsh. Sort of makes me wonder who ally he is.
4. Kraft may have thought what is best for the league as a whole is in his best interests when he helped broker the compromise revenue sharing between the big market teams and the small market teams that made the bargaining agreement work. Kraft has had a change of heart and he is one of the leaders of the opt out faction from the agreement. You may think it coincidental but I think he may be a liitle upset with the way Goodell is costing him hundred of millions of dollars in the value of his franchise through his actions and is more interested in taking care of his own teams profits than worrying about Buffalo and Pittsburgh.
5.No argument about Spector. There was an article in the Washington Post a while back that quoted Leahy as saying he wasn't on board with Spector's witch hunt. Knowing how congress works, its obvious that the minority members have no authority to call hearings or subpoena people, so his threat are hot air.
Once again, I do not challenge your fandom, but I feel with friends like Goodell. you don't need enemies.

 

[FootballFanetic]

As a fan of another team, I'll try to break "the tie" between FlaSox and Va, by coming down wholeheartedly in Va's camp. To "outsiders" (i.e., non-Pats fans) it clearly looks like Goodell's and the Pats' interests are aligned here. To us it appears that Goodell destroyed evidence to protect you--the idea that "he must have destroyed the evidence because it shows everyone else does it" is an excuse only Pats fans could think of. Answer me this simple question--how in the world would the Pats' taping of another team's sidelines show cheating by other teams? Maybe they caught the Jets on tape taping them? Come on, how likely is that? What's much more likely is that the materials turned over showed additional cheating by New England, such as possibly taping opponents or monitoring their audio frequencies as well (there were reports in the fall suggesting both when the story broke (i.e, the extra two channels other than the three allowed on the Pats' headsets when caught and stories about the Pats miking D-linemen to capture audible calls)). Looks like we'll never know for sure now, which just fuels suspicions further. Notice I'm not making an argument as to what "the truth" actually is here, since we'll likely never know, but just what other non-Pats' fans perceptions are.

Goodell, by destroying those tapes, looks to the fans of other teams like he was covering up for you--maybe he was doing it for the "good of the game", but considering Kraft's role in getting him hired, there's considerable weight to the argument that someone like say, a Kansas City or Cincinnati wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the same treatment. (Dr. Z said as much a few weeks ago in his column--in fact, if I recall correctly he said that that wasn't just his opinion, but one shared around the League that Goodell was walking gingerly here solely due to Bob Kraft and his influence in the League.)

If this blows up into something bigger, Goodell's as good as gone--he stuck his neck out for the Pats and his head will come rolling off if it turns out Walsh has a tape. Plain and simple. He'll be in as much trouble as the Patriots in such a case, so he's got the same incentive you all do to keep this quiet.

As I've said in other posts, however, as Pats fans why do you want this to just go away without any further words from Walsh? What are you afraid of? The truth never hurt anybody did it? Don't you want to get your good name back--the only way that happens is if we all hear directly from Matt Walsh and what he has is nothing or he's not credible with what he has. Anything less and the cloud remains. As Va said, it's clear that you broke certain rules (arguments that "everyone else does it" ring hollow until someone else is actually caught doing it--as for the 9ers and Broncos cap violations, they were indeed caught and punished, end of story--and two incidents in 30 years ain't too many data points to support an "everyone does it argument),what's under suspicion at present is that you may have broken other much more serious rules. I, for one, can't wait to hear what Walsh has, if anything. Either way it will be interesting to see what happens.....

 

[Koma]

As a fan of another team, I'll try to break "the tie" between FlaSox and Va, by coming down wholeheartedly in Va's camp. To "outsiders" (i.e., non-Pats fans) it clearly looks like Goodell's and the Pats' interests are aligned here. To us it appears that Goodell destroyed evidence to protect you--the idea that "he must have destroyed the evidence because it shows everyone else does it" is an excuse only Pats fans could think of. Answer me this simple question--how in the world would the Pats' taping of another team's sidelines show cheating by other teams? Maybe they caught the Jets on tape taping them? Come on, how likely is that? What's much more likely is that the materials turned over showed additional cheating by New England, such as possibly taping opponents or monitoring their audio frequencies as well (there were reports in the fall suggesting both when the story broke (i.e, the extra two channels other than the three allowed on the Pats' headsets when caught and stories about the Pats miking D-linemen to capture audible calls)). Looks like we'll never know for sure now, which just fuels suspicions further. Notice I'm not making an argument as to what "the truth" actually is here, since we'll likely never know, but just what other non-Pats' fans perceptions are.

