Here it comes: The Jets Agenda

[Tunescribe]

Damn, that "dummy" creeps me out. I hate those.

But the real thing is much worse. To me, the resemblance is inescapable.

 

[IllegalContact]

I'm not sure what the big deal is with the article......it says:

But Bisciotti surely appears to have committed tampering in this instance. He can certainly have a desire to reunite with Ngata in the future. He just can’t express that thought publicly with Ngata in a Lions uniform.

It is tampering....no question.....

but I think it will have the opposite effect that some people fear......if anything, the league does not want this **** to start becoming rampant and Bisciotti just turned it into a bigger deal.

I'm counting on 'this **** has got to stop' statement being made

BTW, Florio didn't write it......and his opinion is that the Jets instance was very blatant,

I'm not a Florio fan but he hasn't been dismissing tampering

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

If Goodell doesn't hit the Jets with substance, expect tampering to run wild...until a member of the Patriots says something that fits the definition & Goodell abruptly decides to make an example.

 

[IllegalContact]

If Goodell doesn't hit the Jets with substance, expect tampering to run wild...until a member of the Patriots says something that fits the definition & Goodell abruptly decides to make an example.

I'd be on the phone with agents immediately.......I'd be chasing every good player on a bad team relentlessly.....and if the league came to my door, I'd throw poop at them

 

[Wilfork4Food]

Paula Pasche ?@paulapasche Apr 2

#Lions won't file tampering charges against #Ravens; call it a 'non-issue.' Blog: http://ow.ly/L9bBg

I wonder how the Lions not pursuing tampering charges against the Ravens for their owner basically saying the same exact thing as Woody affects the penalty the Jests will get.

 

[PatSunday]

Why is everyone so angry? Belichick will be EPIC if there are no punishments for tampering.

ESPN: "How are you preparing for this week's game?"

BB: "Well, the Jets are always prepared with great players. Like I say every week now, with Revis, I'd love to have him back. He should hold out for a trade. I'd love to see JJ. Watt on this team. Really, to any opposing player who is under contract on thirty of these teams, I say, don't play a snap for your team. Demand you get traded to the Patriots for a ring."

ESPN: "The running back broke 100 yards yesterday, is that a fluke?"

BB: "Their offense played well, and yes, they obviously have a heck of a back. We'd love to see him in a Patriots uniform. He's got 3 years left on that current contract, but if he holds out, we can certainly use him and pay him good money this year."

 

[patman52]

Paula Pasche ?@paulapasche Apr 2

#Lions won't file tampering charges against #Ravens; call it a 'non-issue.' Blog: http://ow.ly/L9bBg

I wonder how the Lions not pursuing tampering charges against the Ravens for their owner basically saying the same exact thing as Woody affects the penalty the Jests will get.

it does not affect it at all. Why would it? The teams are not rivals and the owner of the Lions is ok with the ravens owner remarks.

Woody went beyond what Biscotti said, he mentioned the contract parameters and that they made a mistake in not signing him as a FA the previous year and now they changed their minds and want him back.

 

[Wilfork4Food]

it does not affect it at all. Why would it? The teams are not rivals and the owner of the Lions is ok with the ravens owner remarks.

Woody went beyond what Biscotti said, he mentioned the contract parameters and that they made a mistake in not signing him as a FA the previous year and now they changed their minds and want him back.

A couple of things. My point was that if the Lions come out and say it's not a big deal doesn't that contradict what the Patriots are trying to do by filing tampering charges?

And Biscotti said the exact same thing as Woody in my opinion. He mentioned that Ngata is only under contract for 1 year and that he is open to bringing him back at the end of the year. That's pretty much the same thing. Both owners stated their wishes to bring back the player to their team while that player was under contract with another team. Contract status and rivalries have nothing to do with the investigation. It matters to us fans but if you read the rule those there is nothing in the rule that covers those things at all. It's either tampering or it's not. Whether they guy has 10 years left on his contract or 2 months, tampering is tampering.

I don't remember Woody announcing contract parameters at that press conference. If you're talking about Mehta's tweet about the contract numbers that sounded like it was from Revis' agent. In my experience 95% of inside info is from agents or players, not from teams.

 

[Gumby]

A couple of things. My point was that if the Lions come out and say it's not a big deal doesn't that contradict what the Patriots are trying to do by filing tampering charges?

And Biscotti said the exact same thing as Woody in my opinion. He mentioned that Ngata is only under contract for 1 year [/B]and that he is open to bringing him back at the end of the year. That's pretty much the same thing. Both owners stated their wishes to bring back the player to their team while that player was under contract with another team. Contract status and rivalries have nothing to do with the investigation. It matters to us fans but if you read the rule those there is nothing in the rule that covers those things at all. It's either tampering or it's not. Whether they guy has 10 years left on his contract or 2 months, tampering is tampering.

I don't remember Woody announcing contract parameters at that press conference. If you're talking about Mehta's tweet about the contract numbers that sounded like it was from Revis' agent. In my experience 95% of inside info is from agents or players, not from teams.

Ngata- signed contract with lions the WEEK/DAYS PRIOR
Mevis- signed contract 1-YEAR BEFORE.

Ngata-under contract for another YEAR before he will be aFA
Mevis- 2 months away from POSSIBLY being a FA, but theoretically protected from approach from any other team for 13 MONTHS

Not sure what is so hard to figure out about the 2 HUGE SITUATIONAL DIFFERENCES, in addition to the content differences of the actual words used (identified by prev posters). The only folks who can equate the two are jester-apologistas.

