Sound Off: Is Roger Goodell Going Too Far?

[simgamer0005]

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

No kickoffs - that's ridiculous. That's right up there with no 3-point stance. What's next? No punts because someone might not call fair catch in time? Just move the ball back 40 yards and change possession?

It's honestly amazing that the idea of eliminating kickoffs would even be suggested. it's hard to even think about football without kickoffs, or punts.

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

Sure, player safety is important - but there will ALWAYS be hard hits in the game and not all of them are illegal or malicious. A good form tackle delivered by a powerful man with momentum is just as forceful, and not a thing illegal about it. Same for a good, classic "pancake" that a charging OT might lay on a DB looking to make said form tackle. It seems like he's trying to take the contact out of a contact sport. The pads - well, why didn't he do this last year? That's what I don't get. He's about player safety, but is just now mandating full pads? Huh?

Good point. All these rule changes yet only now is he mandating full pads? see player safety is a tough one, it's like if you don't fully support all these rule changes, it's like you are seen as insensitive and want to see players injured, which is not true at all. what puts a wrench in that logic is the fact that they moved the kickoffs back to the 30 to encourage more returns, like in college football in 2007. it's like they do things to make the game more dangerous then a few years later revert the rule back to what it was in the name of player safety. i actually think that all the rule changes year to year affect strategy and make the game more dangerous.

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

He should ban turf too - That stuff can tear up feet, knees, and ankles. Cleats can catch on it, not allowing the momentum to cause the feet to come off the ground. Instead, the torque stays in the leg/joint and...ouch.

And yeah really, grass is softer than turf. in the old days turf used to be like concrete, but now they have field turf which is a bit softer but yeah.

Quote: Originally Posted by KBLover

I suppose the next thing he'll try is shorter quarters. Fewer plays = fewer hits after all...

ha, no that's too obvious. they actually have much fewer plays then they used to. you know there was a time when you ran out of bounds and the clock would actually stop...and would stay stopped until the next snap! now when you run out of bounds, the ref spots it and clock is restarted, making the game shorter.

[buckeyes2587]

no i do not think he is. but we shall see.

[iAM-IncReDiBLe-]

When I wore knee pads they slowed me down. I hated them an it was an annoyance.

[N51_rob]

My earlier post I said I don't think he (Goodell) has gone to far. But if the NFL sues to block New Jersey from opening up sports betting then yes, he will have gone way to far.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...over-gambling/

Stay out of State Legislature, period. The NFL has no business suing the state of New Jersey over this IMHO.

[TheMatrix31]

Pads are fine, I guess, bit kickoffs are going nowhere. And if they one day say "we're not having kickoffs anymore", I'm done with the league.

[mestevo]

Quote: Originally Posted by N51_rob

My earlier post I said I don't think he (Goodell) has gone to far. But if the NFL sues to block New Jersey from opening up sports betting then yes, he will have gone way to far. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...over-gambling/ Stay out of State Legislature, period. The NFL has no business suing the state of New Jersey over this IMHO.

I'm hoping this is one fight that paves the way for one of my pipe dreams... at some point in the future they're playing 17-18+ games, with the 16 home/away supplemented by neutral/international site games by all teams every season. NFL has to get over the gambling thing for Vegas to ever have an opportunity to be one of those regularly played at neutral sites. Vegas also still needs a venue.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[Brandon13]

I am a Saints fan so I do carry a certain level of bias, but to be clear, I do not deny that under Gregg Williams the Saints appear to have run a pay-for-performance system. There also may have been a $10,000 bounty placed upon Favre in the '09 NFCC (though it is interesting that Vilma has so vehemently denied this, up to the point of personally suing Goodell for defamation). If the latter occurred, it should be punished rather severely. But I am not convinced that Goodell possesses the mountain of evidence within his 50,000 documents that backs up his claim that Saints' players systematically participated in a bounty system throughout Williams tenure in New Orleans. And slowly, more and more people in the media are asking questions about the lack of evidence.

It makes little sense to me for Goodell to ask for NFLPA input on the severity of player suspensions if his evidence is strong and backs up all of his Bountygate claims. With NFLPA support, I suspect that the players' penalties may have been less severe, and it would have allowed Goodell to close the book on Bountygate without further inquiries into the evidence. As it is, the union did not accept a plea deal with the league without any evidence of the offenses and Goodell came down harshly on Vilma and co.

In addition, the league clearly misrepresented the content of Anthony Hargrove's sworn statement. Why? Why misrepresent his statement if the mountain of evidence exists, and instead choose to battle the union through the media?

Those things, coupled with the lack of actual evidence that has been publicly released does give me pause, and makes me believe that Goodell may have gone too far.

[mestevo]

Quote: Originally Posted by Brandon13

I am a Saints fan so I do carry a certain level of bias, but to be clear, I do not deny that under Gregg Williams the Saints appear to have run a pay-for-performance system. There also may have been a $10,000 bounty placed upon Favre in the '09 NFCC (though it is interesting that Vilma has so vehemently denied this, up to the point of personally suing Goodell for defamation). If the latter occurred, it should be punished rather severely. But I am not convinced that Goodell possesses the mountain of evidence within his 50,000 documents that backs up his claim that Saints' players systematically participated in a bounty system throughout Williams tenure in New Orleans. And slowly, more and more people in the media are asking questions about the lack of evidence. It makes little sense to me for Goodell to ask for NFLPA input on the severity of player suspensions if his evidence is strong and backs up all of his Bountygate claims. With NFLPA support, I suspect that the players' penalties may have been less severe, and it would have allowed Goodell to close the book on Bountygate without further inquiries into the evidence. As it is, the union did not accept a plea deal with the league without any evidence of the offenses and Goodell came down harshly on Vilma and co. In addition, the league clearly misrepresented the content of Anthony Hargrove's sworn statement. Why? Why misrepresent his statement if the mountain of evidence exists, and instead choose to battle the union through the media? Those things, coupled with the lack of actual evidence that has been publicly released does give me pause, and makes me believe that Goodell may have gone too far.

I agree. I like Roger, I like what he's done for the game, especially the 10 years of "labor peace" he's carved out for the NFL. It's 10 years of misery and second guessing from the NFLPA and many fans if they can't cleanly and decisively close the book on bountygate though.



Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2