Rucker suspended!

[HairOnFire]

Well, why do you think the Bengals were targeted, because God-el doesn't like the uniforms? And it isn't just Mikey's initial opposition to Goddy, it's a number of things, I'm sure. Like Mikey's habit of drafting lots of bad character guys that have in turn created all the PR problems. And the pain in the a$$ Mikey made of himself during the CBA negotiations. And the fact that few other owners apparently have any respect for Mikey and could care less if he gets kicked around.

No flip flopping. You can't make statements like the above while at the same time claiming that Goodell has been fair and evenhanded with all teams.

[HoosierCat]

Oh, I have no doubt Goodell has a special axe to grind with Cincy (thanks Mikey).

Now is not the time for flip flopping, Hoosier.

Huh? Sorry, Hair, but I've been arguing that Mikey has been digging himself into a hole with the league from the moment he cast his grouchy "no" vote on the CBA extension. Sorry, no flip flopping here. You ought to pay more attention, though.

[cincy9275]

i disagree hoosier when you are singling out any one team then are not doing league wide that is in it self discrimination and any good lawyer could very easily prove that point. you are right a bengal player is not a group but the bengals team is a group and they are being punished for being part of that group.

In the first place, Goody is doing it league-wide (Tank, Pacman, Vick). The new personal conduct policy applies to everyone, not just the Bengals. And if he wants to hit the Bengals with maximum possible harshness under that policy, in order to change the organization's (read: Mike Brown's) behavior...he can. Secondly, guys like Odell and Henry aren't being "punished for being a bengal," they're being punished for their own dumb actions; had they not done anything, they'd be playing. God-el has just taken advantage of their screw-ups to put the screws to Mikey, too.

i am refeering to punishing a player for what they did when there were not a part of the nfl. yes henry and o'dell did do it to there selfs, but rucker has done nothing since being drafted. then i i aslo think o'dells punihment is harsher than the rest for not doing anything near what tank, pacman , and vick has done heck henry did way more than o'dell also.

[HoosierCat]

Well, why do you think the Bengals were targeted, because God-el doesn't like the uniforms? And it isn't just Mikey's initial opposition to Goddy, it's a number of things, I'm sure. Like Mikey's habit of drafting lots of bad character guys that have in turn created all the PR problems. And the pain in the a$$ Mikey made of himself during the CBA negotiations. And the fact that few other owners apparently have any respect for Mikey and could care less if he gets kicked around.

No flip flopping. You can't make statements like the above while at the same time claiming that Goodell has been fair and evenhanded with all teams.

Again, huh? I've never said he was "fair and evenhanded." In fact I think I've used the word "unfair" to describe things in this very thread -- and others.

[HairOnFire]

You want God-el to cut the bengals the same kind of slack he cut KC with Allen or Miami with Porter?

Yeah, I want the same thing. Because when punishment is handed out unfairly and unevenly it becomes unpredictable, and if it's unpredictable it's no longer an effective tool for change. Granted, you may altar behavior from the one camp that you're unfairly targeting, but the message is lost everywhere else.

For example, what message was delivered to Kansas City and Miami?

[cincy9275]

You want God-el to cut the bengals the same kind of slack he cut KC with Allen or Miami with Porter?

Yeah, I want the same thing. Because when punishment is handed out unfairly and unevenly it becomes unpredictable, and if it's unpredictable it's no longer an effective tool for change. Granted, you may altar behavior from the one camp that you're unfairly targeting, but the message is lost everywhere else.

For example, what message was delivered to Kansas City and Miami?

that it is ok to drink and drive and attack and rob other players as long as you are not a bengal.

[HoosierCat]

i am refeering to punishing a player for what they did when there were not a part of the nfl.

Yeah, I agree that Goody is skating on thin ice with Rucker. Like I said a ways back, I'm sure he will claim that since the actual charges weren't filed until after Rucker was drafted, and the plea deal came while he was a Bengal, he has the right. As I asked earlier, where is the union on this one?

[cincy9275]

i am refeering to punishing a player for what they did when there were not a part of the nfl.

Yeah, I agree that Goody is skating on thin ice with Rucker. Like I said a ways back, I'm sure he will claim that since the actual charges weren't filed until after Rucker was drafted, and the plea deal came while he was a Bengal, he has the right. As I asked earlier, where is the union on this one?

i agree where is the union on this.

[HoosierCat]

You want God-el to cut the bengals the same kind of slack he cut KC with Allen or Miami with Porter?

