PDA

View Full Version : Steelers QB Big Ben sidesteps discipline talk



stillers4me
08-31-2011, 05:10 AM
Ben Roethlisberger treaded carefully when the NFL's personal conduct policy was broached Tuesday.
But when asked if he has any issues with how commissioner Roger Goodell metes out punishment for players that sully the league's image, the Steelers quarterback said, "As delicately as I can say it, yes. Maybe at some point in my career I'll speak up more on it, but as of right now I'll just say yeah."...............

Read more @ http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/steelers/s_754286.html

Chidi29
08-31-2011, 06:44 AM
Safety Ryan Clark, the team's player representative and an outspoken critic of Goodell, said the union wanted a system with more checks and balances when negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement. But, he said, that was one of the concessions made so the two sides could get a deal done and end the lockout.

-------------

Then it's your own fault. You wanted to change it, had a chance to do so, and decided you didn't really "need" it as much as you did winning other issues.

suitanim
08-31-2011, 09:19 AM
Safety Ryan Clark, the team's player representative and an outspoken critic of Goodell, said the union wanted a system with more checks and balances when negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement. But, he said, that was one of the concessions made so the two sides could get a deal done and end the lockout.

-------------

Then it's your own fault. You wanted to change it, had a chance to do so, and decided you didn't really "need" it as much as you did winning other issues.

I guess it would be better if they were still in a work stoppage?

Sorry, man, but I gotta ask. Are you related to Goodell or something? Trying to get a job with the NFL?

siss
08-31-2011, 09:23 AM
I would imagine that Rogers suspension to Ben had very little to do with the changes he made in his life (I think the lovely wife had more to do with it that anything) and the suspension was something The Rog did to appease the media. And few have bothered to point out the lack of evidence or inconstancies in her story in the media (especially in the Mcnulty case). There is a part of me that says that it was the consequences of his immature behavior, the other part says Roger slammed Ben for PR reasons.

fansince'76
08-31-2011, 09:23 AM
Then it's your own fault. You wanted to change it, had a chance to do so, and decided you didn't really "need" it as much as you did winning other issues.

They did. The Steelers are the only player contingent that did, voting 78-6 AGAINST the new CBA. It's the rest of the league's players that basically rubber stamped it.

Chidi29
08-31-2011, 09:30 AM
I guess it would be better if they were still in a work stoppage?

Sorry, man, but I gotta ask. Are you related to Goodell or something? Trying to get a job with the NFL?

If it was that important to them, I'm sure something could have been worked out. They could have made concessions elsewhere I'm sure.

All I'm saying is don't complain about something you could've changed.

Besides, there are plenty of checks and balances. There are people who review the situation before and after Goodell's ruling.

Chidi29
08-31-2011, 09:32 AM
They did. The Steelers are the only player contingent that did, voting 78-6 AGAINST the new CBA. It's the rest of the league's players that basically rubber stamped it.

When I say "your" fault, I don't mean Clark specifically. I mean the union, the players. They had the power to change it and they decided against it.

suitanim
08-31-2011, 09:36 AM
If it was that important to them, I'm sure something could have been worked out. They could have made concessions elsewhere I'm sure.

All I'm saying is don't complain about something you could've changed.

Besides, there are plenty of checks and balances. There are people who review the situation before and after Goodell's ruling.

So you don't see any of the problems with Goodell that the rest of us do? And by "rest of us", I means fans, and players, and the media.

fansince'76
08-31-2011, 09:38 AM
When I say "your" fault, I don't mean Clark specifically. I mean the union, the players. They had the power to change it and they decided against it.

Agreed. I already basically said "tough shit, you voted for this" in another thread where Suh complained via Twitter about his $20K fine for roughing Dalton. However, since the Steelers overwhelmingly voted against it, I think they're the only ones who have any right to complain about it at this point.

Chidi29
08-31-2011, 09:46 AM
So you don't see any of the problems with Goodell that the rest of us do? And by "rest of us", I means fans, and players, and the media.

I have been critical of Goodell in the past. Namely, regarding Ben's suspension. Looking back, I bet even Roger realizes that was a mistake.

Do you see any of the good he's done?

fansince'76
08-31-2011, 09:47 AM
Do you see any of the good he's done?

Honestly, no, I don't. The league has continued to prosper in spite of him, IMO.

Chidi29
08-31-2011, 09:50 AM
Honestly, no, I don't. The league has continued to prosper in spite of him, IMO.

Then why do I have to see the bad in him?

If you guys are only allowed to see one side, why can't I?

*Not that I am because I look at both sides but apparently, I don't get the opportunity that you guys do because I'm fighting for Hitler/Castro/the Devil (whatever we're calling Goodell on here these days).

fansince'76
08-31-2011, 09:52 AM
Then why do I have to see the bad in him?

If you guys are only allowed to see one side, why can't I?

*Not that I am because I look at both sides but apparently, I don't get the opportunity that you guys do because I'm fighting for Hitler/Castro/the Devil (whatever we're calling Goodell on here these days).

I don't think that's being completely fair. You're allowed to have whatever opinion of him you choose. Obviously, the owners agree with you as they have continued to retain him, and they're the only ones whose opinions of him ultimately matter in the end anyway.

Chidi29
08-31-2011, 09:57 AM
I don't think that's being completely fair. You're allowed to have whatever opinion of him you choose. Obviously, the owners agree with you as they have continued to retain him, and they're the only ones whose opinions of him ultimately matter in the end anyway.

All I get asked when I defend the other side is "Why do you always stick up for him, Are you related to him, You're always defending him" etc.

Yet the guys that hate Goodell never say good things about him. Never give him credit. They're never questioned when always looking at just one side of the story.

Why am I?

Because I don't agree with you guys?

steeldevil
08-31-2011, 09:58 AM
Maybe Ben will be more protected by the QB rules this year....

And maybe Goodell will be fired this year....

:rolleyes:

fansince'76
08-31-2011, 10:01 AM
All I get asked when I defend the other side is "Why do you always stick up for him, Are you related to him, You're always defending him" etc.

Yet the guys that hate Goodell never say good things about him. Never give him credit. They're never questioned when always looking at just one side of the story.

Why am I?

Because I don't agree with you guys?

I don't believe I've ever asked you anything like that, personally. I'm to the point now of having zero sympathy for any players (outside the Steelers who voted against the disciplinary status quo) who complain about the Personal Conduct Policy because, as you pointed out, they voted for the way things are now.

Chidi29
08-31-2011, 10:02 AM
I'm not saying you specfically. I'm talking in general, that's why I've been asked.

Nadroj 20
08-31-2011, 10:04 AM
Did EVERY player in the NFL get an opportunity to change the rule? I bet if every individual had a vote it could be different but I could be wrong?

