mccoy's gonna be a beast for the next 4 or 5 years.
but it wouldn't shock me to see the birds use ronnie brown in short yardage and goal line situations though.
if he stays healthy....
not many running backs stay on top of the league very long.
i waiting for adrian to start breaking down this year.
just a few names
Shaun Alexander
Larry Johnson
Brian Westbrook
Neal Anderson
anything more than 4 good years out of a RB is gravey.
yeah...probably closer to 4 years. you know what i mean though. he's just entering the prime of his career.
actually now that you mention it, how bout ricky williams? i guess those couple years off did his body well. he's gotta be about 35 or 36 now and still is somewhat effective. i think that was a good pick up for the ravens.
i think we forget, or at least i did, of how great he was for a while
02 he averaged 4.8 yards per carry on 383 totes 1853 yards russhing. the next year he had 392 carries. can't blame him for retiring after those two seaons. add in the receptions and he was getting tackled 450 times a season
mccoy's gonna be a beast for the next 4 or 5 years.
but it wouldn't shock me to see the birds use ronnie brown in short yardage and goal line situations though.
if he stays healthy....
not many running backs stay on top of the league very long.
i waiting for adrian to start breaking down this year.
just a few names
Shaun Alexander
Larry Johnson
Brian Westbrook
Neal Anderson
anything more than 4 good years out of a RB is gravey.
I'm sure Chris Johnson will be joining that list soon.
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
Fantasy draft right now. Here are my picks so far:
Aaron Rodgers, Big Ben, Reggie Wayne, Santonio, Michael Turner, Frank Gore, Wes Welker, and Dustin Keller. I hope Turner and Gore have good seasons.
I hate having low picks.
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
Vick comments to GQ, NFL ruling on Pryor put Goodell under microscope
Perhaps this is a handy lesson in why it's so tricky to play the role of commissioner and counselor at the same time. Maybe when Roger Goodell and Michael Vick talked about Vick's long-awaited return to the NFL in the summer of 2009, it was difficult for the soon-to-be-Philadelphia Eagle to tell the difference between helpful advice and official approval. Tacit or otherwise.
There's certainly a lot of gray area, and room for interpretation, in Thursday's GQ story that implies Vick was steered to Philadelphia by Goodell and other league "reps.'' There's no smoking gun quote from Vick in the story, nothing saying he signed with the Eagles -- and declined offers from other suitors such as Buffalo and Cincinnati -- because Goodell told him to do so. But there is a clear inference of just that result, to the point where the story's author wrote "after meeting with Commissioner Roger Goodell and other reps from the NFL, Vick was convinced -- and granted league approval -- to sign with Philly.''
By midday Thursday, Goodell's name was once again a hot-button issue in the NFL, thanks to both the Vick GQ story and the commissioner's controversial Terrelle Pryor ruling (more on that later). Both Vick and Goodell, through a league spokesman via ProFootballTalk.com, quickly refuted the notion that the commissioner influenced the process of Vick becoming an Eagle as it was portrayed in the magazine story. Ex-Colts head coach Tony Dungy, who acted as a league-appointed adviser for Vick, added his voice to the chorus, expressing doubt on the Dan Patrick Show that Goodell would have steered Vick to sign with Philadelphia.
But it's certainly plausible that the truth in this matter is far more nuanced than either the magazine or the subsequent denials capture. "Granted league approval'' is probably a heavy-handed phrase that misses the mark when compared to the reality of the situation. But Vick doesn't sound like he thought he was getting mere advice and input from Goodell and the league when he told GQ in that same paragraph: "I commend and thank them, because they put me in the right situation.'' I suppose it's all a matter of how you define the word "put'' in that sentence.
If there was some significant damage control being practiced on Thursday, you can certainly understand why. This is a potentially damaging story for any commissioner of any pro sports league. It's part of the job of a commissioner to deal with issues that challenge the integrity of the game, and matters of competitive fairness. But what if it's the commissioner who's found in violation of tipping the scales? Would Goodell immediately come out and fine himself for conduct detrimental to the game? And who does he appeal the punishment to?
Obviously it's not in the purview of a commissioner to help determine who plays where. Even the appearance of preferential treatment for one team over another -- or for that matter, one player over another -- strikes at the integrity of the game and the principle of competitive fairness that a commissioner is sworn to uphold and defend. And Goodell has certainly made his mark on those fronts since coming to office in 2006. His entire initiative on the league's personal conduct policy speaks to that.
