NFL Commissioner Goodell Discussion

[larkis]

Re: New Uniforms/Logos for 2010

The game will adjust once he gets rid of the three point stance.
You'll see defences playing a 1-9-1 or something. A NT to prevent the inside rush and dangerous blitzes that will take out a rookie.

 

[MarcusP2]

Re: New Uniforms/Logos for 2010

Are you against banning spearing and facemasks too GG?

 

[Exe Gesis]

Re: New Uniforms/Logos for 2010

I'm about "within reason".
If you look at the two articles on PFT, one about the three point stance, and the other about reducing hitting, you'll see the vast majority of fans are just like me on this issue. It's a joke what Goodell is doing.
The key phrase/gist being----"going too far"

 

[Southerntakeover]

Re: Is Goodell ruining the NFL?

The vast majority of americans are ****ing stupid though.

They think the banning of KKK lynchings was 'too far'.

 

[11sjw]

Re: Is Goodell ruining the NFL?

They think the banning of KKK lynchings was 'too far'.

No they god damn well f8&king don't. That is absolute pure BS. A few idiots in the South maybe but the vast majority of Americans don't.

If you think the reverse is the case then I'm pretty sure we can work out where the stupid tag should apply.

OK I'll end the rant there.

For mine Goodell's biggest stand was on player discipline regarding off field issues. He hasn't tolerated anything and has handed out some decent suspensions.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Re: Is Goodell ruining the NFL?

Are you trying to set the record for most hysterical posts in one day or something?

Noone in their right mind would think that was a serious example. You can keep the 'stupid tag' for now.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Re: Is Goodell ruining the NFL?

Off-field stuff is fine by Goodell. But he's going too far on-field. The celebrating getting cut out was ok in the end. But the actual integrity of the game (physical brutality) is where it's going too far. For instance, three-point stance. How many downs a game, a season, across America in all levels of play, and yet how many concussions have actually happened between linemen?

But my objection goes across the gamut of the rules, PI, Qb hits, etc.

 

[11sjw]

Re: Is Goodell ruining the NFL?

Are you trying to set the record for most hysterical posts in one day or something?

Noone in their right mind would think that was a serious example. You can keep the 'stupid tag' for now.

See these little "things" ? Might pay to use one.

How can it be read as anything other than serious? Every other post in here that was 'serious' (well as serious as a post in a forum can be) looked exactly like yours. Makes it a tad difficult to distinguish unless the reader has a decent knowledge of you which I don't.

 

[swannies]

Re: New Uniforms for 2010

The problem nowadays is competitions and their governing bodies are BUSINESSES run by businessmen rather than sporting bodies run by sporting people. It is all corporatised which means they have greater responsibilities to outside organisations than they do to the organisations they're set up to govern - the teams.

Further, there are immense similarities between the NFL and AFL when it comes to the threat of soccer and the "mum rule" where mums dont want their kids playing rough and tumble sports like US and Aussie Football.

You're close Nappies, but I reckon the problem is it's run by the politically correct groups.

Take AFL, for example, my beloved WAFL team Swan Districts pumps something like $30K, I think, into womens football. Now, I am nowhere near sexist but I say, what the hell are we spending this money on a group of people who are never going to play at the top level. Use it to develop players who are going to play the game. Maybe that's why the rules are being softened, so they can play?

 

[Woodson]

Re: New Uniforms for 2010

You're close Nappies, but I reckon the problem is it's run by the politically correct groups.

Take AFL, for example, my beloved WAFL team Swan Districts pumps something like $30K, I think, into womens football. Now, I am nowhere near sexist but I say, what the hell are we spending this money on a group of people who are never going to play at the top level. Use it to develop players who are going to play the game. Maybe that's why the rules are being softened, so they can play?

Very interesting comment that Swannies. The way the AFL has dramatically changed in the past 10 years...looking over that period per se, the game is all about politics now... interpretations and communication levels have fallen thru the floor (for the outside looking in). Can't enjoy it anymore and you'd have to say that females will indeed one day get to a level of competing... the AFL state that 50% of the audience is female...so putting $$$ into their group isn't surprising at all. Funnily enough... being bought up on a physical brand of footy, I had a crack at one of my own players a few years ago for his 'ultra softness' and a female supporter snapped back.. to defend him.. I think the offending word was 'skirt' but what do I know.. I never played the game at the softest level.

 

[swannies]

Re: New Uniforms for 2010

Very interesting comment that Swannies. The way the AFL has dramatically changed in the past 10 years...looking over that period per se, the game is all about politics now... interpretations and communication levels have fallen thru the floor (for the outside looking in). Can't enjoy it anymore and you'd have to say that females will indeed one day get to a level of competing... the AFL state that 50% of the audience is female...so putting $$$ into their group isn't surprising at all. Funnily enough... being bought up on a physical brand of footy, I had a crack at one of my own players a few years ago for his 'ultra softness' and a female supporter snapped back.. to defend him.. I think the offending word was 'skirt' but what do I know.. I never played the game at the softest level.