Chidi29
08-31-2011, 10:06 AM
Did EVERY player in the NFL get an opportunity to change the rule? I bet if every individual had a vote it could be different but I could be wrong?

I believe they did. FS said the Steelers' vote was 78-6.

Nadroj 20
08-31-2011, 10:08 AM
I believe they did. FS said the Steelers' vote was 78-6.

Ok thanks. Since I am more clear on the process then I agree with the both of you. Even though I don't agree with some of the things Goodell does as far as punishing players go, they had a chance to make changes and didn't. So they shouldn't cry about it.

However some of the players that are upset could be the ones that voted it down. We just do not know for sure.

suitanim
08-31-2011, 10:12 AM
Well, I did say that Goodell was only the SECOND worse commissioner in sports.

I did a Google search for "Roger Goodell is good for the NFL".

There wasn't much.

Apparently, when he was in college, he was a good bartender.

Chidi29
08-31-2011, 10:17 AM
Well, I did say that Goodell was only the SECOND worse commissioner in sports.

I did a Google search for "Roger Goodell is good for the NFL".

There wasn't much.

Apparently, when he was in college, he was a good bartender.

Then fans should love him. Drinks are on Goodell tonight!

Chidi29
08-31-2011, 10:18 AM
Well, I did say that Goodell was only the SECOND worse commissioner in sports.

I did a Google search for "Roger Goodell is good for the NFL".

There wasn't much.

Apparently, when he was in college, he was a good bartender.

My point was that you guys are allowed to bash Goodell endlessly without anyone calling you out on it. Being "anti-Goodell or whatever". But if I defend him often like I do, I get called for being "pro-Goodell".

Nadroj 20
08-31-2011, 10:23 AM
My point was that you guys are allowed to bash Goodell endlessly without anyone calling you out on it. Being "anti-Goodell or whatever". But if I defend him often like I do, I get called for being "pro-Goodell".

You are correct, I see what you are saying, but it is quite obvious this board is anti-Goodell (thus the reason we don't get called out on it). Are you surprised that when you defend him people suggest you are pro-Goodell?

I'm not saying you are, I just do not think its surprising since this board is very anti-Goodell.

siss
08-31-2011, 10:48 AM
I don't know how a Steeler fan can't be anti-Goodell after last year. I used to have a lot of respect him. He has lost it.

suitanim
08-31-2011, 10:50 AM
So it doesn't have anything to do with his inconsistency, incompetence, or mismanagement of the league, you're just defending him because someone needs to?

Chidi29
08-31-2011, 11:58 AM
You are correct, I see what you are saying, but it is quite obvious this board is anti-Goodell (thus the reason we don't get called out on it). Are you surprised that when you defend him people suggest you are pro-Goodell?

I'm not saying you are, I just do not think its surprising since this board is very anti-Goodell.

I don't have a problem being called that because to an extent, that's what I am.

What I do have a problem with is the issue with hypocrisy that I have to see the bad yet you guys don't have to see the good because like you said, this is an anti-Goodell place.

fansince'76
08-31-2011, 12:02 PM
What I do have a problem with is the issue with hypocrisy that I have to see the bad yet you guys don't have to see the good because like you said, this is an anti-Goodell place.

What has he done that's truly good for the game? I'm sorry, but I honestly see nothing.

suitanim
08-31-2011, 12:10 PM
I'd give him some credit for a couple safety measures (like the concussion rules), but for every one of those, he does three retarded things that more than negate the good. The net effect of his rule as commish has been bad.

fansince'76
08-31-2011, 12:13 PM
I'd give him some credit for a couple safety measures (like the concussion rules), but for every one of those, he does three retarded things that more than negate the good. The net effect of his rule as commish has been bad.

And I maintain that if he were truly serious about wanting to stem concussions as opposed to just trying to deflect negative publicity, he'd mandate the wearing of demonstrably safer helmets that are available, but are generally eschewed by the players because they "look dorky."

Chidi29
08-31-2011, 12:13 PM
What has he done that's truly good for the game? I'm sorry, but I honestly see nothing.

In terms of playing safety? I do.

In terms of giving us football again? I do.

In terms of the new TV deals that will help generate a lot more revenue league wide? I do.

Why aren't those against Goodell, and I'm speakig to the group here, able to see any good in Goodell? I'm not saying you even have to like the guy to see some of the things he's done to help the league. I can see his faults.

Chidi29
08-31-2011, 12:14 PM
And I maintain that if he were truly serious about wanting to stem concussions as opposed to just trying to deflect negative publicity, he'd mandate the wearing of demonstrably safer helmets that are available, but are generally eschewed by the players because they "look dorky."

The league is pouring a good chunk of money towards helmet research.

Nadroj 20
08-31-2011, 12:15 PM
I don't have a problem being called that because to an extent, that's what I am.

What I do have a problem with is the issue with hypocrisy that I have to see the bad yet you guys don't have to see the good because like you said, this is an anti-Goodell place.

You don't have to see the bad if you do not want to. But don't expect us to see any good because we don't see any! That is my point. This is an anti-Goodell place so asking us to see both sides isn't going to happen or else we wouldn't be ANTI-Goodell.

Nadroj 20
08-31-2011, 12:18 PM
Honestly the things you named that Goodell has done, anyone could have done. I do not see anything special that Goodell has done for the league that makes him a decent commish, but I do see many negative things that cause a lot of complaints.

Chidi29
08-31-2011, 12:20 PM
You don't have to see the bad if you do not want to. But don't expect us to see any good because we don't see any! That is my point. This is an anti-Goodell place so asking us to see both sides isn't going to happen or else we wouldn't be ANTI-Goodell.

It's exactly that one-sided stubborness that doesn't let you see any good. You aren't being objective.

Like when Troy has talked about the checks and balances in the league. Or Clark saying there needs to be a committee. Most here agreed despite the fact that a commitee is already in place. Things like that. Your natural hate clouds facts.

Chidi29
08-31-2011, 12:22 PM
And in terms of the bad, I think you guys show misinformation in some cases. Which makes the bad seem worse.

Don't get me wrong, there are things I'll agree with you on that Goodell has screwed up. Ben's suspension being one of them.

silver & black
08-31-2011, 12:22 PM
What has he done that's truly good for the game? I'm sorry, but I honestly see nothing.

I'd venture to say that most NFL fans would like to know the same thing.

Chidi29
08-31-2011, 12:24 PM
Honestly the things you named that Goodell has done, anyone could have done. I do not see anything special that Goodell has done for the league that makes him a decent commish, but I do see many negative things that cause a lot of complaints.

I didn't say they had to be special or one-of-a-kind acts. I'm not calling Goodell God. Of course, I'm not calling him Hitler either...