Goodell deserves plenty of criticism if he stepped over the line and sought to influence Vick's decision of where to play after being released from prison, even if he did so believing he was acting in the best interest of Vick, in an almost completely unique set of circumstances. Vick wasn't just another player, with just another mid-career detour having been taken. But no matter. The commissioner has to be perceived as a fair and consistent referee of sorts, and that cannot be comprised even a little bit. Michael Vick, or no Michael Vick, he has to guard against the appearance that he's working behind the scenes to get the league's desired outcome.
Goodell's decision to allow Pryor to take part in next Monday's NFL's supplemental draft, but suspend him for the first five games of 2011, was the other screaming headline Thursday, and again the commissioner's reputation stands to take a potential hit in the process. Goodell based his suspension on Pryor making "decisions that undermine the integrity of the eligibility rules for the NFL Draft.''
That's shorthand for Goodell's belief that Pryor tried to game the system to a degree, using the supplemental draft as a way into the league in a manner it wasn't originally intended. Goodell tried to send a message to any future collegiate players who might try to follow Pryor's lead and attempt a similar path to the NFL, and in the same breath he was probably sending a message of solidarity with the NCAA and Ohio State, which had suspended Pryor for the first five games of 2011 for taking improper benefits.
But it's dangerous ground in that Goodell has now set a precedent with the Pryor ruling, and his judgment and decisions on punishment had best be in line with that standard going forward. Will he hand out discipline to every college player -- or head coach (hello, Pete Carroll?) -- who attempt to enter the league even while the cloud of alleged NCAA violations or illegalities still hang over their head? If not, it's only going to add to the charges that Goodell has wielded his considerable power too arbitrarily and inconsistently in some high-profile cases.
The irony here is that it would have been much easier for Goodell to do nothing in Pryor's case, other than allow him to take part in the supplemental draft. Every NFL talent-evaluator I've talked to sees Pryor as strictly a long-term project at quarterback, with one head coach last week telling me that Pryor might take two or three years to develop into a good NFL backup QB. So obviously some people in the league seem to think he's nowhere near taking the field in the opening five games of 2011.
But Goodell acted anyway, and the five-game suspension is what warranted the instant headlines. Interestingly, the NFL's players union opted to not appeal or contest the suspension, perhaps knowing that Pryor's immediate future in the league was not likely to include much game action anyway. The NFLPA got him draft eligible, and the only price was a slap on the wrist that amounts to much ado about nothing.
Goodell, of course, has plenty of a certain kind of history on his side in the Pryor decision. Commissioners generally have been granted wide-ranging and vaguely defined powers to do what they deemed in the best interest of their game. That's how we got an asterisk placed alongside Roger Maris' 61 home runs in 1961 (Commissioner Ford Frick) and it's how Bowie Kuhn blocked Oakland A's owner Charlie Finley from selling or trading off the stars on his three-time World Series-winning team in the mid-1970s.
But if you use those powers too liberally, and too often, you run the risk of overusing them, and perhaps looking as if you are heavy-handed in your discipline and inconsistent in your judgments. And that perception, once it's ingrained, can be conduct that's not in the best interests of the game, or the commissioner.
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
Goodell is such a joke. That kickoff rule is terrific :roll:
It's such a great rule! :crazy:
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
Vick comments to GQ, NFL ruling on Pryor put Goodell under microscope
Perhaps this is a handy lesson in why it's so tricky to play the role of commissioner and counselor at the same time. Maybe when Roger Goodell and Michael Vick talked about Vick's long-awaited return to the NFL in the summer of 2009, it was difficult for the soon-to-be-Philadelphia Eagle to tell the difference between helpful advice and official approval. Tacit or otherwise.
There's certainly a lot of gray area, and room for interpretation, in Thursday's GQ story that implies Vick was steered to Philadelphia by Goodell and other league "reps.'' There's no smoking gun quote from Vick in the story, nothing saying he signed with the Eagles -- and declined offers from other suitors such as Buffalo and Cincinnati -- because Goodell told him to do so. But there is a clear inference of just that result, to the point where the story's author wrote "after meeting with Commissioner Roger Goodell and other reps from the NFL, Vick was convinced -- and granted league approval -- to sign with Philly.''
