erba wrote:My question to you is do you think the giants were punished along the lines of the other teams above or do you think they got off a little lighter? I'd have to say what they did would have to be considered similar to the what the Browns did in the above examples.
I think it looks pretty ok to me. Considering: the Giants didn't gain much of a competitive advantage, they simply replaced a broken system (QB Comms) with one they weren't supposed to, for only a portion of one game, and that the league doesn't think the exercised the only potential advantage the team could have had. "One NFL source told ESPN's Adam Schefter that even though the Giants weren't communicating with Manning within 15 seconds of the play clock ending, they had the "opportunity" to do it."
The Falcons were punished more harshly, and should have been -- affecting in-game play, repeatedly, in ways nobody's allowed to.
I think the Browns were overly punished. I don't get what advantage came from what was happening. Texts? So what. Farmer could have been standing on the sideline saying the same fudge too, right, so, that one seemed like a technicality to me. (Plus, losing their GM might even help the Browns ba-zing)
erba wrote:My complaint with Goddell is that he's not very consistent. I also look at the way they handled the Josh Brown situation. Remember when the league wasn't going to stand for domestic violence? They were going to hand out hard suspensions? They gave him one game.
I agree that punishments don't seem consistent. It would be nice if there was a schedule of violations and punishments, but, there are too many variables. And as far as individuals go the players signed off on Goodell being a dictator, and remember Goodell's only job is to be the owners' stooge, so, this is what they get.
Brown should have had more games -- but it was for an incident a year old that people just found out about. And it doesn't appear as if he's even been charged with a crime, right (I googled some)? That makes him an equal piece of garbage but it's less of an offense against football, if that means anything.
Here's the difference: Goodell wants to put the best product possible on the field and maintain the league's image, because those things lead to profitability. So cheating -- and drugs is in this bucket because of what PEDs did to baseball -- gets slapped hard as hell, whereas even subhuman shitpiles like Greg Hardy get to keep playing because they're starters. Fair? No. Moral? No. But Goodell is the hired gun of the NFL money, so, his decisions are based on what's best for the money. And knowing that
-- that's why he'd never put a target on Kraft or Brady's back unless he felt he had to for the greater good: they're too valuable, necessary, and marketable. But in all the cases where the Pats got slapped, he felt there was enough potential to scar the league that a slight black mark against their golden boy and favorite franchise was an acceptable loss. Because the alternative is millions thinking the game is rigged or that Super Bowls were tainted, and not spending their money with the NFL.