Goodell, by destroying those tapes, looks to the fans of other teams like he was covering up for you--maybe he was doing it for the "good of the game", but considering Kraft's role in getting him hired, there's considerable weight to the argument that someone like say, a Kansas City or Cincinnati wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the same treatment. (Dr. Z said as much a few weeks ago in his column--in fact, if I recall correctly he said that that wasn't just his opinion, but one shared around the League that Goodell was walking gingerly here solely due to Bob Kraft and his influence in the League.)

If this blows up into something bigger, Goodell's as good as gone--he stuck his neck out for the Pats and his head will come rolling off if it turns out Walsh has a tape. Plain and simple. He'll be in as much trouble as the Patriots in such a case, so he's got the same incentive you all do to keep this quiet.

You pretty much supplied the answer yourself. From the descriptions I've read, the tapes would show opposing defensive coaches giving signals, then the scoreboard, then back to the coaches for the next play and so on. If they also contained footage of someone on the opposing sideline pointing a camera back at the Patriots coaches, then there's your evidence.

Since the tapes have been destroyed, all we know is what the league has said (coaches, scoreboard, repeat) about their contents. Unless new evidence appears, we can only speculate if there was any else, positive or negative.

It's also interesting that you mention other teams wouldn't have gotten the same treatment, but imply that the Chiefs or Bengals would have been punished more. What additional punishment did you expect? Loss of all 2008 draft picks? Only being able to put 10 guys on the field? Hobbling the QB?

One of the prevailing themes of this story has been that, if the Cardinals or Panthers had committed the same offense, the story would have died within a week. If you're under the impression that the commissioner went light on the Patriots and covered this story up, then you and I have been seeing vastly different NFL coverage since week 1.

 

[FootballFanetic]

You pretty much supplied the answer yourself. From the descriptions I've read, the tapes would show opposing defensive coaches giving signals, then the scoreboard, then back to the coaches for the next play and so on. If they also contained footage of someone on the opposing sideline pointing a camera back at the Patriots coaches, then there's your evidence.

Since the tapes have been destroyed, all we know is what the league has said (coaches, scoreboard, repeat) about their contents. Unless new evidence appears, we can only speculate if there was any else, positive or negative.

It's also interesting that you mention other teams wouldn't have gotten the same treatment, but imply that the Chiefs or Bengals would have been punished more. What additional punishment did you expect? Loss of all 2008 draft picks? Only being able to put 10 guys on the field? Hobbling the QB?

One of the prevailing themes of this story has been that, if the Cardinals or Panthers had committed the same offense, the story would have died within a week. If you're under the impression that the commissioner went light on the Patriots and covered this story up, then you and I have been seeing vastly different NFL coverage since week 1.

What I've highlighted above is ridiculous and the only place I've heard that is here on this board. Link please to a more reputable, unbiased source. When the League told the Pats to hand over "all their cheating materials" (if they indeed did that) don't you think it's much more likely that it's NE cheating materials that they get, not things that prove another team or teams also cheated? Keep telling yourselves that "everyone else does it", but show me some proof of that before you expect me to believe it. I still say it's much, much more likely that what was destroyed showed additional ways NE was cheating here that Goodell didn't want to come to light.

On the story dying a quick death if someone else had been caught cheating I'll guess we'll never know since other teams weren't caught cheating--only the Pats. In terms of all the coverage of this you're talking about, what I seem to recall reading in the fall and again in early Feb. were many, many stories coming out of the woodwork of other unexplained, cheating like stories involving NE--like Rod Marinelli and another coach whose name escapes me now saying how funny it was that the headsets always seemed to conk out at key moments for them at Gillette, or how opposing coaches always told their players to be extra careful with their playbooks the week they played NE. Or my favorite, allegedly overheard on a radio talk show in early Feb. with Dan LeBatard, the Miami newspaper writer, who had spoken to "an ex-Pats QB (rumored later to be Flutie, BTW), who said that there was always an odd voice in the QB headset that seemed to call plays at the last minute that "always worked" and whose identity he was never told, although he asked on several occasions. Lots of smoke around by all accounts. Now let's see if there's more fire....