By midday Thursday, Goodell's name was once again a hot-button issue in the NFL, thanks to both the Vick GQ story and the commissioner's controversial Terrelle Pryor ruling (more on that later). Both Vick and Goodell, through a league spokesman via ProFootballTalk.com, quickly refuted the notion that the commissioner influenced the process of Vick becoming an Eagle as it was portrayed in the magazine story. Ex-Colts head coach Tony Dungy, who acted as a league-appointed adviser for Vick, added his voice to the chorus, expressing doubt on the Dan Patrick Show that Goodell would have steered Vick to sign with Philadelphia.
But it's certainly plausible that the truth in this matter is far more nuanced than either the magazine or the subsequent denials capture. "Granted league approval'' is probably a heavy-handed phrase that misses the mark when compared to the reality of the situation. But Vick doesn't sound like he thought he was getting mere advice and input from Goodell and the league when he told GQ in that same paragraph: "I commend and thank them, because they put me in the right situation.'' I suppose it's all a matter of how you define the word "put'' in that sentence.
If there was some significant damage control being practiced on Thursday, you can certainly understand why. This is a potentially damaging story for any commissioner of any pro sports league. It's part of the job of a commissioner to deal with issues that challenge the integrity of the game, and matters of competitive fairness. But what if it's the commissioner who's found in violation of tipping the scales? Would Goodell immediately come out and fine himself for conduct detrimental to the game? And who does he appeal the punishment to?
Obviously it's not in the purview of a commissioner to help determine who plays where. Even the appearance of preferential treatment for one team over another -- or for that matter, one player over another -- strikes at the integrity of the game and the principle of competitive fairness that a commissioner is sworn to uphold and defend. And Goodell has certainly made his mark on those fronts since coming to office in 2006. His entire initiative on the league's personal conduct policy speaks to that.
Goodell deserves plenty of criticism if he stepped over the line and sought to influence Vick's decision of where to play after being released from prison, even if he did so believing he was acting in the best interest of Vick, in an almost completely unique set of circumstances. Vick wasn't just another player, with just another mid-career detour having been taken. But no matter. The commissioner has to be perceived as a fair and consistent referee of sorts, and that cannot be comprised even a little bit. Michael Vick, or no Michael Vick, he has to guard against the appearance that he's working behind the scenes to get the league's desired outcome.
Goodell's decision to allow Pryor to take part in next Monday's NFL's supplemental draft, but suspend him for the first five games of 2011, was the other screaming headline Thursday, and again the commissioner's reputation stands to take a potential hit in the process. Goodell based his suspension on Pryor making "decisions that undermine the integrity of the eligibility rules for the NFL Draft.''
That's shorthand for Goodell's belief that Pryor tried to game the system to a degree, using the supplemental draft as a way into the league in a manner it wasn't originally intended. Goodell tried to send a message to any future collegiate players who might try to follow Pryor's lead and attempt a similar path to the NFL, and in the same breath he was probably sending a message of solidarity with the NCAA and Ohio State, which had suspended Pryor for the first five games of 2011 for taking improper benefits.
But it's dangerous ground in that Goodell has now set a precedent with the Pryor ruling, and his judgment and decisions on punishment had best be in line with that standard going forward. Will he hand out discipline to every college player -- or head coach (hello, Pete Carroll?) -- who attempt to enter the league even while the cloud of alleged NCAA violations or illegalities still hang over their head? If not, it's only going to add to the charges that Goodell has wielded his considerable power too arbitrarily and inconsistently in some high-profile cases.
The irony here is that it would have been much easier for Goodell to do nothing in Pryor's case, other than allow him to take part in the supplemental draft. Every NFL talent-evaluator I've talked to sees Pryor as strictly a long-term project at quarterback, with one head coach last week telling me that Pryor might take two or three years to develop into a good NFL backup QB. So obviously some people in the league seem to think he's nowhere near taking the field in the opening five games of 2011.
But Goodell acted anyway, and the five-game suspension is what warranted the instant headlines. Interestingly, the NFL's players union opted to not appeal or contest the suspension, perhaps knowing that Pryor's immediate future in the league was not likely to include much game action anyway. The NFLPA got him draft eligible, and the only price was a slap on the wrist that amounts to much ado about nothing.