The thing I find most amusing Woodson, is it's the guys from the "tough" era that are bringing in all the rule changes. Now, I agree with a lot of the direction of the rule changes, just not how far. We can't have guys being king hit and standing toe to toe, but this melee crap, the crowd loves it and, excepting Sumich being blacked out by Southern, when has a melee posed a danger?

I have faith it will turn again though Woodson, but it's a little disturbing that soccer is more severe contact than footy.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Re: Is Goodell ruining the NFL?

See these little "things" ? Might pay to use one.

How can it be read as anything other than serious? Every other post in here that was 'serious' (well as serious as a post in a forum can be) looked exactly like yours. Makes it a tad difficult to distinguish unless the reader has a decent knowledge of you which I don't.

So you're unable to think without a emoticon. Ill keep that in mind in future.

I wonder how people possibly ever understood the meaning of text before they existed?

 

[Woodson]

Re: Is Goodell ruining the NFL?

Off-field stuff is fine by Goodell. But he's going too far on-field. The celebrating getting cut out was ok in the end. But the actual integrity of the game (physical brutality) is where it's going too far. For instance, three-point stance. How many downs a game, a season, across America in all levels of play, and yet how many concussions have actually happened between linemen?

But my objection goes across the gamut of the rules, PI, Qb hits, etc.

So you think Goodell controls the 'quality' of the calls? funny man GG. QB's, I noticed getting knocked over after they released the ball with NO penalty called in the latter part of the 2009 campaign which is how it should be. But I do think some officials are overzealous with their half-arsed guesses that are not there. Having officiated the game on a lower league level, I can't understand how they can throw a flag '8 seconds' after the incident occurs and it ends up being a ticky-touch foul. Whether it's a directive from Roger Goodell, I don't know but you've really flip-flopped abit about the subject. (see thread title) Still a physical slog regardless what you believe GG. Maybe the Raiders LB's aren't playing hard enough for you.

 

[11sjw]

Re: Is Goodell ruining the NFL?

So you're unable to think without a emoticon. Ill keep that in mind in future.

Good, I'll remember to factor in your limited internet skills.

I wonder how people possibly ever understood the meaning of text before they existed?

Written/printed word vs posting in a live forum...yeah I can't see the difference either.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Re: Is Goodell ruining the NFL?

So you think Goodell controls the 'quality' of the calls?

Whether it's a directive from Roger Goodell, I don't know

I'm shocked a guy with your football knowledge isn't aware that a Commissioner controls the quality and that everything is a directive from him.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Re: Is Goodell ruining the NFL?

Written/printed word vs posting in a live forum...yeah I can't see the difference either.

You just gonna keep repeating 'its a forum'?


You keep pretending that explains your stupidity.

 

[MarcusP2]

Re: Is Goodell ruining the NFL?

Off-field stuff is fine by Goodell. But he's going too far on-field. The celebrating getting cut out was ok in the end. But the actual integrity of the game (physical brutality) is where it's going too far. For instance, three-point stance. How many downs a game, a season, across America in all levels of play, and yet how many concussions have actually happened between linemen?

But my objection goes across the gamut of the rules, PI, Qb hits, etc.

Head injuries don't rely on concussions...Linemen get the equivalent of a car crash every time they play a down.

That said the 3 point stance isn't going anywhere.

 

[Galactic]

Re: Is Goodell ruining the NFL?

GG its always the same song with you, I guess you just try create a talking point for the sake of it, but its always with an underlying agenda to it..The same old song over and over. The QB rule was brought in to protect the QB from cheap shots. I know you cant except it, but the NFL is now a business. This business requires an audience to make money in order to make a profit and that audience and therefore profit comes from guess what? The play makers.. and guess why the hell a business would want to protect it's source of revenue. To survive. The NFL and its audience are not interested in the Jamarcus Russell's of the world, they are interested in the guys who make a franchise a success ie: Tom Brady . Why wouldn't the NFL want to protect the Number one guys one the rosters? Why wouldn't Goodell want the same?Without rules such as this, we have a bunch of guy's who are making 30 mil a year sitting on the bench, the audience would be absolutely on the edge of their seats and the franchise would be going broke along with the rest of NFL.

How much are the raiders paying JM again? How many SB's has he won? How many playoff games? How's the state of your franchise?