But they are things that have helped the league. Wouldn't you agree?

fansince'76
08-31-2011, 12:26 PM
In terms of playing safety? I do.

At the expense of making the game more and more unwatchable. We have gone way past the point of diminishing returns in that regard, IMO. I personally can honestly say that I haven't watched one second of any preseason game this season besides the Steelers' games.


In terms of giving us football again? I do.

He did a really good job of repeatedly sticking his foot in his mouth and turning the court of public opinion against the owners during the lockout, when it was against the players initially, I'll give him that. For the record, I didn't side with either camp.


In terms of the new TV deals that will help generate a lot more revenue league wide? I do.

I'm not sure what role he had in the negotiation of TV contracts, but those have historically gone ever upward anyway, from my experience.

Nadroj 20
08-31-2011, 12:27 PM
It's exactly that one-sided stubborness that doesn't let you see any good. You aren't being objective.

Like when Troy has talked about the checks and balances in the league. Or Clark saying there needs to be a committee. Most here agreed despite the fact that a commitee is already in place. Things like that. Your natural hate clouds facts.

I am an objective person when it is warranted. I am also very one-sided and stubborned about this particular topic like you said, and I'm man enough to admit that.

When you say natural hate clouds facts though it makes me feel like you think I have no reason to hate. What facts am I missing?

suitanim
08-31-2011, 12:27 PM
In terms of playing safety? I do.

In terms of giving us football again? I do.

In terms of the new TV deals that will help generate a lot more revenue league wide? I do.

Why aren't those against Goodell, and I'm speakig to the group here, able to see any good in Goodell? I'm not saying you even have to like the guy to see some of the things he's done to help the league. I can see his faults.

Player safety? He's also advocating 18 regular season home games and has created pussification rules to protect "money" players like Tom Gaydy and ruined kick-offs.

"Giving us" football? How do you get that HE was that instrumental in all this? He's a mouthpiece for the owners.

TV revenues is the worst argument of all. The NFL continues to grow in popularity in spite of Goodell. A retarded monkey could've secured bigger TV contracts, because ratings continue to improve. That's because of the players and the owners, not because of the commissioner. In fact, I'm actually surprised he hasn't fucked the TV thing up yet.

He's ruined the draft day experience because it now stretches across weekdays and is 3 days long. Saturday and Sunday was perfect for real fans to go to the stadium and enjoy the experience. It's ruined now.

How about moving the Pro Bowl back BEFORE the Super Bowl? Retarded.
Destroying the Pats cheating evidence rather than facing it and stripping wins? Retarded.
The idea of fining hits that weren't even flagged? Retarded.
Divulging confidential statements about Ben and his team during that debacle? Retarded.
Penalizing a pro football player for actions in college (Pryor)? Retarded.
Steering Mike Vick to the Eagles? WAY outside his purview.


I could go on and on.

suitanim
08-31-2011, 12:36 PM
Goodell is a beloved figure at this website:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Fire-Roger-Goodell/104565816280777

Chidi29
08-31-2011, 12:40 PM
At the expense of making the game more and more unwatchable. We have gone way past the point of diminishing returns in that regard, IMO. I personally can honestly say that I haven't watched one second of any preseason game this season besides the Steelers' games.



He did a really good job of repeatedly sticking his foot in his mouth and turning the court of public opinion against the owners during the lockout, when it was against the players initially, I'll give him that. For the record, I didn't side with either camp.



I'm not sure what role he had in the negotiation of TV contracts, but those have historically gone ever upward anyway, from my experience.

Like I said, the safety rules have to do with the increasing knowledge about the long-term effects of injuries like concussions. Add on pressure from Congress and the NFLPA to make the game safer, and you have to add in these rules.

I didn't side with either camp myself, but he did help come to an agreement and we only lost one football game. I'll give him, and the union, credit for that since it seemed like we could lose the whole season at one point.

Chidi29
08-31-2011, 12:41 PM
I am an objective person when it is warranted. I am also very one-sided and stubborned about this particular topic like you said, and I'm man enough to admit that.

When you say natural hate clouds facts though it makes me feel like you think I have no reason to hate. What facts am I missing?

Natural reason meaning he did some things you objectively did not like, which is fine, but then you stopped looking into and considering both sides are you started hated him. Again, speaking to the group here.

It seems like blasphemy to say anything good about Goodell.

fansince'76
08-31-2011, 12:45 PM
It seems like blasphemy to say anything good about Goodell.

I wasn't a big fan of Rozelle or Tagliabue either. NFL Commissioner is a "lightning rod" position, it seems.

Chidi29
08-31-2011, 12:46 PM
Player safety? He's also advocating 18 regular season home games and has created pussification rules to protect "money" players like Tom Gaydy and ruined kick-offs.

"Giving us" football? How do you get that HE was that instrumental in all this? He's a mouthpiece for the owners.

TV revenues is the worst argument of all. The NFL continues to grow in popularity in spite of Goodell. A retarded monkey could've secured bigger TV contracts, because ratings continue to improve. That's because of the players and the owners, not because of the commissioner. In fact, I'm actually surprised he hasn't fucked the TV thing up yet.

He's ruined the draft day experience because it now stretches across weekdays and is 3 days long. Saturday and Sunday was perfect for real fans to go to the stadium and enjoy the experience. It's ruined now.

How about moving the Pro Bowl back BEFORE the Super Bowl? Retarded.
Destroying the Pats cheating evidence rather than facing it and stripping wins? Retarded.
The idea of fining hits that weren't even flagged? Retarded.
Divulging confidential statements about Ben and his team during that debacle? Retarded.
Penalizing a pro football player for actions in college (Pryor)? Retarded.
Steering Mike Vick to the Eagles? WAY outside his purview.


I could go on and on.

He is advocating 18 games which is fine. He's entitled to his opinion.

The good thing is that he isn't trying to force it even though under the old CBA, they had the ability to do so without the union/players consent.

He dropped it from his proposal and said they would revisit the topic in two years. Goodell also said he would not implement the 18 game schedule without the union's consent. Given the union's strong stance against it, we probably won't see it.

BigNastyDefense
08-31-2011, 01:02 PM
Like I said, the safety rules have to do with the increasing knowledge about the long-term effects of injuries like concussions. Add on pressure from Congress and the NFLPA to make the game safer, and you have to add in these rules.

If Goodell and the Union were serious about wanting to reduce concussions, then they would have forced players to use safer equipment. Such as if you get a concussion, you'd be forced to use the safer helmet for the rest of the season. And all players would be forced to use double sided mouth pieces because they have been scientifically proven to prevent concussions/make concussions less severe.

All Goodell and the NFLPA are doing is trying to make themselves not liable in case of a lawsuit.