 

[Joker]

Nice post VA...you PROVE my point...a lot of blowhard hot air covering a wide range of perceptual fallacies on your part but ZERO to refute the BASIC point I'm making. Goodell PLAYED organized sports GROWING UP in New York. I played growing up in N.E. I'm in my fifties and I STILL hate New York teams with the same passion I did when I was young. I COULD NEVER be an unbiased commissioner of the NFL because of my ROOTS as a sports fan and participant. I submit to you that NEITHER CAN JETDELL. One of his first steps on the ladder of success was HIS employment as an INTERN of the NEW YORK JETS!

There is no G-dyamed way this born and bred New York RESIDENT and sports participant AND fan of New York sports can be deemed "impartial" when it comes to making ANY decision concerning the New England Patriots Football Club singularly.THAT is the ROOT of his RIDICULOUS FINE and the ROBBERY of the Patriots first round pick. Blabber and blubber on about all your "what if's" and "could be's" but DO NOT talk down your pseudointellectual bony nose about my Chamberlain analogy like I'm some kind of Hitler apologist. You're a thin skinned contrarian who obviously doesn't like being unmasked for the wishy washy, cowardly lion you obviously are.

BTW, that peanut butter and jelly analogy you were trying to so smartly draw is about the dumbest, fleabrained attempt at pretzel logic I've ever seen on these threads. Are you actually trying to infer that peanut butter and jelly evoke the same passion, loyalty and rabid fandom as organized pro sports??? Do you live in a bubble or something? Maybe you're confined to a cubicle 2 miles underground at Langley and don't get out much. Perhaps you crunch numbers or break codes all day..and this is why you are so passionless about this blatant affrontery perpetrated by Goodell...I live above ground.. I have kids who have been affected by this jagoff's over the top actions...I live my life fair square and on the level all these years and NOW I get smeared, accosted, slandered and ostracized because I wear a Patriots hat in another city? You keep up your Goodell P.R. campaign...in the meantime, let's just wait and see how many times he shows his meathead anywhere in the six state region, in particular, Foxboro...I'm guessing NOT this season anyway.

 

[SmokeShowin]

Goodell = @$$hole.

And I'm not just saying it because he came down so hard on the Patriots. He ahd to do something with the "Spygate" issue.
He has done some good, but overall, he is focusing too much on stupid *****.

 

[Wildo7]

Goodell was in an unwinnable situation thanks to the media. I don't really have any animosity towards him. If he stood up for the Pats it would be a "coverup" (even more so than what they are saying now) and if he banned BB, it would have been insane. I've placed myself in his shoes numerous times and I can't honestly say that I blame him for what he has done thus far. He made a quote recently that basically said "look, people steal signals, that's part of the game" I don't really know what more he can say. ESPN is such a monopoly that it is judge, jury and executioner when it comes to shaping public opinion of an issue in sports.

 

[flasox27]

Fanetic
I would like to rebut a few of the points you make. I am under no illusion that that the fans of other teams haven't been brainwashed by the media to believe the worst about the Pats due to the incompetance of Goodell.
I would like to correct an assumption you have made that Kraft was instrumental in getting Goodell his job. That is not true. Kraft was supporting another candidate but when it was obvious the Goodell would be chosen he made a congratulatory statement for him. The one thing that was true and is no longer the case is that Kraft was a compromiser that reconciled the difference between big market and small market teams.
I find your statement regarding the destruction of the tapes absurd. More evidence of Pats cheating. What do you think was on the tapes? Films of Belichick working a jamming device. The leaked tape showed what was on the tapes. The only logical thing that was on the tapes was that other teams were doing it and the Pats could prove. Goodell destroyed the tapes on the spot after talking with Rooney and Polian. He obviously had no problem with the leak of the Patstape but could not risk these tapes coming out because it would be damaging to the league if the Pats weren't the only team doing it. He would themn be forced to punish other teams the same way.
You say he stuck his neck out for the Pats. That is the most absurb comment yet. Goodell has always reserved the right to add punishment to the Pats. He would welcome the opportunity to increase the penalty if he thought that the Pats would take it lying down.Goodell may very well lose his job if the labor agreement blows up in his face but not for being too lenient to the Pats.
I think the Pats have no problem with Walsh talking as they went on record as saying they have no nondisclosure agreement with him. What is he worried about if he is telling the truth and can prove it? The fact that he has committed criminal acts and could be prosecuted might be what is causing him to keep his mouth shut.
Keep in mind that Foxboro is not the only place where the mikes go out and there are other teams where suspicious noise has been noted.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

LOL speed kills, Joker. Easy there.