Goodell, of course, has plenty of a certain kind of history on his side in the Pryor decision. Commissioners generally have been granted wide-ranging and vaguely defined powers to do what they deemed in the best interest of their game. That's how we got an asterisk placed alongside Roger Maris' 61 home runs in 1961 (Commissioner Ford Frick) and it's how Bowie Kuhn blocked Oakland A's owner Charlie Finley from selling or trading off the stars on his three-time World Series-winning team in the mid-1970s.
But if you use those powers too liberally, and too often, you run the risk of overusing them, and perhaps looking as if you are heavy-handed in your discipline and inconsistent in your judgments. And that perception, once it's ingrained, can be conduct that's not in the best interests of the game, or the commissioner.
i think this is being blown way out of proportion.
interesting read. putting the ball on the 25 would have been better. i agree that it would have added more strategy to the kickoff. good thing about the nfl is that they can always change rules...with any luck they do that before the season starts:
The returns are coming back from coaches and players on the new kickoff rules, and nobody seems too happy about a system that has the kicking team doing so at its own 35-yard line instead of the 30, as had been done before. The touchback percentage more than doubled in the first week of the 2011 preseason over the 2010 regular season (16.4 percent to 33.8 percent), and the effects of that change have everyone wondering why a rule implemented in the name of player safety is having such an effect on game strategy. The Chicago Bears famously kicked off their first two times of the 2011 preseason against the Bills from the 30-yard line in direct defiance of the rule, and there are others willing to express their dissatisfaction with words instead of deeds.
When asked about the elimination of the kick return as a strategic tool, New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick recently said that he was given some rather stark news about that from the league — that was the idea behind the new rule. "That's what they told us,'' Belichick said. "I'm not speaking for anybody else. That's what they told us, that they want to eliminate the play.''
As you might expect, a league spokesperson had a quick response to that. "That is not the goal. We are not aware of anyone representing the NFL that has made that statement.''
Belichick then elaborated on his statement. "You've got to think about it. If, instead of covering 60 kickoffs in a year, you think you're only going to be covering 30, then is that coverage player as important? If you're going to be returning 30 instead of 60 … then maybe you put more of a priority on your punt returner than your kickoff returner, just as an example.''
But according to former NFL VP of officiating and current FOX Sports analyst Mike Pereira, coaches were their own worst enemies when it came to the modification of the rule. Pereira told ESPN's Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic on Thursday morning that the original plan was to offset the shorter kickoff field by putting all touchbacks out at the 25-yard line instead of the 20.
"To me, that really would have put some strategy back in the kickoff, if it went to the 25," Pereira said. "[Teams] would have tried to get the ball to come down at the goal line, and stop the returner shorter than the 25. But the coaches objected to that, and [the NFL] wanted to pass that rule in some form, and the coaches wanted to have [touchbacks] go to the 20, where they always were. They gladly heeded the coaches' request, and it passed at that point.
"I understand everything about player safety, and I'm for everything about player safety, but this
is really going to change the look of the game. This is going to eliminate a huge number of kickoff returns, and it's also going to adversely affect some teams more than others. You've got to look at the Bears and the Browns and the Bills — you've got Cribbs and you've got Brad Smith(notes). It's not a balanced rule change when it comes across the board to the teams that are affected."
Pereira was then asked if the rule could be changed back, which is where things got a bit squirrely.
"I don't think so, and here's the issue — when you pass something for player safety reasons only, and you then go back on that, you're almost sending a message to the players that you don't care about player safety."
I was with Pereira until that last statement. If the rule grossly affects kickoff value, and has a distinctly negative impact on the game, reversing or modifying the rule simply says, "Hey, we overreacted to this in the first place, and now, we're just trying to even it out."
If what Pereira says is true, NFL coaches should look in the mirror when searching for scapegoats. And those same coaches should have the ability to back up and undo their mistakes. Perhaps even before an entire season in which a rule everyone seems to dislike could run rampant through a pretty decent little sport.
they should have just left the kickoffs alone. I think the NFL is too quick to change rules. There are around 5 different rules every season.
The onside kick rules this year are absurd
What's the onside kick rule this year?
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
they should have just left the kickoffs alone. I think the NFL is too quick to change rules. There are around 5 different rules every season.
The onside kick rules this year are absurd
What's the onside kick rule this year?
other than the 5 yard max head start (behind the kickoff line of scrimmage), you're not allowed to hit players when they jump up to catch the onsides kick. the returning players are deemed 'unprotected', so they are off limits.
they should have just left the kickoffs alone. I think the NFL is too quick to change rules. There are around 5 different rules every season.