I didn't side with either camp myself, but he did help come to an agreement and we only lost one football game. I'll give him, and the union, credit for that since it seemed like we could lose the whole season at one point.

I think the owners knew they'd be losing a lot of money if they lost regular season games. The players knew they were going to fracture then they started losing paychecks because a majority if players don't make millions and millions of dollars. They knew that fan sentiment was against both sides for the most part....and they all knew they had to get something done.

All Goodell was during the entire situation was a mouthpiece for the owners. He couldn't force either side to do anything. IMHO, he made sure that in the end he got good publicity out of something he had very little to do with.

suitanim
08-31-2011, 01:02 PM
He is advocating 18 games which is fine. He's entitled to his opinion.

The good thing is that he isn't trying to force it even though under the old CBA, they had the ability to do so without the union/players consent.

He dropped it from his proposal and said they would revisit the topic in two years. Goodell also said he would not implement the 18 game schedule without the union's consent. Given the union's strong stance against it, we probably won't see it.

He is a slimy little booger. He advocated the 18 game regular season under the auspices of that being what the fans want.

Not true. Fans don't want to pay $75-$150 to see games that don't count. Big difference. And just because they actually pay, doesn't mean they like it.

Chidi29
08-31-2011, 01:17 PM
If Goodell and the Union were serious about wanting to reduce concussions, then they would have forced players to use safer equipment. Such as if you get a concussion, you'd be forced to use the safer helmet for the rest of the season. And all players would be forced to use double sided mouth pieces because they have been scientifically proven to prevent concussions/make concussions less severe.

All Goodell and the NFLPA are doing is trying to make themselves not liable in case of a lawsuit.



I think the owners knew they'd be losing a lot of money if they lost regular season games. The players knew they were going to fracture then they started losing paychecks because a majority if players don't make millions and millions of dollars. They knew that fan sentiment was against both sides for the most part....and they all knew they had to get something done.

All Goodell was during the entire situation was a mouthpiece for the owners. He couldn't force either side to do anything. IMHO, he made sure that in the end he got good publicity out of something he had very little to do with.

Again, a lot of research is going into equipment safety. But I'm sure these things take time to get the ball rolling.

There's no doubt that the player safety is in a large part due to covering their own butt. Any smart business man would do the same. But it does help the player's safety.

At least Goodell and the league didn't royally screw things like the union did when they decertified.

Chidi29
08-31-2011, 01:18 PM
He is a slimy little booger. He advocated the 18 game regular season under the auspices of that being what the fans want.

Not true. Fans don't want to pay $75-$150 to see games that don't count. Big difference. And just because they actually pay, doesn't mean they like it.

But he's not going to get what he wants. He is being very fair about implementing it. He is leaving it up to the side that will be most effected; the players.

suitanim
08-31-2011, 01:47 PM
But he's not going to get what he wants. He is being very fair about implementing it. He is leaving it up to the side that will be most effected; the players.

Well, yippy skippy for him.

Let's see. A couple owners want a couple more regular season games so they can milk out a few more sheckles from the TV revenues. So Goodell comes out and tells the fans it's "what they want". The players hate it, because the supposed "Safety Commissioner" is actually lying and as a shill for the owners, is actually putting the players at even MORE risk for injuries. The fans hate it because they only asked that meaningless preseason games cost less, and you're telling me that Goodell was "being fair" because he didn't force an issue on the players and fans who didn't even want it?

Look, you're a bright kid. You know a lot about football (and God knows we need more knowledgeable football posters around here...), but I think you're fighting a losing battle here. Goodell may have several more admirable traits then say, oh, maybe Hitler, but you're trying to polish up a turd here.

Vis
08-31-2011, 01:57 PM
What worries me is not whether Goodell has been "fair" or not. Even if he has, there's nothing to stop him from being unfair. There is no due process. Goodell's word is law.

suitanim
08-31-2011, 02:10 PM
Look, I don't care if the guy cures hunger and creates World peace, I've hated him ever since he buried his head in the sand and covered up, FOREVER, the Cheatriots scandal. The NBA did it with the refs gambling, and the NFL did it with the Pats cheating. Wins and titles should have been stripped. I know it would have been next to impossible to implement, but the right thing is almost always the hardest thing to do. Goodell buried the truth, and we'll never know how deep that rabbit hole went, but the fact that he burned it all means it must've been BAD.

Chidi29
08-31-2011, 04:23 PM
Well, yippy skippy for him.

Let's see. A couple owners want a couple more regular season games so they can milk out a few more sheckles from the TV revenues. So Goodell comes out and tells the fans it's "what they want". The players hate it, because the supposed "Safety Commissioner" is actually lying and as a shill for the owners, is actually putting the players at even MORE risk for injuries. The fans hate it because they only asked that meaningless preseason games cost less, and you're telling me that Goodell was "being fair" because he didn't force an issue on the players and fans who didn't even want it?

Look, you're a bright kid. You know a lot about football (and God knows we need more knowledgeable football posters around here...), but I think you're fighting a losing battle here. Goodell may have several more admirable traits then say, oh, maybe Hitler, but you're trying to polish up a turd here.

I know I've said that I'm "pro Goodell" but it's not like I think he's the greatest human being to ever walk the Earth. I've said I didn't like his handling of the suspension of Ben or some of the lack of clarification of the rules.

I just think he's better than you guys make him out to be (i.e. Hitler) and that there's more to the story in a lot of cases.

Chidi29
08-31-2011, 04:34 PM
Look, I don't care if the guy cures hunger and creates World peace, I've hated him ever since he buried his head in the sand and covered up, FOREVER, the Cheatriots scandal. The NBA did it with the refs gambling, and the NFL did it with the Pats cheating. Wins and titles should have been stripped. I know it would have been next to impossible to implement, but the right thing is almost always the hardest thing to do. Goodell buried the truth, and we'll never know how deep that rabbit hole went, but the fact that he burned it all means it must've been BAD.

You're right that they couldn't have done it. And they were punished severely. They lost a 1st round draft pick, and they were fined the maximum amount (250K IIRC). He did punish hem harshly for being a guy who apparently loves the Patriots.

I went back and read the reason why the tapes were destroyed because frankly, I didn't know. Here's what I read.

"I think it was the best way to make sure the Patriots followed my instructions, to make sure that bit of information would not appear anywhere again," he said. "If it did, I'd know they didn't hand me all the information. Not having those tapes out there, now I know if something arises, they didn't tell me the truth."

I don't know if you'll buy it, I don't know if I'm really ok with it, but there you go.

Chidi29
08-31-2011, 04:41 PM
What worries me is not whether Goodell has been "fair" or not. Even if he has, there's nothing to stop him from being unfair. There is no due process. Goodell's word is law.

