2020 Patriots Season:
Upcoming Opponent:
Next Up: vs 49ers
Pick Results: SF: 27.3% at NE: 72.7%
Sun
Oct 25th

Current Patriots Twitter Feed:

patfanken

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
Personally, I am of the opinion that the NFL should get out of the personal conduct investigation business and follow suspension guidelines based on actual convictions by law enforcement (e.g. Murder/Rape conviction = banned from the league, DV conviction = 8 games, and so forth). And allowing NFL teams to make their own separate suspensions for PR purposes (e.g. the Steelers could suspend Ben Roethlisberger on their own without the league suspending Big Ben because he wasn't convicted).

As it relates to Tyreek Hill and the current personal conduct policies in the NFL, I believe Hill should have gotten a suspension just for verbally assaulting his own wife. And my opinion is based on current rules and precedence in suspensions handed down (e.g. Brady got 4 games for "more probable than not", Big Ben got 6 games and was never convicted nor arrested, and Reed got 6 games despite no conviction for a something 2+ years ago). In short, I think Hill got off easy under the current inconsistent policy....but if we changed the policy to what I think it should be...he would have never been suspended in my book.
Now I agree with most of what you wrote, here's the thing on Rothlessberger. The evidence and testimony by onsite police CLEARLY showed that Rothlessberger committed sexual assault on that girl. However sexual assault is very hard to prove without the help of the victim, and in this case so much pressure was put on that girl NOT to bring charges that she chose NOT to go forward, and probably wisely so.

Its most always a no win situation for the victim. No matter how damning the evidence the defense will put your entire life into the public. Every slip, every mistake, every embarrassing moment will find it's way into the public on any high profile case. So in this case probably a "heartfelt" apology and a few dollars allowed that girl to slip back into anonymity.

In the Hill case, Espinosa has clearly been told that she'd better not testify because if she does, the financial gravy train will abruptly end for her AND her 3 children to be.

On the Hill matter, his clear and obvious threat to her was easy grounds for a 6 game suspension. And that is true in ANY context. Even given the entire tape doesn't erase that threat, and given the violent history of those 2, there should have been a no brainer, if fact 6 games was a gift to KC.

The end result of this is that it is obvious to even the most casual observer that the NFL really doesn't have a domestic violence program, and all suspensions coming from the "personal conduct" policy are simply arbitrary exercises of decision making from Goodell. A man who was given that ARBITRARY power in the last CBA. I very much doubt he will retain it in the next one......and no one will be more pleased with that than Roger Goodell. He knows he sucked at it.
 

borg

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
In the contest between PR and on field product marketing it's easy to see where the priority was on this one. It's hard to believe in this #metoo environment "You need to be terrified of me too b!tch" wasn't worth a couple of games all by itself. Can only figure being able to hang their hat on 'law enforcement didn't cooperate' to give no punishment was viewed as better than hitting him with a couple of games and having something worse come out a la Ray Rice.
Pre Crime punishment
Yes!
Give Roger Supreme Ruler powers
Unleash the Word Police


OT: If Bob had access to the NFL Pre Crime app, he would have had his driver turn back at the Jupiter town line
 

Hyped

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
Now I agree with most of what you wrote, here's the thing on Rothlessberger. The evidence and testimony by onsite police CLEARLY showed that Rothlessberger committed sexual assault on that girl. However sexual assault is very hard to prove without the help of the victim, and in this case so much pressure was put on that girl NOT to bring charges that she chose NOT to go forward, and probably wisely so.

Its most always a no win situation for the victim. No matter how damning the evidence the defense will put your entire life into the public. Every slip, every mistake, every embarrassing moment will find it's way into the public on any high profile case. So in this case probably a "heartfelt" apology and a few dollars allowed that girl to slip back into anonymity.

In the Hill case, Espinosa has clearly been told that she'd better not testify because if she does, the financial gravy train will abruptly end for her AND her 3 children to be.

On the Hill matter, his clear and obvious threat to her was easy grounds for a 6 game suspension. And that is true in ANY context. Even given the entire tape doesn't erase that threat, and given the violent history of those 2, there should have been a no brainer, if fact 6 games was a gift to KC.

The end result of this is that it is obvious to even the most casual observer that the NFL really doesn't have a domestic violence program, and all suspensions coming from the "personal conduct" policy are simply arbitrary exercises of decision making from Goodell. A man who was given that ARBITRARY power in the last CBA. I very much doubt he will retain it in the next one......and no one will be more pleased with that than Roger Goodell. He knows he sucked at it.


A.) Was not arguing Roethlisberger's innocence....just pointing out that he was never convicted and that the NFL shouldn't make arbitrary decisions and follow a guideline based on convictions. IOW, let our justice system determine this.

B.) Goodell is almost certainly going to keep his powers, IMO. The players might hate it, but the NFLPA will allow Goodell to retain it as a concession in exchange for a bigger share of the revenue pie and no more than 16 games, IMO. The players' mentality will be, "I can just stay outta trouble and make more money vs participate in a crusade to reduce the Commish's power in exchange for the same share of the pie".....
 