The onside kick rules this year are absurd
What's the onside kick rule this year?
other than the 5 yard max head start (behind the kickoff line of scrimmage), you're not allowed to hit players when they jump up to catch the onsides kick. the returning players are deemed 'unprotected', so they are off limits.
they should have just left the kickoffs alone. I think the NFL is too quick to change rules. There are around 5 different rules every season.
The onside kick rules this year are absurd
What's the onside kick rule this year?
other than the 5 yard max head start (behind the kickoff line of scrimmage), you're not allowed to hit players when they jump up to catch the onsides kick. the returning players are deemed 'unprotected', so they are off limits.
horrible
They might as well change the name of the league to NFFL...National Flag Football League.
Post edited by Newch91 on
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
how'd that one get locked? i noticed it too late to hop into the mix
good question....can you shoot kat or sea
a pm asking
I think Christine O'Donnell had the thread locked because she believes masturbation is a sin.
Seriously though, we kept that thread as
clean as the tv show was. Makes me wonder if people actually call the tv networks to try and keep 'The Contest' episode from airing.....
Another habit says it's in love with you
Another habit says its long overdue
Another habit like an unwanted friend
I'm so happy with my righteous self
Comments
but it wouldn't shock me to see the birds use ronnie brown in short yardage and goal line situations though.
if he stays healthy....
not many running backs stay on top of the league very long.
i waiting for adrian to start breaking down this year.
just a few names
Shaun Alexander
Larry Johnson
Brian Westbrook
Neal Anderson
anything more than 4 good years out of a RB is gravey.
yeah...probably closer to 4 years. you know what i mean though. he's just entering the prime of his career.
actually now that you mention it, how bout ricky williams? i guess those couple years off did his body well. he's gotta be about 35 or 36 now and still is somewhat effective. i think that was a good pick up for the ravens.
other than a couple of years, he's been a platoon guy, which i'm sure has kept him around longer than most.
It's just amazing what 300+ carries in a season does do a RB.
put 350 on a back, and you can put them on the scrap heap within two years.
i think ricky's up over 9,000 yards though. that is pretty damn impressive considering all the time he lost.
and, in case you are concerend, shady mccoy will never come close to 300 or 350 carries per year.
i think we forget, or at least i did, of how great he was for a while
02 he averaged 4.8 yards per carry on 383 totes 1853 yards russhing. the next year he had 392 carries. can't blame him for retiring after those two seaons. add in the receptions and he was getting tackled 450 times a season
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
i think so.
also pretty sure terry bradshaw is plastered.
Aaron Rodgers, Big Ben, Reggie Wayne, Santonio, Michael Turner, Frank Gore, Wes Welker, and Dustin Keller. I hope Turner and Gore have good seasons.
I hate having low picks.
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
No. Joe Buck is just an asshole.
Vick comments to GQ, NFL ruling on Pryor put Goodell under microscope
Perhaps this is a handy lesson in why it's so tricky to play the role of commissioner and counselor at the same time. Maybe when Roger Goodell and Michael Vick talked about Vick's long-awaited return to the NFL in the summer of 2009, it was difficult for the soon-to-be-Philadelphia Eagle to tell the difference between helpful advice and official approval. Tacit or otherwise.
There's certainly a lot of gray area, and room for interpretation, in Thursday's GQ story that implies Vick was steered to Philadelphia by Goodell and other league "reps.'' There's no smoking gun quote from Vick in the story, nothing saying he signed with the Eagles -- and declined offers from other suitors such as Buffalo and Cincinnati -- because Goodell told him to do so. But there is a clear inference of just that result, to the point where the story's author wrote "after meeting with Commissioner Roger Goodell and other reps from the NFL, Vick was convinced -- and granted league approval -- to sign with Philly.''
By midday Thursday, Goodell's name was once again a hot-button issue in the NFL, thanks to both the Vick GQ story and the commissioner's controversial Terrelle Pryor ruling (more on that later). Both Vick and Goodell, through a league spokesman via ProFootballTalk.com, quickly refuted the notion that the commissioner influenced the process of Vick becoming an Eagle as it was portrayed in the magazine story. Ex-Colts head coach Tony Dungy, who acted as a league-appointed adviser for Vick, added his voice to the chorus, expressing doubt on the Dan Patrick Show that Goodell would have steered Vick to sign with Philadelphia.