And this is exactly the misinformation I'm talking about. He isn't the only guy in the process.

Merton Hanks and Ray Anderson are before him. Art Shell and Ted Cotrell on appeals. And yes, they have overruled him before.

X-Terminator
08-31-2011, 04:41 PM
You're right that they couldn't have done it. And they were punished severely. They lost a 1st round draft pick, and they were fined the maximum amount (250K IIRC). He did punish hem harshly for being a guy who apparently loves the Patriots.

I went back and read the reason why the tapes were destroyed because frankly, I didn't know. Here's what I read.

"I think it was the best way to make sure the Patriots followed my instructions, to make sure that bit of information would not appear anywhere again," he said. "If it did, I'd know they didn't hand me all the information. Not having those tapes out there, now I know if something arises, they didn't tell me the truth."

I don't know if you'll buy it, I don't know if I'm really ok with it, but there you go.

The team was fined 250K, Hoodie was fined 100K (but was not suspended) and they did lose a 1st round pick...of the 2 that they had that year. Some punishment. It was a cover-up, plain and simple, and like Suit, that was when I really started hating Goodell. They were allowed to get away with shredding the integrity of the game, something that Goodell allegedly cares oh so much about. :coffee: All of the pussy rule changes, the glaring inconsistencies in handing out discipline and the anti-Steelers bias only added to my hatred, and makes it almost impossible to say anything good about him. That said, in the light of the recent non-suspensions for players who clearly violated the PCP during the lockout, I will give him the benefit of the doubt because he has no legal grounds to suspend any of them.

fansince'76
08-31-2011, 04:42 PM
"I think it was the best way to make sure the Patriots followed my instructions, to make sure that bit of information would not appear anywhere again," he said. "If it did, I'd know they didn't hand me all the information. Not having those tapes out there, now I know if something arises, they didn't tell me the truth."

Never read that quote before. Hilarious. Goodell needs to run for public office. :toofunny::toofunny::toofunny:

Let me see if I'm following the "logic" here: Goodell destroyed the evidence that was then in possession of the league office to ensure that if they got busted cheating again, it wouldn't be because they were using the tapes that were then in possession, again, of the league office? Yep, this guy needs to at least make a senatorial run. :lol:

zulater
09-01-2011, 07:32 AM
Wouldn't you think that when a player commits some sort of infraction or runs afoul of the law that you'd have some sort of guesstimate based on their infraction what sort of league punishment would be coming from the commissioner?

But with Goodell you never have the first idea? :noidea: I mean sometimes we wait for formal charges or the case to be fully adjudicated by the law to mete out punishment, then other times we just go ahead and make up a punishment seemingly out of thin air. Two words come to mind with Goodell's disciplinary approach, random and arbitrary.

You certainly can't blame Ben for being somewhat bewildered by Goodell's inaction on many of these other players.

86WARD
09-01-2011, 08:30 AM
That's my thing with GODdell as well, there's no consistency to the punishment or fine across the board. Your guess is as good as mine as good as the next guy as good as GODdell.

Nadroj 20
09-01-2011, 09:39 AM
Same with the flags on the field. He has made it now that a hit on the QB in one game may draw a flag, but a similar hit on a QB in another game (or even worse) may not draw a flag. Then he may fine players on plays that didn't even draw a flag.

I find myself during these preseason games thinking about certain hits and wondering if it'll draw a flag and the honest truth is, half the time I don't know. I just wait and see what the refs do or don't do and sometimes its shocking compared to other plays I have seen. It is way to inconsistent.

Devilsdancefloor
09-01-2011, 11:25 AM
It just bugs the hell out of me a guy not even arrested get 4 games and loss of game checks a guy pleading guilty to sexual misconduct NOTTA and this hopped before the lockout it just made it through the court system. plus the guy reminds me of Gary Bettman which is not a good thing.

http://i53.tinypic.com/33kyxw3.jpg

Chidi29
09-01-2011, 01:17 PM
One thing to think about I meant to but forgot to mention the other day regarding the lack of suspensions (other than the lockout being an obstacle).

I think we can all agree that suspending Ben was a mistake, right? I agree, you agree, and I'd like to think that even Goodell agrees.

Should he continue to make that same mistake over and over again with future players? If he thinks he has made a mistake, he should make changes. You can argue it is just hypocrisy but the guy is human and does screw up. That doesn't make what happened to Ben right, fair, or ok and Steelers fans have every right to be mad.

But looking back, perhaps Goodell realizes how badly he screwed up and reevaluated his ideas so he wouldn't make a mistake of that magnitude again.

suitanim
09-01-2011, 03:47 PM
We HATES the Goodell! We hates it forever! Yes we do....

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/5900000/Gollum-smeagol-gollum-5995703-779-812.jpg

fansince'76
09-01-2011, 03:51 PM
But looking back, perhaps Goodell realizes how badly he screwed up and reevaluated his ideas so he wouldn't make a mistake of that magnitude again.

Maybe he'll go the Tagliabue route and almost never suspend anyone from here on out. :chuckle:

suitanim
09-01-2011, 04:19 PM
Maybe he'll go the Tagliabue route and almost never suspend anyone from here on out. :chuckle:

Except for Steelers.

Nadroj 20
09-02-2011, 07:48 AM
One thing to think about I meant to but forgot to mention the other day regarding the lack of suspensions (other than the lockout being an obstacle).

I think we can all agree that suspending Ben was a mistake, right? I agree, you agree, and I'd like to think that even Goodell agrees.

Should he continue to make that same mistake over and over again with future players? If he thinks he has made a mistake, he should make changes. You can argue it is just hypocrisy but the guy is human and does screw up. That doesn't make what happened to Ben right, fair, or ok and Steelers fans have every right to be mad.

But looking back, perhaps Goodell realizes how badly he screwed up and reevaluated his ideas so he wouldn't make a mistake of that magnitude again.

He screwed up because he over suspended a player that was not arrested, so he is trying to correct past mistakes by NOT suspending Haynesworth who pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor assault charge, only to avoid what it really was, sexual assault?

There is still inconsistency. If you are correct and Goodell truly will use Bens suspension as a lesson learned then great. I actually would respect the man, but only if he mans up and admitts to the mistake. Say you made a mistake and that you are trying to learn from them and use the lessons learned to be more fair when punishing players. Otherwise nobody will know for sure and complaints about inconsistency will continue.

Chidi29
09-02-2011, 09:54 AM
He screwed up because he over suspended a player that was not arrested, so he is trying to correct past mistakes by NOT suspending Haynesworth who pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor assault charge, only to avoid what it really was, sexual assault?