Yeah, I want the same thing. Because when punishment is handed out unfairly and unevenly it becomes unpredictable, and if it's unpredictable it's no longer an effective tool for change. Granted, you may altar behavior from the one camp that you're unfairly targeting, but the message is lost everywhere else.

For example, what message was delivered to Kansas City and Miami?

The "message" isn't needed, or at least not as much, everywhere else. Remember the whole 10 arrests in 14 months or 14 arrest in 10 months or whatever the exact numbers were? That sort of flagged Cincy as a special problem, right? So guess what -- Cincy got the brunt of Goody's wrath. Why should anyone be surprised by this?

The Bengals will get treated like everyone else just as soon as they show they can quit being a problem.

[HairOnFire]

Again, huh? I've never said he was "fair and evenhanded." In fact I think I've used the word "unfair" to describe things in this very thread -- and others.

Aren't you trying to have it both ways? For example, you acknowledge that Goodell's actions are unfair, but then offer...

" Goody is doing it league-wide (Tank, Pacman, Vick). The new personal conduct policy applies to everyone, not just the Bengals. And if he wants to hit the Bengals with maximum possible harshness under that policy, in order to change the organization's (read: Mike Brown's) behavior...he can."

So is it league-wide or are the Bengals being unfairly targeted? You quickly admit that it's the latter, right? But here's the rub. When you acknowledge that Goodell's actions are unfair you're also accepting the idea that he's deliberately altering the competitive balance that the NFL is supposed to be built upon. And that's a fairly remarkable abuse of the Commish's powers.

[cincy9275]

You want God-el to cut the bengals the same kind of slack he cut KC with Allen or Miami with Porter?

Yeah, I want the same thing. Because when punishment is handed out unfairly and unevenly it becomes unpredictable, and if it's unpredictable it's no longer an effective tool for change. Granted, you may altar behavior from the one camp that you're unfairly targeting, but the message is lost everywhere else.

For example, what message was delivered to Kansas City and Miami?

The "message" isn't needed, or at least not as much, everywhere else. Remember the whole 10 arrests in 14 months or 14 arrest in 10 months or whatever the exact numbers were? That sort of flagged Cincy as a special problem, right? So guess what -- Cincy got the brunt of Goody's wrath. Why should anyone be surprised by this?

The Bengals will get treated like everyone else just as soon as they show they can quit being a problem.

i believe that the chargers and the bears had their fair share of problems yet i don't see them in this situation. and our past draft was one that brought not promblem players to our team and a sign that we are trying to change. as for goodell trying to force mikey to change what he believes in that is absurd and i back mikey for standing up for what he believes in.

[HairOnFire]

The "message" isn't needed, or at least not as much, everywhere else. Remember the whole 10 arrests in 14 months or 14 arrest in 10 months or whatever the exact numbers were? That sort of flagged Cincy as a special problem, right? So guess what -- Cincy got the brunt of Goody's wrath. Why should anyone be surprised by this?

Fans in San Diego and Chicago are probably suprised by their good fortune, right? Both of those teams had an embarrasing number of arrests including several that were far more serious than any Bengal player. Yet Goodell hasn't fired a single shot over the Chargers bow, and it looks like the Lance Briggs story is going to die a quick death. And in Minnesota they're probably breathing a sigh of relief that the love boat sailed when it did, ehh? In Dallas and Baltimore team owners are shining up championship trophies and breathing a sigh of relief that their star players made their reputations before the shid hit the fans. Meanwhile, in Kansas City and Miami the message received is business as usual, the star system is still inplace, and don't worry about losing a player even if his crimes are captured on videotape. Oh, and in Pittsburgh the message is don't worry about a team doctor being caught with a trunk full of HGH. The media didn't pay much attention so why should Goodell?

All things considered, I'd say Roger Goodell is sending plenty of messages....most of them mixed.

[HoosierCat]

Again, huh? I've never said he was "fair and evenhanded." In fact I think I've used the word "unfair" to describe things in this very thread -- and others.

Aren't you trying to have it both ways? For example, you acknowledge that Goodell's actions are unfair, but then offer...

" Goody is doing it league-wide (Tank, Pacman, Vick). The new personal conduct policy applies to everyone, not just the Bengals. And if he wants to hit the Bengals with maximum possible harshness under that policy, in order to change the organization's (read: Mike Brown's) behavior...he can."

What Goody is doing league-wide is instituting a new personal conduct policy. He has chose to apply that policy most harshly to the Bengals.

When you acknowledge that Goodell's actions are unfair you're also accepting the idea that he's deliberately altering the competitive balance that the NFL is supposed to be built upon.