First of all, let me offer you a wishy-washy and cowardly opportunity to bury the hatchet. You took potshots at me, I talked down my bony psuedointellectual nose at you. And Sunday at 1 in the fall, we're both glued to the set watching the same team (unless of course we're at the game.) So f'in relax. (I do still maintain that it is always possible that what you call psuedo intellectual might actually just be someone trying to make sense of things, but from a different point of view... and the more complicated the situation, the more "waffling" you will perceive. It's just the complexity or the simplicity of the system that will result in the appearances.)

Fanetic, I sense you've done me no favors here, but thank you anyway for showing up and talking in terms of "what it looks like to other fans" rather than "the real truth is..."

While I have a visitor here, I'd like to get you acquainted to some aspects of the chronology usually unreported:

2006 offseason: The "offseason memo" always talked about is circulated. This happened just prior to the 06 season not 07 -- look it up. It's of some importance when people make a big issue of the "timing" of the Pats' infraction, "right after the offseason memo."

2006 regular season: Both the Miami Dolphins (revealed right after the game) and the New York Jets (revealed the following season,) use illegal taping practices against the Pats. Green Bay complains the Pats use such practices as well.

2007 The Patriots' own taping scandal begins

Later 2007: The Jets' identical infraction is revealed. Mangini claims it is "okay because he had permission." He describes this practice as a "common courtesy teams extend to each other." Yet the operations manual talks about cameras being in fixed locations with roofs and walls.

No published page of the operations manual says anything about "unless you get permission."

We'll leave aside the documented, decades-long spy games that have been played in the NFL since dinosaurs and George Allen roamed the earth.

It is claimed that what the Pats did is different because of the technology used (although a Sport magazine article describes filming other teams' practices in the 60s, and we are treated every Sunday to the spectacle of coaches holding playcharts over their mouths so signals won't be stolen -- even when they are not playing the Patriots.)

But even leaving aside all these detractions from the "Special Evil Category" many fans and the media love to apply to the Pats, one has to ask a simple question:

Why do detractors have to keep moving the goalposts to make the Pats satanic?

First, they were terrible because nobody else had ever done it. Then Jimmy Johnson said "Hell I did it all the time," or words to that effect.

Then, it was terrible and horrible because they did it RIGHT AFTER a memo saying not to do it. But it turns out the memo was over a year earlier, and that in the interim the very team they were caught against had done exactly the same thing.

I live in Virginia.

Recently the state of Virginia began giving out "civil fees" for dangerous categories of driving, including 20-miles-over the limit, as well as DUI and other aggressive driving categories.

These fees were above and beyond the normal fines the state gave you, and supposedly helped the state foot the bill for all the social evils caused by unsafe drivers.

So, if you're 20 over the limit, on a road that has the speed posted perhaps every 10 or 20 miles, you're looking at maybe $3,500 plus a mandatory court appearance. I had been pulled over at 18 over on a 55mph road with virtually no posted limits. It was parallel to a road of the same width and traffic flow with a posted 65 limit that I took all the time. This was before the law went into affect. I could easily see someone lose 3500 bucks out of the clear blue sky if he made the same relatively innocent mistake, when traffic is flowing along quickly.

What's my point? I look at the whole cameragate thing as a lot like these fees. Any of us could end up on the butt end of Goodellmania. The Pats did. I think he wants to grab more power for the office of the commish, and I am uncertain whether that is with the blessing of the owners or not.

But that said, we got the ticket, we pay the fine.

And my point of view, all, is simply that I don't see enough evidence that Goodell is too biased to function, based solely on the fact that we got fined and docked a first round pick.

As I have repeatedly tried to point out from within the New England camp, getting a harsh punishment does not mean that harsher punishment could not have been handed down. And naturally, other teams see our success, couple it with the harsh penalty, and "conclude" that all our SB trophies were bogus.... and therefore get more pissed and declare that the penalty should have been harsher.

The locals here act like just because we are hurt by the loss of a first round pick, means that that is the worst it could have been. The lamers abroad assume that since the penalty was harsh and the tapes destroyed, that therefore the penalty should have been harsher.