But it's certainly plausible that the truth in this matter is far more nuanced than either the magazine or the subsequent denials capture. "Granted league approval'' is probably a heavy-handed phrase that misses the mark when compared to the reality of the situation. But Vick doesn't sound like he thought he was getting mere advice and input from Goodell and the league when he told GQ in that same paragraph: "I commend and thank them, because they put me in the right situation.'' I suppose it's all a matter of how you define the word "put'' in that sentence.
If there was some significant damage control being practiced on Thursday, you can certainly understand why. This is a potentially damaging story for any commissioner of any pro sports league. It's part of the job of a commissioner to deal with issues that challenge the integrity of the game, and matters of competitive fairness. But what if it's the commissioner who's found in violation of tipping the scales? Would Goodell immediately come out and fine himself for conduct detrimental to the game? And who does he appeal the punishment to?
Obviously it's not in the purview of a commissioner to help determine who plays where. Even the appearance of preferential treatment for one team over another -- or for that matter, one player over another -- strikes at the integrity of the game and the principle of competitive fairness that a commissioner is sworn to uphold and defend. And Goodell has certainly made his mark on those fronts since coming to office in 2006. His entire initiative on the league's personal conduct policy speaks to that.
Goodell deserves plenty of criticism if he stepped over the line and sought to influence Vick's decision of where to play after being released from prison, even if he did so believing he was acting in the best interest of Vick, in an almost completely unique set of circumstances. Vick wasn't just another player, with just another mid-career detour having been taken. But no matter. The commissioner has to be perceived as a fair and consistent referee of sorts, and that cannot be comprised even a little bit. Michael Vick, or no Michael Vick, he has to guard against the appearance that he's working behind the scenes to get the league's desired outcome.
Goodell's decision to allow Pryor to take part in next Monday's NFL's supplemental draft, but suspend him for the first five games of 2011, was the other screaming headline Thursday, and again the commissioner's reputation stands to take a potential hit in the process. Goodell based his suspension on Pryor making "decisions that undermine the integrity of the eligibility rules for the NFL Draft.''
That's shorthand for Goodell's belief that Pryor tried to game the system to a degree, using the supplemental draft as a way into the league in a manner it wasn't originally intended. Goodell tried to send a message to any future collegiate players who might try to follow Pryor's lead and attempt a similar path to the NFL, and in the same breath he was probably sending a message of solidarity with the NCAA and Ohio State, which had suspended Pryor for the first five games of 2011 for taking improper benefits.
But it's dangerous ground in that Goodell has now set a precedent with the Pryor ruling, and his judgment and decisions on punishment had best be in line with that standard going forward. Will he hand out discipline to every college player -- or head coach (hello, Pete Carroll?) -- who attempt to enter the league even while the cloud of alleged NCAA violations or illegalities still hang over their head? If not, it's only going to add to the charges that Goodell has wielded his considerable power too arbitrarily and inconsistently in some high-profile cases.
The irony here is that it would have been much easier for Goodell to do nothing in Pryor's case, other than allow him to take part in the supplemental draft. Every NFL talent-evaluator I've talked to sees Pryor as strictly a long-term project at quarterback, with one head coach last week telling me that Pryor might take two or three years to develop into a good NFL backup QB. So obviously some people in the league seem to think he's nowhere near taking the field in the opening five games of 2011.
But Goodell acted anyway, and the five-game suspension is what warranted the instant headlines. Interestingly, the NFL's players union opted to not appeal or contest the suspension, perhaps knowing that Pryor's immediate future in the league was not likely to include much game action anyway. The NFLPA got him draft eligible, and the only price was a slap on the wrist that amounts to much ado about nothing.
Goodell, of course, has plenty of a certain kind of history on his side in the Pryor decision. Commissioners generally have been granted wide-ranging and vaguely defined powers to do what they deemed in the best interest of their game. That's how we got an asterisk placed alongside Roger Maris' 61 home runs in 1961 (Commissioner Ford Frick) and it's how Bowie Kuhn blocked Oakland A's owner Charlie Finley from selling or trading off the stars on his three-time World Series-winning team in the mid-1970s.