There is still inconsistency. If you are correct and Goodell truly will use Bens suspension as a lesson learned then great. I actually would respect the man, but only if he mans up and admitts to the mistake. Say you made a mistake and that you are trying to learn from them and use the lessons learned to be more fair when punishing players. Otherwise nobody will know for sure and complaints about inconsistency will continue.

Like I said, the lockout may have created conflicting issues with trying to suspend players. Especially guys like Britt.

I doubt it'd be a smart move to publicly admit a mistake. He'd gain respect from some Steelers' fans, but there's a large number that would hate him even more and he'd draw the ire of the rest of the league. Usually, admitting to things like that don't happen until he's replaced and no longer in the spotlight.

Godfather
09-02-2011, 12:40 PM
Well, I did say that Goodell was only the SECOND worse commissioner in sports.

I did a Google search for "Roger Goodell is good for the NFL".

There wasn't much.

Apparently, when he was in college, he was a good bartender.

Someone should put up a parody page like the one for French Military Victories.

IUSteel
09-02-2011, 12:45 PM
I'm sorry but pretty much all you need to do is get out of the way as commissioner. See: Tagliabue.

The TV contracts were pretty much set in the stone the year or two before when the NCAA was getting insane contracts. I really, really doubt he had to lobby hard for a big contract.

The "we're researching safety options" is a load of bullcrap. It was just a mantra for the then upcoming negotiations. It's like being anti-cancer. It doesn't even mean anything.

You don't get to push for an 18-game season while touting safety being a priority. Meanwhile concussion research HAS been done. This little company called Riddell does concussion research, as well as all the other manufacturers. The majority of players wear a helmet with a concussion rating of 1. The safest helmets they have have a rating of 5. Mandate the helmets have a safety rating of at least 3 or so, and you've started using the knowledge you have now.

Instead of throwing 75k fines at defenders and making them watch video after video and threatening them that they WILL be fined, why don't you educate receivers, quarterbacks, and running backs? Don't wanna be hit when you're maxing your vertical and stretching out for a ball? DON'T PUT YOURSELF IN THAT POSITION TO BEGIN WITH. The burden of responsibility shouldn't be on defenders when a halfback ducks his head for a helmet-to-helmet. LBers shouldn't have to watch receivers make 15 yard catches for a ball thrown high.

We're Steelers fans, not Seahawks fans, so I'm not going to say much about the Patriots bullcrap. I totally get destroying evidence to move on, but uh...go blow yourself if you really think the Pats shouldn't be stripped of anything. Lions win the Super Bowl this year and next and it comes out they were videotaping other teams, it's gonna be no big deal? Right.

Integrity of the game? Why the hell run the ball when you can just pass and have a good chance at getting a roughing the passer, pass interference, or defenseless receiver call, as well as a big completion since defenders have to play timid or take a fine if the receiver ducks his head. I live in IN and have a hefty respect for Manning, but this style of play has gotten incredibly boring, so much so that if a QB has two tds and 250 yards, it's considered an okay game. I seem to be alone in hating these 35-28 games. I know Goodell sure seems to love them.

Ben's suspension. Just...I don't even...

The draft day...good God. I don't even know how you screw that up. Was anyone seriously butthurt they got to spend all weekend watching the draft? Or is that evidence of his amazing TV contracts?

I totally respect the view that people jump on Goodell and anything positive is labeled as favoritism or blind faith. I do not mean anything against anyone, and people certainly have the right to their opinion. But this isn't like we're talking shit about the Ravens because they're the Ravens. I just don't see how anyone outside of Boston can seriously think this guy is great for the league. In a position where you basically have to do nothing, he's managed to make wrong decisions left and right.

fansince'76
09-02-2011, 12:55 PM
I'm sorry but pretty much all you need to do is get out of the way as commissioner. See: Tagliabue.

The TV contracts were pretty much set in the stone the year or two before when the NCAA was getting insane contracts. I really, really doubt he had to lobby hard for a big contract.

The "we're researching safety options" is a load of bullcrap. It was just a mantra for the then upcoming negotiations. It's like being anti-cancer. It doesn't even mean anything.

You don't get to push for an 18-game season while touting safety being a priority. Meanwhile concussion research HAS been done. This little company called Riddell does concussion research, as well as all the other manufacturers. The majority of players wear a helmet with a concussion rating of 1. The safest helmets they have have a rating of 5. Mandate the helmets have a safety rating of at least 3 or so, and you've started using the knowledge you have now.

Instead of throwing 75k fines at defenders and making them watch video after video and threatening them that they WILL be fined, why don't you educate receivers, quarterbacks, and running backs? Don't wanna be hit when you're maxing your vertical and stretching out for a ball? DON'T PUT YOURSELF IN THAT POSITION TO BEGIN WITH. The burden of responsibility shouldn't be on defenders when a halfback ducks his head for a helmet-to-helmet. LBers shouldn't have to watch receivers make 15 yard catches for a ball thrown high.

We're Steelers fans, not Seahawks fans, so I'm not going to say much about the Patriots bullcrap. I totally get destroying evidence to move on, but uh...go blow yourself if you really think the Pats shouldn't be stripped of anything. Lions win the Super Bowl this year and next and it comes out they were videotaping other teams, it's gonna be no big deal? Right.

Integrity of the game? Why the hell run the ball when you can just pass and have a good chance at getting a roughing the passer, pass interference, or defenseless receiver call, as well as a big completion since defenders have to play timid or take a fine if the receiver ducks his head. I live in IN and have a hefty respect for Manning, but this style of play has gotten incredibly boring, so much so that if a QB has two tds and 250 yards, it's considered an okay game. I seem to be alone in hating these 35-28 games. I know Goodell sure seems to love them.

Ben's suspension. Just...I don't even...

The draft day...good God. I don't even know how you screw that up. Was anyone seriously butthurt they got to spend all weekend watching the draft? Or is that evidence of his amazing TV contracts?

I totally respect the view that people jump on Goodell and anything positive is labeled as favoritism or blind faith. I do not mean anything against anyone, and people certainly have the right to their opinion. But this isn't like we're talking shit about the Ravens because they're the Ravens. I just don't see how anyone outside of Boston can seriously think this guy is great for the league. In a position where you basically have to do nothing, he's managed to make wrong decisions left and right.

:applaudit: :drink:

Couldn't agree more. Especially the part about the quasi-Arena League/no-defense-allowed garbage the NFL is slowly being turned into. I also find it incredibly boring (which is why I'm increasingly watching less and less, personally). Hey everybody, let's all watch Tom Terrific sit back and take 8-10 seconds (because nobody's allowed to touch him anymore, while Roethlisberger is still allowed to be mugged on a weekly basis with impunity) to hit open receivers all day who will be permitted to make catches unchallenged because the DBs are afraid to get fined! WOOOO! :jerkit:

zulater
09-02-2011, 01:20 PM
I'm sorry but pretty much all you need to do is get out of the way as commissioner. See: Tagliabue.