The reality is, Goodell wanted to severely punish, but move on. My guess is that part of the intent would be to stop the cycle in the AFC East in general.

At the point of the Jets' infraction's revelation, he STILL did not have a complaint in his hand from the New England Patriots, which was his way of saying "Here's the precedent: file a complaint if it's a competitive infraction, or you lose your chance."

The side of this I've put more elbow grease into outside this board is demonstrating that the Pats' behavior is not aberrant by the league's standards, either at the time of the infraction or in historical terms. That's pretty clear for anybody familiar with these things. I think all my brother homers can agree with me on that.

But it is neither necessary nor obvious in my world that Goodell, a professional businessman, is unable to set aside his preexistent loyalties to do his job.

I don't accuse Seau of throwing games against San Diego, which he has said will always be his home, or accuse Tom Brady of not playing hard against San Francisco because his hero, Joe Montana, played in that uniform.

That's why it's called professional football.

PFnV

 

[Koma]

What I've highlighted above is ridiculous and the only place I've heard that is here on this board. Link please to a more reputable, unbiased source. When the League told the Pats to hand over "all their cheating materials" (if they indeed did that) don't you think it's much more likely that it's NE cheating materials that they get, not things that prove another team or teams also cheated? Keep telling yourselves that "everyone else does it", but show me some proof of that before you expect me to believe it. I still say it's much, much more likely that what was destroyed showed additional ways NE was cheating here that Goodell didn't want to come to light.

On the story dying a quick death if someone else had been caught cheating I'll guess we'll never know since other teams weren't caught cheating--only the Pats. In terms of all the coverage of this you're talking about, what I seem to recall reading in the fall and again in early Feb. were many, many stories coming out of the woodwork of other unexplained, cheating like stories involving NE--like Rod Marinelli and another coach whose name escapes me now saying how funny it was that the headsets always seemed to conk out at key moments for them at Gillette, or how opposing coaches always told their players to be extra careful with their playbooks the week they played NE. Or my favorite, allegedly overheard on a radio talk show in early Feb. with Dan LeBatard, the Miami newspaper writer, who had spoken to "an ex-Pats QB (rumored later to be Flutie, BTW), who said that there was always an odd voice in the QB headset that seemed to call plays at the last minute that "always worked" and whose identity he was never told, although he asked on several occasions. Lots of smoke around by all accounts. Now let's see if there's more fire....

You asked for a possible explanation and received one. The fact that you can't even consider that possibility is not my problem. In the meantime, you have no problem believing that the tapes and notes turned over showed additional evidence of cheating. I haven't seen a reputable, unbiased source claim that, yet you treat it as fact.

You may have missed it, but we do know about the media shelf life of a story about another team cheating. The 49ers were just caught and punished on the 24th. It hasn't been a week yet, and the media has pretty much moved on. I do hope you have visited their board to ask how that team's history of cheating could potentially damage the popularity of the league.

 

[FootballFanetic]

Many thanks, Va--I don't agree with some of your points, but understand the logic of others, at least as to how a Pats fan may look at things. As noted above, I was just trying to show how fans of teams other than NE can reasonably look at all of this is a light far worse than people here do.

FlaSox, we'll have to agree to disagree I'm afraid. I'm still waiting for that link on how Kraft helped the small market owners, when everything I've read on him says just the opposite, but I admittedly could be wrong. I also find it hysterical that Ralph Wilson, a 90-year old man, for goodness sake, who admittedly has seen better years mental health-wise, was raked over the coals two years ago as just a dottering old fool for opposing the CBA, but now the rest of the owners are coming around to the idea that he was right about the deal. Personally, what I suspect is really going on with the CBA is that the large market team owners really want the CBA to end so that we can go to an uncapped system that will benefit them. If so, very shortsighted in my view (but then again, they have proven themselves time and again as a bunch of greedy Mofos--BTW, how do you all like the massive price increases for your tix that Kraft instituted this year--pretty soon the only folks able to see a game at Foxboro will be millionaires and corporate types), as that will almost certainly kill the golden goose that NFL parity produces in the long run (see MLB for a great example of how that was done--not a good ex. for you all in Boston to understand, but that sport's popularity (and, more importantly, the all important TV ratings) has gone into a tailspin over the last 20 years or so). I've really got to work on limiting the number of parentheticals I use

 

[FootballFanetic]

You asked for a possible explanation and received one. The fact that you can't even consider that possibility is not my problem. In the meantime, you have no problem believing that the tapes and notes turned over showed additional evidence of cheating. I haven't seen a reputable, unbiased source claim that, yet you treat it as fact.

