Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
NFL Discussions
Vilma a scapegoat?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jaybadger82" data-source="post: 446163" data-attributes="member: 6211"><p>I feel like I'm beating a dead horse at this point, so I'm just going to respond with a few points:</p><p> </p><p>(1) Everything you've said above is speculative; much of what I'm going to say is speculative. This is speculative <em>because</em> the NFL's discipline process has occurred behind closed doors. Neither players nor fans are able to review the evidence against a player and make their own determinations about each individual's degree of culpability.</p><p>(2) The NFLPA has a legitimate gripe about the secrecy of this NFL discipline process. It's very draconian for a unionized industry and far more opaque than that which most private sector employers offer its professionals. In the public sector, it would be unconstitutional. (Perhaps the union should have bargained for a better system in the CBA but that would have come at the cost of concessions in terms of the players' share of gross revenues and off-season practices/training camps.)</p><p>(3) Contrary to your suggestion above, the NFL has plenty of reasons to lie or at least exaggerate its evidence in order to make an example of these players. There is a growing public awareness and concern for head injuries in football (highlighted by the recent tragedy with Seau). Faced with a growing number of lawsuits from former players, it is very important that the NFL appear to take this issue seriously (nevermind the reality). The Saints bounty scandal provides a PR opportunity for the league to look responsible by punishing a handful of players while deflecting from the incredibly violent nature of the sport as a whole.</p><p>(4) In fact, it's rather clear that the NFL has lied, or at least grossly exaggerated its evidence against Hargrove. See <a href="http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/07/hargrove-says-williams-vitt-told-him-to-just-play-dumb/" target="_blank">Mike Florio's article</a> or <a href="http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/41748/hargrove-declaration-wheres-the-beef" target="_blank">Mike Seifert's blog</a>. Seems unlikely that this would occur if the discipline process were more transparent. Such secrecy should engender skepticism, not passive acceptance.</p><p>(5) I also think you haven't given thoughtful consideration of what constitutes "willful" participation. When your boss at work tells you to do something, you're generally under enormous pressure to comply. It was no different for many of these players, who might be cut by the Saints on a whim. When you review the Hargrove's statement (<a href="http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--anthony-hargrove-s-declaration-to-nfl-regarding-saints-bounty-scandal.html" target="_blank">linked here</a>), it becomes rather clear that his professional future was being implicated by Williams and Vitt when they instructed him to stonewall the league. The circumstances suggest that if he told the truth, he would be dropped in the depth chart or cut entirely. Not a good situation for a player coming off suspension the year before with only a few contract offers. This should mitigate Hargrove's punishment.</p><p> </p><p>I encourage you to review the discussion in <a href="http://www.packerforum.com/threads/anthony-hargrove-suspended-8-games.36438/" target="_blank">this related thread</a>. My comments there are along the same lines but they may elaborate on some of my points.</p><p> </p><p>It's hard to lose much sleep over this: the four suspended players all participated in the Saints bounty program to some degree and they deserve punishment. However, I think the league's process in determining who to punish and the length of those suspensions is deeply flawed because it occurs without any sort of transparency or oversight. Why should the league oppose a more open process if its determinations are valid?</p><p> </p><p>With regards to Hargrove, I think eight games is too severe. Obviously, I'm biased as both a Packer fan and a bleeding heart that thinks employers should offer some degree of due process. Cheers.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jaybadger82, post: 446163, member: 6211"] I feel like I'm beating a dead horse at this point, so I'm just going to respond with a few points: (1) Everything you've said above is speculative; much of what I'm going to say is speculative. This is speculative [I]because[/I] the NFL's discipline process has occurred behind closed doors. Neither players nor fans are able to review the evidence against a player and make their own determinations about each individual's degree of culpability. (2) The NFLPA has a legitimate gripe about the secrecy of this NFL discipline process. It's very draconian for a unionized industry and far more opaque than that which most private sector employers offer its professionals. In the public sector, it would be unconstitutional. (Perhaps the union should have bargained for a better system in the CBA but that would have come at the cost of concessions in terms of the players' share of gross revenues and off-season practices/training camps.) (3) Contrary to your suggestion above, the NFL has plenty of reasons to lie or at least exaggerate its evidence in order to make an example of these players. There is a growing public awareness and concern for head injuries in football (highlighted by the recent tragedy with Seau). Faced with a growing number of lawsuits from former players, it is very important that the NFL appear to take this issue seriously (nevermind the reality). The Saints bounty scandal provides a PR opportunity for the league to look responsible by punishing a handful of players while deflecting from the incredibly violent nature of the sport as a whole. (4) In fact, it's rather clear that the NFL has lied, or at least grossly exaggerated its evidence against Hargrove. See [URL='http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/07/hargrove-says-williams-vitt-told-him-to-just-play-dumb/']Mike Florio's article[/URL] or [URL='http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/41748/hargrove-declaration-wheres-the-beef']Mike Seifert's blog[/URL]. Seems unlikely that this would occur if the discipline process were more transparent. Such secrecy should engender skepticism, not passive acceptance. (5) I also think you haven't given thoughtful consideration of what constitutes "willful" participation. When your boss at work tells you to do something, you're generally under enormous pressure to comply. It was no different for many of these players, who might be cut by the Saints on a whim. When you review the Hargrove's statement ([URL='http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--anthony-hargrove-s-declaration-to-nfl-regarding-saints-bounty-scandal.html']linked here[/URL]), it becomes rather clear that his professional future was being implicated by Williams and Vitt when they instructed him to stonewall the league. The circumstances suggest that if he told the truth, he would be dropped in the depth chart or cut entirely. Not a good situation for a player coming off suspension the year before with only a few contract offers. This should mitigate Hargrove's punishment. I encourage you to review the discussion in [URL='http://www.packerforum.com/threads/anthony-hargrove-suspended-8-games.36438/']this related thread[/URL]. My comments there are along the same lines but they may elaborate on some of my points. It's hard to lose much sleep over this: the four suspended players all participated in the Saints bounty program to some degree and they deserve punishment. However, I think the league's process in determining who to punish and the length of those suspensions is deeply flawed because it occurs without any sort of transparency or oversight. Why should the league oppose a more open process if its determinations are valid? With regards to Hargrove, I think eight games is too severe. Obviously, I'm biased as both a Packer fan and a bleeding heart that thinks employers should offer some degree of due process. Cheers. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
R
Valuation of NFL Teams
Latest: rmontro
Today at 8:07 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: tynimiller
Today at 6:14 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: milani
Today at 5:41 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Cam Achord new ST coach - Fire him
Latest: OldSchool101
Today at 3:06 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
M
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: mradtke66
Today at 2:30 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
NFL Discussions
Vilma a scapegoat?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