The TV contracts were pretty much set in the stone the year or two before when the NCAA was getting insane contracts. I really, really doubt he had to lobby hard for a big contract.

The "we're researching safety options" is a load of bullcrap. It was just a mantra for the then upcoming negotiations. It's like being anti-cancer. It doesn't even mean anything.

You don't get to push for an 18-game season while touting safety being a priority. Meanwhile concussion research HAS been done. This little company called Riddell does concussion research, as well as all the other manufacturers. The majority of players wear a helmet with a concussion rating of 1. The safest helmets they have have a rating of 5. Mandate the helmets have a safety rating of at least 3 or so, and you've started using the knowledge you have now.

Instead of throwing 75k fines at defenders and making them watch video after video and threatening them that they WILL be fined, why don't you educate receivers, quarterbacks, and running backs? Don't wanna be hit when you're maxing your vertical and stretching out for a ball? DON'T PUT YOURSELF IN THAT POSITION TO BEGIN WITH. The burden of responsibility shouldn't be on defenders when a halfback ducks his head for a helmet-to-helmet. LBers shouldn't have to watch receivers make 15 yard catches for a ball thrown high.

We're Steelers fans, not Seahawks fans, so I'm not going to say much about the Patriots bullcrap. I totally get destroying evidence to move on, but uh...go blow yourself if you really think the Pats shouldn't be stripped of anything. Lions win the Super Bowl this year and next and it comes out they were videotaping other teams, it's gonna be no big deal? Right.

Integrity of the game? Why the hell run the ball when you can just pass and have a good chance at getting a roughing the passer, pass interference, or defenseless receiver call, as well as a big completion since defenders have to play timid or take a fine if the receiver ducks his head. I live in IN and have a hefty respect for Manning, but this style of play has gotten incredibly boring, so much so that if a QB has two tds and 250 yards, it's considered an okay game. I seem to be alone in hating these 35-28 games. I know Goodell sure seems to love them.

Ben's suspension. Just...I don't even...

The draft day...good God. I don't even know how you screw that up. Was anyone seriously butthurt they got to spend all weekend watching the draft? Or is that evidence of his amazing TV contracts?

I totally respect the view that people jump on Goodell and anything positive is labeled as favoritism or blind faith. I do not mean anything against anyone, and people certainly have the right to their opinion. But this isn't like we're talking shit about the Ravens because they're the Ravens. I just don't see how anyone outside of Boston can seriously think this guy is great for the league. In a position where you basically have to do nothing, he's managed to make wrong decisions left and right.

Great post! Check your rep points. :applaudit:

Count Steeler
09-02-2011, 01:35 PM
I doubt it'd be a smart move to publicly admit a mistake. He'd gain respect from some Steelers' fans, but there's a large number that would hate him even more and he'd draw the ire of the rest of the league. Usually, admitting to things like that don't happen until he's replaced and no longer in the spotlight.

Ahh, but it is not the fans that should be considered here. He owes BEN a public apology. Not only for the suspension, but for the so-called facts from Rogers interviews with some of Ben's teammates. ALL Bull.

He is free to change course and rethink his suspensions about player conduct. Regardless, his handling of the whole Ben affair was woeful. If my son desires to wear a #7 jersey of the Pittsburgh Steelers, he should not be called a "rapist sympathizer", "Rapistburger" etc. The Commish only soldified these taunts and accusations because of HIS handling of the Ben affair.

Don't get me started on how the game has become a continual advertisement. The amount of commercials and how they interrupt the flow of the game, is nauseating.

Nadroj 20
09-02-2011, 01:50 PM
Like I said, the lockout may have created conflicting issues with trying to suspend players. Especially guys like Britt.

I doubt it'd be a smart move to publicly admit a mistake. He'd gain respect from some Steelers' fans, but there's a large number that would hate him even more and he'd draw the ire of the rest of the league. Usually, admitting to things like that don't happen until he's replaced and no longer in the spotlight.

I'm talking about Haynesworth, who unlike Ben was charged with an assault (of sexual nature) and didn't get suspended. This happened before the lockout so I'm not sure what the problem with that is?

I doubt if he were to admit to a mistake that it would make anything that much worse. Since he isn't high on anyones Christmas list the only way it can go is help or change nothing. I don't see much room for decreasing in peoples opinions. It would be a first step to showing he at least cares...

O'Malley
09-02-2011, 01:50 PM
I'm sorry but pretty much all you need to do is get out of the way as commissioner. See: Tagliabue.

The TV contracts were pretty much set in the stone the year or two before when the NCAA was getting insane contracts. I really, really doubt he had to lobby hard for a big contract.

The "we're researching safety options" is a load of bullcrap. It was just a mantra for the then upcoming negotiations. It's like being anti-cancer. It doesn't even mean anything.

You don't get to push for an 18-game season while touting safety being a priority. Meanwhile concussion research HAS been done. This little company called Riddell does concussion research, as well as all the other manufacturers. The majority of players wear a helmet with a concussion rating of 1. The safest helmets they have have a rating of 5. Mandate the helmets have a safety rating of at least 3 or so, and you've started using the knowledge you have now.

Instead of throwing 75k fines at defenders and making them watch video after video and threatening them that they WILL be fined, why don't you educate receivers, quarterbacks, and running backs? Don't wanna be hit when you're maxing your vertical and stretching out for a ball? DON'T PUT YOURSELF IN THAT POSITION TO BEGIN WITH. The burden of responsibility shouldn't be on defenders when a halfback ducks his head for a helmet-to-helmet. LBers shouldn't have to watch receivers make 15 yard catches for a ball thrown high.

We're Steelers fans, not Seahawks fans, so I'm not going to say much about the Patriots bullcrap. I totally get destroying evidence to move on, but uh...go blow yourself if you really think the Pats shouldn't be stripped of anything. Lions win the Super Bowl this year and next and it comes out they were videotaping other teams, it's gonna be no big deal? Right.

Integrity of the game? Why the hell run the ball when you can just pass and have a good chance at getting a roughing the passer, pass interference, or defenseless receiver call, as well as a big completion since defenders have to play timid or take a fine if the receiver ducks his head. I live in IN and have a hefty respect for Manning, but this style of play has gotten incredibly boring, so much so that if a QB has two tds and 250 yards, it's considered an okay game. I seem to be alone in hating these 35-28 games. I know Goodell sure seems to love them.

Ben's suspension. Just...I don't even...

The draft day...good God. I don't even know how you screw that up. Was anyone seriously butthurt they got to spend all weekend watching the draft? Or is that evidence of his amazing TV contracts?