Ring 6

PatsFans.com Wall of Fame Member
Now I agree with most of what you wrote, here's the thing on Rothlessberger. The evidence and testimony by onsite police CLEARLY showed that Rothlessberger committed sexual assault on that girl. However sexual assault is very hard to prove without the help of the victim, and in this case so much pressure was put on that girl NOT to bring charges that she chose NOT to go forward, and probably wisely so.

Its most always a no win situation for the victim. No matter how damning the evidence the defense will put your entire life into the public. Every slip, every mistake, every embarrassing moment will find it's way into the public on any high profile case. So in this case probably a "heartfelt" apology and a few dollars allowed that girl to slip back into anonymity.
Does it not bother you that a person is accused of a crime and the justice system says they cannot prove guilt based on American law, yet your employer can decide they think you must have done it even though it can’t be proven and find you guilty and take away your right to work?
What if that happens to a regular guy? What if it’s a minority accused by a white girl? What if it’s an unpopular employee who they would like to fire but have no grounds?
Slippery slope here.
 

patfanken

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
A.) Was not arguing Roethlisberger's innocence....just pointing out that he was never convicted and that the NFL shouldn't make arbitrary decisions and follow a guideline based on convictions. IOW, let our justice system determine this.

B.) Goodell is almost certainly going to keep his powers, IMO. The players might hate it, but the NFLPA will allow Goodell to retain it as a concession in exchange for a bigger share of the revenue pie and no more than 16 games, IMO. The players' mentality will be, "I can just stay outta trouble and make more money vs participate in a crusade to reduce the Commish's power in exchange for the same share of the pie".....
My thought was, "Why would he want it". He's made a hash of it right from the start. It's made him a lightning rod of controversy if not a laughingstock, so why not let some sort of arbitrator take over this onerous task. It would make his job much easier and his PR easier still.

And while I agree in some sense the league should probably stay out of the legal business of a players off the field activities, but the fact is that individual teams don't want the job of policing a "personal conduct" policy either. They'd rather it be a "league" function. Takes all the tough decisions off of them. And in the end "personal conduct" isn't necessarily a police function. You can commit domestic violence or sexual assault without being convicted of it. Tyrek Hill, Rothlessberger, and Elliot are all perfect examples
 

patfanken

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
Does it not bother you that a person is accused of a crime and the justice system says they cannot prove guilt based on American law, yet your employer can decide they think you must have done it even though it can’t be proven and find you guilty and take away your right to work?
What if that happens to a regular guy? What if it’s a minority accused by a white girl? What if it’s an unpopular employee who they would like to fire but have no grounds?
Slippery slope here.
No I think this is an apples to oranges situation, Andy. None of these players are being sent to prison by the Commissioner for domestic violence or sexual assault. The league is an employer and has a right to set up a different level of accountability than a court of law. It's not against the law to get drunk every day, but if you show up to work every day drunk, I would think the boss would have a right to suspend or fire you.

If you worked for me and I overheard you telling your wife, who just told you your son is terrified of you, "you'd better be terrified of me, *****", I might not be able to send you to jail for it, but you wouldn't be working for me anymore.

A private organization has a lot more leeway to require certain behavior of its employees than the legal system, just as long as the employee knows in advance what's expected and agrees to those principles when he signs his contract.

The NFL is NOT being a moral arbiter here. They are a business and employing wife beaters is simply bad for business, or at least it SHOULD be. :rolleyes:
 

Ring 6

PatsFans.com Wall of Fame Member
No I think this is an apples to oranges situation, Andy. None of these players are being sent to prison by the Commissioner for domestic violence or sexual assault.
I didn’t say they were.


The league is an employer and has a right to set up a different level of accountability than a court of law. It's not against the law to get drunk every day, but if you show up to work every day drunk, I would think the boss would have a right to suspend or fire you.
Oh no, you can’t equate showing up to work drunk with being suspended from your job for something that happened in your own time

If you worked for me and I overheard you telling your wife, who just told you your son is terrified of you, "you'd better be terrified of me, *****", I might not be able to send you to jail for it, but you wouldn't be working for me anymore.
So that would mean you support employees bring fired for speech that their employers disagree with.
That would set us back hundreds of years.

A private organization has a lot more leeway to require certain behavior of its employees than the legal system, just as long as the employee knows in advance what's expected and agrees to those principles when he signs his contract.
Sure, but you are missing the point by a mile.
If you get accused of something that cannot be proven, you are saying an employer can “convict” you of it without any standard of proof.
How would this not cause racism, sexism, any other ism at the whim of an employer. Taken further why couldn’t the employer exploit their employees under the threat of making up charges to fire them if they don’t fall in line?
If you allow it in the nfl them you have to allow it at the Snappy Widget Manufacturing Company.
Do you support that if a guy with a family making 20 bucks an hour busting his butt gets accused of something that has nothing to do with his job that law enforcement cannot convict him of because they don’t have sufficient evidence that his employer can say “we think you must have done it, guilty until
proven innocent” and fires him?
Because that’s exactly what happened to Ben R (with suspension rather than firing). Regardless of what you think of him in America you are supposed to have proof.