 

[Wilfork4Food]

Ngata- signed contract with lions the WEEK/DAYS PRIOR
Mevis- signed contract 1-YEAR BEFORE.

Ngata-under contract for another YEAR before he will be aFA
Mevis- 2 months away from POSSIBLY being a FA, but theoretically protected from approach from any other team for 13 MONTHS

Not sure what is so hard to figure out about the 2 HUGE SITUATIONAL DIFFERENCES, in addition to the content differences of the actual words used (identified by prev posters). The only folks who can equate the two are jester-apologistas.

No I'm just being realistic. Ngata was traded for, not signed, by the Lions. I think there has been some confusion about the tampering rule. It doesn't matter when a player is to become a FA when it comes to tampering. There are two levels or tampering. The lightest form of tampering is the "public statement of interest". The most severe kind of tampering is "contact with a player or agent while he's under contract with another team". So there is no situational difference. Both are under contract with different teams. The term of the contract means nothing, even though Ngata and Revis theoretically had the same amount of contract left at their individuals times of tampering. Revis 13 months, Ngata 11 months.

I honestly think that the Lions announcing to the world that they don't think what the Ravens owner said was a big deal gives the NFL an out to not punish the Jests or to punish them lightly. That's all I'm suggesting. I personally think they should have us swap 5th round picks next year, since theirs will be a top 10 pick again and ours with be in the high 20's at the lowest, and they should have to forfeit their 6th or 7th. That was the precedent set when the Lions got in trouble for tampering. To think we would get more is absurd. When the 49ers were caught tampering with Briggs the NFL made them swap 3rd round picks and the 49ers had to forfeit a 5th round pick. But in that case the 49ers made direct contact with Briggs and his agent. So it's totally different than this case. The greatness of the player and the team that's doing the tampering has nothing to do with the sincerity of the penalty, although many here would like to think so. But with the Lions saying it was no big deal it makes me nervous that Goodell will only fine the Jests and use the Lions brushing what Biscotti said off as an example why there wasn't a harsher penalty.

 

[Gumby]

No I'm just being realistic. Ngata was traded for, not signed, by the Lions.

My bad on that. But that goes even more to my argument saying the situation of the owners comments in rat birds case is completely different from when, where , how woody's comments were made.

I think there has been some confusion about the tampering rule. It doesn't matter when a player is to become a FA when it comes to tampering. There are two levels or tampering. The lightest form of tampering is the "public statement of interest". The most severe kind of tampering is "contact with a player or agent while he's under contract with another team". So there is no situational difference. Both are under contract with different teams. The term of the contract means nothing, .....

Of course there is a situational difference to someone making comments 2days (?) after you just traded or lost out on bidding on a player to another team versus another owner talking about a YEAR OLD LOST OUT when the guy can potentially be coming on the market again.
The clear difference in TIMING is: 'shucks, we lost out' versus 'damn, I wish we had a do over---- wouldn't you like to come back?' even if you used the exact same words (which is NOT the case).

And the difference in the contracts points out the ratbirds can't really influence a contract situation that will develop AFTER A WHOLE NFL SEASON whereas the jesters could influence a contract that technically had 14 months to play out (if pats could convince him to extend BEFORE THE 20M PAYDAY) but could be turned into 2 m to FA if jesters could convince Mevis to be obstinate (didn't take much).

I honestly think that the Lions announcing to the world that they don't think what the Ravens owner said was a big deal gives the NFL an out to not punish the Jests or to punish them lightly. That's all I'm suggesting. .....

OF COURSE IT GIVE NFL AN OUT, at least one that the NFL will try to use, but it is an out ONLY A MORON or someone with an agenda (anti-pats, anti(tamper) -rule, or other) would accept as legitimate. Unfortunately there are enough of both types particularly with the guys with the big bullhorn at bspn.

 

[seven]

A Jet penalty should have been announced within a week of Woody's statement. It was a definitively "textbook" case, Woody's statement being almost a verbatim copy of the rulebook example.

Why the delay is a good question, the only obvious answer is they re going to whoosh it away with a minimal penalty.

The part that gets no attention is the possibility that Woody's statement affected the outcome. It was months ago, planted a seed in Revis who was absorbed in the season. He may well have not given much thought to a return before that, feeling only bitterness toward the Jets.

In a sense it was a public apology from Woody, who was evidently responsible for Revis going to Tampa. Woody is the only connection to management that still is there. Revis had to have some hard feelings there. The statement served as a public apology in advance, giving Revis time to think it over.

Woody's statement also signaled the NY Media and his agent to get on the case, many items appeared.
"Queen of NY", as Tedy referred to it. Well indirectly, saying the Jets coach now had "Queen" as a powerful chess-type piece to move on the field. But I got the meaning, and thank him for the laugh.

***************
The statement could have well served to alter Revis' thinking. It certainly introduced the idea, in the middle of the season. It forced him to think about it, generated stories, buzz and momentum.

It is why the NFL has the rule. NFL needs to decide if it wants this rule or not.

The long, unnecessary delay signals they don't care about it, want it to go away.
No evidence collection or investigation was necessary. It was a public statement, in clear violation of the rule.

I can only conclude the delay is from a desire to make it just go away.