I totally respect the view that people jump on Goodell and anything positive is labeled as favoritism or blind faith. I do not mean anything against anyone, and people certainly have the right to their opinion. But this isn't like we're talking shit about the Ravens because they're the Ravens. I just don't see how anyone outside of Boston can seriously think this guy is great for the league. In a position where you basically have to do nothing, he's managed to make wrong decisions left and right.

:drink:Chest Bump

Could not agree more. Have been saying this on other sites and get trashed due to it. People actually like the high scoring pass happy, cards stacked against the D games. I would rather see a 13-10 all out war of a game. I just keep saying thank god my team still plays the way the game was intended to be played and would rather pay the fines then change their style of play. Although it does seem the Steelers are becoming a pass first O. The D will continue to knock snot bubbles out of the opposing players...

suitanim
09-02-2011, 03:03 PM
With the exception of Pete Roselle. That dude moved the NFL into the stratosphere it now rests in. Remember, tickets to the first Super Bowl cost like $20, and it was only about 5/8ths sold out.

X-Terminator
09-02-2011, 04:05 PM
I'm sorry but pretty much all you need to do is get out of the way as commissioner. See: Tagliabue.

The TV contracts were pretty much set in the stone the year or two before when the NCAA was getting insane contracts. I really, really doubt he had to lobby hard for a big contract.

The "we're researching safety options" is a load of bullcrap. It was just a mantra for the then upcoming negotiations. It's like being anti-cancer. It doesn't even mean anything.

You don't get to push for an 18-game season while touting safety being a priority. Meanwhile concussion research HAS been done. This little company called Riddell does concussion research, as well as all the other manufacturers. The majority of players wear a helmet with a concussion rating of 1. The safest helmets they have have a rating of 5. Mandate the helmets have a safety rating of at least 3 or so, and you've started using the knowledge you have now.

Instead of throwing 75k fines at defenders and making them watch video after video and threatening them that they WILL be fined, why don't you educate receivers, quarterbacks, and running backs? Don't wanna be hit when you're maxing your vertical and stretching out for a ball? DON'T PUT YOURSELF IN THAT POSITION TO BEGIN WITH. The burden of responsibility shouldn't be on defenders when a halfback ducks his head for a helmet-to-helmet. LBers shouldn't have to watch receivers make 15 yard catches for a ball thrown high.

We're Steelers fans, not Seahawks fans, so I'm not going to say much about the Patriots bullcrap. I totally get destroying evidence to move on, but uh...go blow yourself if you really think the Pats shouldn't be stripped of anything. Lions win the Super Bowl this year and next and it comes out they were videotaping other teams, it's gonna be no big deal? Right.

Integrity of the game? Why the hell run the ball when you can just pass and have a good chance at getting a roughing the passer, pass interference, or defenseless receiver call, as well as a big completion since defenders have to play timid or take a fine if the receiver ducks his head. I live in IN and have a hefty respect for Manning, but this style of play has gotten incredibly boring, so much so that if a QB has two tds and 250 yards, it's considered an okay game. I seem to be alone in hating these 35-28 games. I know Goodell sure seems to love them.

Ben's suspension. Just...I don't even...

The draft day...good God. I don't even know how you screw that up. Was anyone seriously butthurt they got to spend all weekend watching the draft? Or is that evidence of his amazing TV contracts?

I totally respect the view that people jump on Goodell and anything positive is labeled as favoritism or blind faith. I do not mean anything against anyone, and people certainly have the right to their opinion. But this isn't like we're talking shit about the Ravens because they're the Ravens. I just don't see how anyone outside of Boston can seriously think this guy is great for the league. In a position where you basically have to do nothing, he's managed to make wrong decisions left and right.

To be fair, they don't like him in Boston either. Otherwise, outstanding post! :applaudit: You certainly are not alone in hating the 35-28 games - the reason why so many fans like them is because of the fantasy football craze that has lowered the overall IQ of your average football fan. Goodell is the perfect patsy for them since he obviously doesn't care for REAL football. 10-15 years ago, a QB like Ben would have been revered. Nowadays, it's "he sucks and is overrated." Thanks, fantasy football geek-a-nerds.

fansince'76
09-02-2011, 04:22 PM
To be fair, they don't like him in Boston either. Otherwise, outstanding post! :applaudit: You certainly are not alone in hating the 35-28 games - the reason why so many fans like them is because of the fantasy football craze that has lowered the overall IQ of your average football fan. Goodell is the perfect patsy for them since he obviously doesn't care for REAL football. 10-15 years ago, a QB like Ben would have been revered. Nowadays, it's "he sucks and is overrated." Thanks, fantasy football geek-a-nerds.

Roethlisberger is the only QB in the game today that could've hacked it back in the Unitas/Starr era when there were basically no rules protecting QBs. I firmly believe that.

suitanim
09-03-2011, 06:20 AM
Roethlisberger is the only QB in the game today that could've hacked it back in the Unitas/Starr era when there were basically no rules protecting QBs. I firmly believe that.

Favre. Hate to say it, but he was one tough SOB.

BigNastyDefense
09-03-2011, 10:42 AM
One thing to think about I meant to but forgot to mention the other day regarding the lack of suspensions (other than the lockout being an obstacle).

I think we can all agree that suspending Ben was a mistake, right? I agree, you agree, and I'd like to think that even Goodell agrees.

Should he continue to make that same mistake over and over again with future players? If he thinks he has made a mistake, he should make changes. You can argue it is just hypocrisy but the guy is human and does screw up. That doesn't make what happened to Ben right, fair, or ok and Steelers fans have every right to be mad.

But looking back, perhaps Goodell realizes how badly he screwed up and reevaluated his ideas so he wouldn't make a mistake of that magnitude again.

Then just maybe Goodell should step up and be a man about it. Announce that on the Ben Roethlisberger suspension he screwed up and it wasn't right. Announce that he caved to the pressure from the media and black players. And tell the world that that's not the way suspensions are going to be meted out. He should also apologize to Ben and the Steelers for it.

However, he hasn't done that. And until, the Ben Roethlisberger suspension is still the benchmark for the Personal Conduct Policy, and IMHO the precedent has been set and should be followed. However, it isn't. It's almost like he has a wheel of fortune in his office with various punishments on it, and he spins it to decide to punishment of players who break the PCP.

And if Cedric Benson doesn't receive a suspension for his guilty plea to assault, then the PCP and Goodell will look even more like a joke. Benson will likely get out of jail for good behavior in time for the Bengals week one game against the Browns. He should then be suspended for at least the first two games of the season since he was GUILTY of violating the PCP.

I am however, going to give Goodell a pass on the two jackasses that did shit during the lockout. The Union would have filed grievances in those cases and would have made a compelling case that since the players were locked out, there were no grounds to suspend the players.