You may have missed it, but we do know about the media shelf life of a story about another team cheating. The 49ers were just caught and punished on the 24th. It hasn't been a week yet, and the media has pretty much moved on. I do hope you have visited their board to ask how that team's history of cheating could potentially damage the popularity of the league.

No, I don't treat it as fact, but what I do believe is that if it showed evidence of additional cheating as a poster here claimed, it is much more likely to have been the Pats it showed cheating. Only a homer would think otherwise.

As for the tampering charge--you're right, they cheated, were caught and punished, which is good. I think the difference there is that it's pretty well-known that tampering goes on almost everywhere around the League, which is why it's a non-story. It's also less of a direct on the field benefit. Spying on opponents in the way NE was caught doing seems endemic only to them or perhaps a few other teams, but by most accounts (except around here perhaps) is not done League-wide.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

The myth that Goody was Kraft's guy continues. I used to live adjacent to Concord, MA where Kraft's local businessman candidate for NFL commish lived. Kraft's candidate did not make the final cut and NFL statesman that he is, Kraft (just like losing political candidates like Romney) then 'endorsed' Goodell.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

No, I don't treat it as fact, but what I do believe is that if it showed evidence of additional cheating as a poster here claimed, it is much more likely to have been the Pats it showed cheating. Only a homer would think otherwise.

As for the tampering charge--you're right, they cheated, were caught and punished, which is good. I think the difference there is that it's pretty well-known that tampering goes on almost everywhere around the League, which is why it's a non-story. It's also less of a direct on the field benefit. Spying on opponents in the way NE was caught doing seems endemic only to them or perhaps a few other teams, but by most accounts (except around here perhaps) is not done League-wide.

I agree that we have no proof as to what was on the destroyed tapes, and can argue it until doomsday. I also agree that what is dangerous about Specter is precisely the mirror-image of what is happening here. He is claiming that the loss of evidence proves the character of that evidence. That is incorrect for either assertion.

Specter has conflicts of interest. There are times when we should thank our stars for who decides to lead the charge. The Senator from Comcast (and a Philly Fanatic) likes to use his fanaticism (not really a good credential for being an impartial judge of things,) to mask his corporate shill persona. I don't think we could have asked for a better guy in the role of Tailgunner Joe McCarthy.

Your final point collapses under the weight of assumption:

You assume that the preponderence of opinion is identical with the preponderance of evidence. It is not. The mentality you see among homers here is a symmetric reaction to the mentality throughout the league's fanbases, and the ubiquitous media, against the Patriots. It's born of the frustration of having many correct points, and having them totally disregarded in the narrative as told nationally.

Think about it: not all you see here is correct, and some of it is fashioned from some pretty flimsy stuff. But some of it is correct. It's the frustration of following the facts closely, and watching your team vilified in a self-feeding cycle of "everybody says so" -- even when it's demonstrably wrong -- that has exaggerated the defensive impulse in many New England fans. A good example is the timing of "the offseason memo."

I mentioned you should look it up, and for good reason. A sportswriter or commentater wrote or spoke about "the offseason memo" once, affixing its year... and the next writer just wrote "the offseason memo." Now admit it - you've always assumed "the offseason memo" was issued in 2007. It was not. It was issued in 2006, regardless of what the media would have you believe. Have a look at the second bullet in this story:

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2007/12/videotaping_rul.html

This is the sort of detail our current level of debate never arrives at, because it is too emotionally charged to do so. What we wanted as Pats fans was a proportionate response. When that didn't happen, we at least wanted fair coverage. At this point, most Pats fans just say f*** the league, and by the way, have little patience for othe Pats fans who are not in a similar lather.

As to your point about tampering: It is demonstrable that tampering happens. It is demonstrable that the "tampered with" team is always unhappy with the "tampering team." It is demonstrable that various forms of spying happen. It is demonstrable that the "spied on" team is always unhappy with the "spying" team. All of these phenomena have happened leaguewide. I challenge you to prove statistically that tampering is more prevalent than stealing signals, or that it has led to fewer decisive plays, games, or seasons. I don't see agents on TV covering their mouths with their papers so nobody can see what they're saying to their clients. Head coaches? Different story.