His actions have that impact, yes -- and that's precisely what makes them effective in driving change at the front office level. An abuse of power? Well, I don't see any of the other owners objecting, I hear no rumblings of any move to can Goody, if he's abusing his powers, everyone seems to be OK with it.

[HairOnFire]

and our past draft was one that brought not promblem players to our team and a sign that we are trying to change.

And if you're not going to acknowledge when you receieve the very changes you've demanded, well....(voice trails off.)

[cincy9275]

i think that the reason you hear no other owners complaining is because they are scared that if they do god'ell will come after them too.

[HairOnFire]

Again, huh? I've never said he was "fair and evenhanded." In fact I think I've used the word "unfair" to describe things in this very thread -- and others.

Aren't you trying to have it both ways? For example, you acknowledge that Goodell's actions are unfair, but then offer...

" Goody is doing it league-wide (Tank, Pacman, Vick). The new personal conduct policy applies to everyone, not just the Bengals. And if he wants to hit the Bengals with maximum possible harshness under that policy, in order to change the organization's (read: Mike Brown's) behavior...he can."

What Goody is doing league-wide is instituting a new personal conduct policy. He has chose to apply that policy most harshly to the Bengals.

When you acknowledge that Goodell's actions are unfair you're also accepting the idea that he's deliberately altering the competitive balance that the NFL is supposed to be built upon.

His actions have that impact, yes -- and that's precisely what makes them effective in driving change at the front office level. An abuse of power? Well, I don't see any of the other owners objecting, I hear no rumblings of any move to can Goody, if he's abusing his powers, everyone seems to be OK with it.

Not only aren't other owners objecting...they're not changing. The last draft actually resulted in character risk after character risk being drafted exactly where their talent suggested or in many examples higher than expected. And only the lowest level of bottom-feeders have been cast off by their teams after new arrests were reported. In fact, the front office of the Chicago Bears has just spent the last couple of days falling all over itself defending Lance Briggs version of Mr Toads wild ride, and the ownership in Miami saw no reason to appy their brand of punishment after Goodell refused to slap Joey Porter's wrists. Other examples of things not changing elsewhere are too numerous to mention.

As for the lack of rumblings that Goodell be fired, why would you be suprised? Goodell's get tough policy, by your own admission, overwhelmingly targets one team and one unpopular owner.

[skyline]

I think the bottom line is that most people believe that he's doing a fantastic job so far.

He's suspended a very small percentage of players, so the fans of most teams haven't been directly effected by GOD-el's moves. They hear a report that he's suspended some troublemaker...that's fine as far as they're concerned, and nobody's bothered to point out to them that he may have been inconsistent in some of his decisions.

For the record, I agree with the commishes new get tough policy in general...I just don't agree with the way he has actually carried it out (lack of required justification, apparent inconsistencies, etc.). If I didn't root for the Bengals, however, and see up close how the Thurman case was handled, I may never have noticed.

[The PatternMaster]

I think the bottom line is that most people believe that he's doing a fantastic job so far.

He's suspended a very small percentage of players, so the fans of most teams haven't been directly effected by GOD-el's moves. They hear a report that he's suspended some troublemaker...that's fine as far as they're concerned, and nobody's bothered to point out to them that he may have been inconsistent in some of his decisions.

For the record, I agree with the commishes new get tough policy in general...I just don't agree with the way he has actually carried it out (lack of required justification, apparent inconsistencies, etc.). If I didn't root for the Bengals, however, and see up close how the Thurman case was handled, I may never have noticed.

I think that is the key as well, the average NFL could care less that Odell got suspened or that Frostee Rucker.

[BengalByTheBay]

I think the bottom line is that most people believe that he's doing a fantastic job so far.

He's suspended a very small percentage of players, so the fans of most teams haven't been directly effected by GOD-el's moves. They hear a report that he's suspended some troublemaker...that's fine as far as they're concerned, and nobody's bothered to point out to them that he may have been inconsistent in some of his decisions.

For the record, I agree with the commishes new get tough policy in general...I just don't agree with the way he has actually carried it out (lack of required justification, apparent inconsistencies, etc.). If I didn't root for the Bengals, however, and see up close how the Thurman case was handled, I may never have noticed.

Sure, it's hard to get too worked-up when it's somebody else getting dumped on. Basically, you seem to be saying that people who don't root for the Bengals don't care how the policy is administered as long as it's not unfair to your team. I think that's a correct theory, being propegated, as it is, by basic human nature. Your Thurman example is also a good one -- most fans would probably assume it was for some specific offense based, if nothing else, on the harshness of the ruling. Not to mention the fact that Thurman probably doesn't appear to be much of a sympathetic figure to most people.