The NFL is NOT being a moral arbiter here. They are a business and employing wife beaters is simply bad for business, or at least it SHOULD be. :rolleyes:
That’s not the point. If they want to play to PR and discipline players for acting in a way that they believe conflicts with their values, that is fine. I disagree, but it’s their right.
What I am saying is they have to have proof. And saying despite the justice system determined there wasn’t enough proof, am employer can ignore that and convict on whim is just wrong. Where do you draw the line? Why wouldn’t accusation automatically equal guilt?
 

PatsWSB47

Pro Bowl Player
I didn’t say they were.



Oh no, you can’t equate showing up to work drunk with being suspended from your job for something that happened in your own time


So that would mean you support employees bring fired for speech that their employers disagree with.
That would set us back hundreds of years.


Sure, but you are missing the point by a mile.
If you get accused of something that cannot be proven, you are saying an employer can “convict” you of it without any standard of proof.
How would this not cause racism, sexism, any other ism at the whim of an employer. Taken further why couldn’t the employer exploit their employees under the threat of making up charges to fire them if they don’t fall in line?
If you allow it in the nfl them you have to allow it at the Snappy Widget Manufacturing Company.
Do you support that if a guy with a family making 20 bucks an hour busting his butt gets accused of something that has nothing to do with his job that law enforcement cannot convict him of because they don’t have sufficient evidence that his employer can say “we think you must have done it, guilty until
proven innocent” and fires him?
Because that’s exactly what happened to Ben R (with suspension rather than firing). Regardless of what you think of him in America you are supposed to have proof.


That’s not the point. If they want to play to PR and discipline players for acting in a way that they believe conflicts with their values, that is fine. I disagree, but it’s their right.
What I am saying is they have to have proof. And saying despite the justice system determined there wasn’t enough proof, am employer can ignore that and convict on whim is just wrong. Where do you draw the line? Why wouldn’t accusation automatically equal guilt?
As a boss, would you fire OJ? If he were still a player in the league would you as a coach have him welcomed into training camp with open arms? Hill's history added to a an audio tape where he threatened his girlfriend couple with a son with a broken arm was enough to set up rules by protective services to make visits etc.to help make sure the kid isn't being abused. That tells enough of a story for me. It should have been enough for the league as well.
 

Ring 6

PatsFans.com Wall of Fame Member
As a boss, would you fire OJ? If he were still a player in the league would you as a coach have him welcomed into training camp with open arms? Hill's history added to a an audio tape where he threatened his girlfriend couple with a son with a broken arm was enough to set up rules by protective services to make visits etc.to help make sure the kid isn't being abused. That tells enough of a story for me. It should have been enough for the league as well.
It’s not a matter of what I would do. Framing it that way is endorsing exactly what I am talking about.
The danger in requiring zero proof whatsoever to punish someone for an accusation isn’t how it affects someone who actually is guilty but someone who isn’t.

I could use your argument to say we should change the laws so that when it’s obvious someone is guilty, like OJ, then we shouldn’t worry about proving it and giving him the innocent until proven guilty rights that our country was founded on and just throw him in jail.

What if the patriots didn’t want to believe Edelman when he was accused?
You can’t argue needing proof is irrelevant by naming serial killers because it would apply to every truly innocent person just as much.
 

Ring 6

PatsFans.com Wall of Fame Member
Answer the question. Then again its not worth arguing with brick wall
If you are directing that at me, first drop the attitude, and second my point is that I am not comfortable with a situation where an employer can discipline an employer for breaking the law when law enforcement is incapable of finding the guilty because the employer is allowed to make up a standard of proof.
Certainly you can name scumbags who couldn’t be proven guilty and no one is going to defend their character or wish to employ them but if you are allowed to decide guilt on your own then every employer is and their version of guilt may be based upon racism, sexism or used against employees to infringe upon other rights.
It’s america and innocent until proven guilty is important.
 

TommyBrady12

Hall of Fame Poster
Just wanted to remind everyone Tyreek Hill should be in jail and the Chiefs shouldn't be in the Super Bowl, but the Kansas City prosecutor wanted to win the Super Bowl so badly he let him go. His ploy may just work in a few weeks.
 

203Pat

In the Starting Line-Up
Just wanted to remind everyone Tyreek Hill should be in jail and the Chiefs shouldn't be in the Super Bowl, but the Kansas City prosecutor wanted to win the Super Bowl so badly he let him go. His ploy may just work in a few weeks.
Good thing you’re here. I forgot and thought he was a nice guy.
 

Top