BZBot Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 The Bengals ruined Christmas, and New Year's and broke my heart...but it's time to get back on the horse.Source: http://www.bengalszone.com/article.php?sid=519 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 "It’s ridiculous that the NFL claims to care about character when guys like Irvin and Lawrence Taylor are celebrated with the highest honor and individual can earn in football. I’m not making excuses for the Bengals; nine players arrested (and counting) is embarrassing, but I don’t think the NFL is even remotely serious about the character of the players. The Commissioner is only concerned with appearing to care about the Bengals. In reality, they could care less.We hear you loud and clear, Roger...character counts in the NFL." The only thing Roger is interested in as protecting the NFL's image. Actually addressing the problems is far too much heavy lifting. Consider the recent agreement between the NFL Commish and the players union concerning steroid use. And player caught CHEATING is now prohibited from playing in the Pro Bowl, right? Well, does anyone really consider that to be a strong stand against steroid use? Please. However, as a way to protect the NFL's image it works perfectly because in the future they'll be no more nagging questions about why a steroid warrior like Shawne Merriman is allowed to play in the NFL's all-star game. Way to go, Roger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Way to go, Roger.What do you expect from a guy that holds character in such high regard but doesn't understand his own hypocrisy when giving China a pre-season game. I guess the question about character has a subjective answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 What do you expect from a guy that holds character in such high regard but doesn't understand his own hypocrisy when giving China a pre-season game. I guess the question about character has a subjective answer. I expect less and less from Roger with each passing day. Has anyone else read how the new commish is considering a plan where draft picks are taken from any team that selects too many prospects of questionable character? Apparently the idea is to eliminate the tempation that often arises when a very talented but troubled player drops so far in the draft that his risk/reward needle suddenly points strongly towards reward. However, I'm guessing the desired end result of that player not being drafted, or presumably not signed at all, would produce a storm of lawsuits from players who are denied an opportunity to work. For example, how do you keep a player like current posterboy Chris Henry out of the NFL when he had no previous arrest record? And what lawyer seeking dameges for his client wouldn't storm into court with the NFL's own scouting grades that projected Henry to be drafted in the 1st or 2nd round? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 However, I'm guessing the desired end result of that player not being drafted, or presumably not signed at all, would produce a storm of lawsuits from players who are denied an opportunity to work.If so, I can't see them going anywhere. Maurice Clarett was "denied an opportunity to work" by league rules, too, and his suit was a bust.That said, I don't think taking draft picks away is the answer. You want to solve the problem of bad behavior, then hit the troublemakers with sanctions that are immediate and significant. But that would require the players' union to give back gains they got in the last CBA, and that seems unlikely, to say the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalByTheBay Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Agreed...with the union's focus on obtaining maximum protection for its members that exhibit the most "at-risk" behavior, anything the league does to appear to be cracking-down on that behavior is merely giving glorified lip service to the claim of getting tough on "character" problems. While I constantly hear the claim here and elsewhere that "if I did something like that my boss would fire me", I think the analogy is truly more to jobs that are subject to some sort of CBA. There are tons of unions that require extensive appeals processes, etc. before an employer can take serious action against an employee -- not only for "misbehavior" off the job, but even for malfeasance at work. So, unless you're in a union, to say that you can't do it so they shouldn't either is comparing apples to gatorade. If you are in a union and you can say the same thing -- you probably should get a stronger representative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 However, I'm guessing the desired end result of that player not being drafted, or presumably not signed at all, would produce a storm of lawsuits from players who are denied an opportunity to work.If so, I can't see them going anywhere. Maurice Clarett was "denied an opportunity to work" by league rules, too, and his suit was a bust. Clarrett wasn't denied the opportunity to work as he was eventually drafted by the Denver Broncos in the 3rd round. All he was denied was the opportunity to play in the NFL one year earlier than the CBA allowed. The commish's plan of taking draft picks away from a team if enough players are arrested is an attempt to force teams to not draft certain players at all. In fact, if I'm reading between the lines correctly it would result in certain players being prevented from entering the NFL even as UFA's. And again, using the example of the NFL's current poster boy of bad behavior, Chris Henry, how could you deny him the right to play in the NFL when he had no previous arrest record? Can you prevent a player who has the talent of a 1st round pick out of the NFL simply because of rumor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 And again, using the example of the NFL's current poster boy of bad behavior, Chris Henry, how could you deny him the right to play in the NFL when he had no previous arrest record? Can you prevent a player who has the talent of a 1st round pick out of the NFL simply because of rumor?Again, the questionable character has only subjective answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 While I constantly hear the claim here and elsewhere that "if I did something like that my boss would fire me", I think the analogy is truly more to jobs that are subject to some sort of CBA. There are tons of unions that require extensive appeals processes, etc. before an employer can take serious action against an employee -- not only for "misbehavior" off the job, but even for malfeasance at work. True story. I once worked for a fairly big corporation that had fired an employee after finding them passed out behind a customer service counter. The employee was found lying on the floor, covered in his own vomit...the countertop covered with unsnorted cocaine. Long story short...the