Goodell's statements last year amount to the following Cochranism:

If you want to *****, you must be a snitch.

That is, you have to turn in the offending behavior to the league. To date, the Patriots Front Office has remained "aloof" in this category, despite the grumbling of fans. I think that is in keeping with the typical management of the team, from gameday to owners meetings. Kraft is not Al Davis. He just likes his receivers. The Pats say what they have to say on the field.

That's a philosophy fans may disagree with, but it is the Patriot Way. It yielded 18 victories last season. Some here will blame the one loss on the ongoing cameragate distraction. You can as easily credit it for the 18 wins.

I hate to be in the middle of the road with the yellow lines and dead armadillos, but that's my take on it. Now go, Fanetic, and tell the rest of this league's loony fans that there's more than one side to this story.

PFnV

 

[PatsFanInVa]

The myth that Goody was Kraft's guy continues. I used to live adjacent to Concord, MA where Kraft's local businessman candidate for NFL commish lived. Kraft's candidate did not make the final cut and NFL statesman that he is, Kraft (just like losing political candidates like Romney) then 'endorsed' Goodell.

But you at least point to the world these guys move in. It's political and it's business, but it's not all about the on-field rivalries. I mean, I'm sure the small-market teams had a favorite in there somewhere -- but Kraft and NY's owner have more in common that Kraft and Wilson (Buffalo...) even if the Bills are a class act. (I personally like those guys, unless we're playing them.)

Yeah, Kraft is a diplomat, and doesn't want to radically shift the league into a winner take all thunderdome sort of incarnation. He's on the side of making allowances for the small market teams. But I am sure somebody out there would be more of a friend to the small markets than Goodell... so again, we find outselves on the side of the Jets and Giants against the Bills and I dunno maybe the Bengals.

And I do wonder about the "clean up the league" thrust. I don't really know that this is Goodell's idea alone, or that he sprang it on owners without warning. Had you asked me in the 2007 offseason, I would have said "Good! Clean up the thugs! Those felons on the Bengals and the Titans need a good kick in the butt!" Maybe Kraft would have said the same.

So who knows... maybe the "great cleanup" was pre-announced, as Commish candidates interviewed. Or maybe the owners even made it known they needed to make such a push because of some marketing push. Maybe they were afraid the steroids shadow of baseball was about to fall across the NFL, and they wanted to get ahead of it.

But that's where this stuff ultimately comes from, is my guess, the owner level. And they act as partners in a business, not as competitors against each other, until and unless that model is crashed on the rocks of a strike. Probably even then, once everybody realizes where their money is coming from.

PFnV

 

[RoughingthePasser]

the recent talk of hair being too long is ******ed too....Goddell and his crew are clowns

 

[FootballFanetic]

Va, you make some interesting points, I will admit. On the memo timing, however, that one never really did it for me in terms of timing--the rule seemed pretty clear itself without the memo and whether the memo came out in 2006 or 2007 I don't think matters much in terms of the level of culpability. We'll also have to agree to disagree on your points that other teams spy (particularly to the level of the Pats). As noted in another post, remember all the other stuff that came out about the Pats last fall when this story broke in that regard? I have yet to hear anything at all similar about any other organization in such a large-scale fashion. Piling on by the media and other teams? Perhaps, but perhaps not. There just seems to be an awful lot of smoke around NE.

On tampering and how you prove almost everyone does it (as opposed to spying), that's pretty easy. Each year, how many deals get done before anyone wakes up to check the internet the morning after the midnight start of FA? Justin Smiley this year was just one example that stands out, as Smiley himself practically admitted to it in a post-signing interview that was very much filled with winks and nods. As a transactional lawyer myself, to me that's all pretty convincing evidence that there'd been discussions before that post-midnight session to announce the deal--deals don't happen that quickly on their own. In addition, just ask any agent or GM and they'll tell you tampering goes on, just "not by them" (ha, ha). I don't think that's the case with spying--in fact, most current coaches or players that I saw speak on it said in the fall that it is not a League-wide problem (perhaps they were just covering up for the League, but who knows). The one recent example folks (at least folks here) liked to talk about was that alleged Chargers-Broncos incident, which was later recanted at the threat of a lawsuit, so there's no real evidence there that it occurred (had there been, Yahoo! might have stuck with their story).