But if you use those powers too liberally, and too often, you run the risk of overusing them, and perhaps looking as if you are heavy-handed in your discipline and inconsistent in your judgments. And that perception, once it's ingrained, can be conduct that's not in the best interests of the game, or the commissioner.
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
Awful rule. I like how the Bears still tried to kick off from the 30 last week. The NFL was not happy about that one...
i think this is being blown way out of proportion.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdo ... nfl-wp5342
Pereira: Coaches have themselves to blame for new restrictive kickoff ruleBy Doug Farrar
The returns are coming back from coaches and players on the new kickoff rules, and nobody seems too happy about a system that has the kicking team doing so at its own 35-yard line instead of the 30, as had been done before. The touchback percentage more than doubled in the first week of the 2011 preseason over the 2010 regular season (16.4 percent to 33.8 percent), and the effects of that change have everyone wondering why a rule implemented in the name of player safety is having such an effect on game strategy. The Chicago Bears famously kicked off their first two times of the 2011 preseason against the Bills from the 30-yard line in direct defiance of the rule, and there are others willing to express their dissatisfaction with words instead of deeds.
When asked about the elimination of the kick return as a strategic tool, New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick recently said that he was given some rather stark news about that from the league — that was the idea behind the new rule. "That's what they told us,'' Belichick said. "I'm not speaking for anybody else. That's what they told us, that they want to eliminate the play.''
As you might expect, a league spokesperson had a quick response to that. "That is not the goal. We are not aware of anyone representing the NFL that has made that statement.''
Belichick then elaborated on his statement. "You've got to think about it. If, instead of covering 60 kickoffs in a year, you think you're only going to be covering 30, then is that coverage player as important? If you're going to be returning 30 instead of 60 … then maybe you put more of a priority on your punt returner than your kickoff returner, just as an example.''
But according to former NFL VP of officiating and current FOX Sports analyst Mike Pereira, coaches were their own worst enemies when it came to the modification of the rule. Pereira told ESPN's Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic on Thursday morning that the original plan was to offset the shorter kickoff field by putting all touchbacks out at the 25-yard line instead of the 20.
"To me, that really would have put some strategy back in the kickoff, if it went to the 25," Pereira said. "[Teams] would have tried to get the ball to come down at the goal line, and stop the returner shorter than the 25. But the coaches objected to that, and [the NFL] wanted to pass that rule in some form, and the coaches wanted to have [touchbacks] go to the 20, where they always were. They gladly heeded the coaches' request, and it passed at that point.
"I understand everything about player safety, and I'm for everything about player safety, but this
is really going to change the look of the game. This is going to eliminate a huge number of kickoff returns, and it's also going to adversely affect some teams more than others. You've got to look at the Bears and the Browns and the Bills — you've got Cribbs and you've got Brad Smith(notes). It's not a balanced rule change when it comes across the board to the teams that are affected."
Pereira was then asked if the rule could be changed back, which is where things got a bit squirrely.
"I don't think so, and here's the issue — when you pass something for player safety reasons only, and you then go back on that, you're almost sending a message to the players that you don't care about player safety."
I was with Pereira until that last statement. If the rule grossly affects kickoff value, and has a distinctly negative impact on the game, reversing or modifying the rule simply says, "Hey, we overreacted to this in the first place, and now, we're just trying to even it out."
If what Pereira says is true, NFL coaches should look in the mirror when searching for scapegoats. And those same coaches should have the ability to back up and undo their mistakes. Perhaps even before an entire season in which a rule everyone seems to dislike could run rampant through a pretty decent little sport.
The onside kick rules this year are absurd
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
other than the 5 yard max head start (behind the kickoff line of scrimmage), you're not allowed to hit players when they jump up to catch the onsides kick. the returning players are deemed 'unprotected', so they are off limits.
horrible
You missed another rule - you didn't post in the Contest thread today, so you're disqualified.
Another habit says its long overdue
Another habit like an unwanted friend
I'm so happy with my righteous self
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
Posting tommorrow might be an issue :roll:
how'd that one get locked? i noticed it too late to hop into the mix
good question....can you shoot kat or sea a pm asking
I think Christine O'Donnell had the thread locked because she believes masturbation is a sin.
Seriously though, we kept that thread as
clean as the tv show was. Makes me wonder if people actually call the tv networks to try and keep 'The Contest' episode from airing.....
Another habit says its long overdue
Another habit like an unwanted friend
I'm so happy with my righteous self
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=164467