employee sued the corporation for wages lost, claiming that because he wasn't offered treatment for his drug abuse he had been improperly fired. He won, pocketing over 1 1/2 years worth of wages. He also won the right to return to work immediately if he so desired....which he did not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 And again, using the example of the NFL's current poster boy of bad behavior, Chris Henry, how could you deny him the right to play in the NFL when he had no previous arrest record? Can you prevent a player who has the talent of a 1st round pick out of the NFL simply because of rumor?Why not? Irrespective of whether it would be a good idea or not, I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Chris Henry has a "right" to play in the NFL. What is this right based on? That he was an outstanding college player? If he instead graduated at the top of his MBA class, would that give him the "right" to work for Goldman Sachs on Wall Street, or the ability to sue if they didn't give him a job? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 And again, using the example of the NFL's current poster boy of bad behavior, Chris Henry, how could you deny him the right to play in the NFL when he had no previous arrest record? Can you prevent a player who has the talent of a 1st round pick out of the NFL simply because of rumor?Why not? Irrespective of whether it would be a good idea or not, I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Chris Henry has a "right" to play in the NFL. What is this right based on? That he was an outstanding college player? If he instead graduated at the top of his MBA class, would that give him the "right" to work for Goldman Sachs on Wall Street, or the ability to sue if they didn't give him a job? Nobody has the right to sue Goldman Sachs if they aren't hired by that company, but they could sure 'em stupid if Goldman Sachs actively engaged in activity that prevented a qualified person from working at all other firms. Again, Henry had no arrest record....so how do you take steps expressly made to prevent him from entering the NFL...or if you prefer, a league that has legally been defined as a monopoly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Nobody has the right to sue Goldman Sachs if they aren't hired by that company, but they could sure 'em stupid if Goldman Sachs actively engaged in activity that prevented a qualified person from working at all other firms.The NFL wouldn't be preventing Chris Henry from working at "all other firms." Henry could still work in the CFL, for example. Or the Arena League. Or he could take his college degree and get a "real job." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 The NFL wouldn't be preventing Chris Henry from working at "all other firms." Henry could still work in the CFL, for example. Or the Arena League. Or he could take his college degree and get a "real job." So you're in favor of the NFL engaging in hiring tactics that would break employment laws in every other profession? Frankly, you've got to love the perfect irony of a system where a monolithic overlord is allowed to break the law in an effort to protect it's image from the actions of other law breakers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 So you're in favor of the NFL engaging in hiring tactics that would break employment laws in every other profession?You still haven't demonstrated how they would be doing so.In fact, you haven't even demonstrated how any realistic system which penalizes teams for poor player behavior by removing draft picks would make it impossible for them to draft Chris Henry.Oh, I'm sure you could posit some draconian rule, like "if any of your players get arrested you lose every draft pick for the next 10 years" or something, but any rule change like that would never be approved by the necessary supermajority of the owners.At the absolute most, I could envision a system modeled on restricted free agency, under which a team loses a draft pick in a round corresponding to the round in which the problem child was drafted. (Note I'm not saying that I would want that, simply that that's about as far as I can possibly conceive of the owners going. And even that's a stretch.) In which case that would simply ensure that Henry was a day 2 pick or UDFA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 At the absolute most, I could envision a system modeled on restricted free agency, under which a team loses a draft pick in a round corresponding to the round in which the problem child was drafted. (Note I'm not saying that I would want that, simply that that's about as far as I can possibly conceive of the owners going. And even that's a stretch.) In which case that would simply ensure that Henry was a day 2 pick or UDFA. On one hand you're claiming that the NFL isn't denying a player the right to employment while on the other hand you're arguing that the only realistic system you can envision could easily result in a player with 1st round talent going undrafted. Regardless, under the system you envision does a Warren Sapp get drafted? How about Dan Marino? Frankly, I think the current draft day risk/reward buyer beware system works just fine. For example, due to predraft concerns about Henry he lost hundreds of thousands of dollars on draft day, if not millions, and he's lost a considerable sum since then. But he was given a fair chance to make something of himself instead of being blackballed from the very start due to rumor. (See above.) As for the Bengals, they too have been punished by losing Henry's services for a few games and they'll likely lose him for several more. They've also had their reputation tarnished. Hands are wringing everywhere in the Tri-State area, right? In addition, if a team miscalculates the impact of having too many poor characters or ignores the issue of team chemistry it will very likely result in the team voluntarily blowing itself up and rebuilding....just as the Vikings had to do after their love boat scandal. But any system that demands a team surrender draft picks in punishment cripples that teams ability to rebuild and greatly harms it's ability to correct past mistakes. Finally, the whole idea seems like unworkable grandstanding. Does a team surrender a draft pick regardless of when a prospect is arrested? Is there a flow chart being made that links the round a player was drafted in to the many different types of crimes he can be charged with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 [ On one hand you're claiming that the NFL isn't denying a player the right to employment while on the other hand you're arguing that the only realistic system you can envision could easily result in a player with 1st round talent going undrafted. Again, please, feel free to show me where this "right" to work in the NFL exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.