However, the "it can't happen to me" theory begins to break down if you start to get concerned that maybe Goodell will start looking in your direction and then your team will get whacked unfairly without any recourse. It may be just me, but I see a few hints of that already. Specifically, this Rucker decision seems to be something that could set a precendent that has the potential to haunt any team in the future. I mean, it's a pretty long stretch to make the NFL responsible for doling out punishment for things that happened before the individual is ever associated in any respect with the NFL. I think that decision seems basically unfair and difficult to justify for even the most casual fan. And I feel reasonably objective in that opinion because I really don't think that the presence or absence of Frostee Rucker wil make any difference in whether the Bengals can beat the Rats a week from Monday or not.

[HairOnFire]

For the record, I agree with the commishes new get tough policy in general...I just don't agree with the way he has actually carried it out (lack of required justification, apparent inconsistencies, etc.). If I didn't root for the Bengals, however, and see up close how the Thurman case was handled, I may never have noticed.

Well said. In fact, I'd have little problem accepting the get tough policy if it was applied evenly and fair. But that clearly isn't the case, and most suprisingly we now have fans like Hoosier actually claiming that the very the thing that makes Goodell's policies work is the unfairness.

Please.

[TJJackson]

Is this the point where I chime in in a sing-songy kinda way and say "Rucker got suspended....nana nana boo boo"?

Probably not.

Just a guess.

[HairOnFire]

However, the "it can't happen to me" theory begins to break down if you start to get concerned that maybe Goodell will start looking in your direction and then your team will get whacked unfairly without any recourse.

Which brings us back to the Michael Wilbon rant against Goodell. Yeah, I liked the way Wilbon mocked Roger "Bow your head" Goodell, and the remark about "Goodell Jail" brought a smile to my face. Frankly, I think it's about time the media started looking at Goodell's policies a little closer. However, I never once kidded myself about what prompted Wilbon's mocking reaction. He's a Bears fan, and Lance Briggs is a far more important asset on that team than Tank Johnson. And heaven forbid the Bears lose two players, right? So Wilbon quickly jumps to the defense of a player that he acknowledges did something remarkably stupid and incredibly dangerous to Joe or Jane Citizen.

And if Briggs lies to the police by reporting his car stolen OR left the scene to dispose of booze or drug related evidence, well....so what? It's not like he missed a drug test, or a meeting, or gave a drink to a teenage hooker in a hotel room.

[HoosierCat]

Well said. In fact, I'd have little problem accepting the get tough policy if it was applied evenly and fair. But that clearly isn't the case, and most suprisingly we now have fans like Hoosier actually claiming that the very the thing that makes Goodell's policies work is the unfairness.

Please.

But it did work, right? Hammering "unfairly" on the bengals did get Mikey to change his ways -- at least this year, right?

Mission accomplished.

[HairOnFire]

Well said. In fact, I'd have little problem accepting the get tough policy if it was applied evenly and fair. But that clearly isn't the case, and most suprisingly we now have fans like Hoosier actually claiming that the very the thing that makes Goodell's policies work is the unfairness.

Please.

But it did work, right? Hammering "unfairly" on the bengals did get Mikey to change his ways -- at least this year, right?

Mission accomplished.

Are you now going to argue that a fair system wouldn't work as well or better? (Please do. We could all use a laugh.)

BTW, Mike changed the way he drafted before Goodell suspended a Frostee Rucker who had stayed out of trouble. Brown also changed the way he drafted before Goodell casually ignored all of the drug and alcohol tests that Thurman passed, and all of the rehab meetings he attented. As for what he'll do in the future....you probably couldn't figure that out even if you read his plans. (Three times.)

[HoosierCat]

Are you now going to argue that a fair system wouldn't work as well or better? (Please do. We could all use a laugh.)

Well, what would this "fair" system look like? (Please, enlighten me. I'd love to hear how Commissioner GodOnFire would "fairly" justify suspending Briggs and letting Henry off the hook...)

BTW, Mike changed the way he drafted before Goodell suspended a Frostee Rucker who had stayed out of trouble. Brown also changed the way he drafted before Goodell casually ignored all of the drug and alcohol tests that Thurman passed, and all of the rehab meetings he attented.

No one said Mikey was a slow learner. Goody's just keeping the pressure on because he's as unconvinced as I am that the leopard has truly changed his spots.