The Raiders have the dubious distinction of moving the Minnesota Vikings out of the 32nd ranked franchise in terms of valuation, a position the Vikings had held since 2005

http://www.bizoffootball.com/index....tions&catid=44:articles-and-opinion&Itemid=61
2009 Forbes NFL Franchise Valuations


Rank Team Current Value ($mil) 1-Yr Value Change (%) Debt/Value (%) Revenue ($mil) Operating Income ($mil) 1 Dallas Cowboys 1,650 2 12 280 9.2 2 Washington Redskins 1,550 1 15 345 90.3 3 New England Patriots 1,361 3 21 302 70.9 4 New York Giants 1,183 0 55 230 26.1 5 New York Jets 1,170 0 64 227 24.3 6 Houston Texans 1,150 2 26 256 41.5 7 Philadelphia Eagles 1,123 1 16 250 48.8 8 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 1,085 3 13 241 68.9 9 Chicago Bears 1,082 2 9 241 41.6 10 Denver Broncos 1,081 2 14 240 39.9 11 Baltimore Ravens 1,079 2 25 240 44.3 12 Carolina Panthers 1,049 1 18 238 22.9 13 Cleveland Browns 1,032 0 15 235 20.2 14 Kansas City Chiefs 1,027 1 13 228 52.4 15 Indianapolis Colts 1,025 -5 4 233 55.9 16 Pittsburgh Steelers 1,020 1 25 235 17.8 17 Green Bay Packers 1,019 0 2 232 20.1 18 Miami Dolphins 1,015 -3 39 242 26.6 19 Tennessee Titans 1,000 1 13 232 24.4 20 Seattle Seahawks 994 -2 12 231 -2.4 21 Cincinnati Bengals 953 1 10 222 34.9 22 New Orleans Saints 942 0 13 232 30.7 23 Arizona Cardinals 935 2 16 223 23.9 24 San Diego Chargers 917 3 14 224 41.6 25 St Louis Rams 913 -2 7 217 22.3 26 Buffalo Bills 909 3 14 222 39.5 27 San Francisco 49ers 875 1 14 214 20.8 28 Detroit Lions 872 -5 40 208 18.5 29 Jacksonville Jaguars 866 -1 14 217 26.9 30 Atlanta Falcons 856 -2 32 214 28.2 31 Minnesota Vikings 835 0 38 209 8.2 32 Oakland Raiders 797 -7 7 215 -5.7

 

[Exe Gesis]

Re: Is Goodell ruining the NFL?

What you forget is that football has a 90 year history of toughness/violence that the overwhelming majority of fans love and enjoy. When you start tampering with that, when you start turning it into touch-football, you will see a downward spiral of fandom and profit. Especially in America where football has always been embraced for its violence and over there people arent like over here who put up with things.

Even here with all the softening of AFL and butchering of rules, fans here are becoming less and less interested.

 

[Nappies]

Re: New Uniforms for 2010

You're close Nappies, but I reckon the problem is it's run by the politically correct groups.

Take AFL, for example, my beloved WAFL team Swan Districts pumps something like $30K, I think, into womens football. Now, I am nowhere near sexist but I say, what the hell are we spending this money on a group of people who are never going to play at the top level. Use it to develop players who are going to play the game. Maybe that's why the rules are being softened, so they can play?

Perhaps. Perhaps. I can give you a first hand example over here in Canada where the league is established but still fledgling in a lot of areas. One of the teams has invested heavily in a women's team despite the fact there is no other team for them to play against within our province. So, rather than putting the money into the development of the game (the mens game) it has gone to putting a womens team on the park, but they need to get to Vancouver or the northern USA to actually get on the park.

All the talk on here about violence is pretty much on the money, a lot of sports are based on violent acts and you're always taught that is part and parcel of the game. Not anymore I suppose. Again, I stress, the softening of the rules in most games worldwide stinks of business rather than sport. It's brand imagine and the influence of Mum's on what their children play. What a male sees as "part of the game" and "an unfortunate injury" a mother sees as "unnecessary roughness" and the asks "what if that were my son?".

Touching on the melee rule, I always found it AMAZING that the AFL divvied up their Rivalry Round games almost purely based on fights that had occurred between the two clubs. Hawthorn always seemed to play Essendon because of things like Dermie running through the huddle, the 80s fights almost every time they played, the Line in the Sand game etc. etc. So, you cant have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Re: New Uniforms for 2010

The hypocrisy abounds, indeed, Nappies.
That's a good example, rivalry round, plus you always get advertising and promos that showcase big hits and emphasize the toughness of the past.....but the product now watered down. They even try to project a tough image of football 'today' (eg, that AFL ad last year with Jonathan Brown etc) but when you see the actual game it's a whistle-fest of softness. Sport itself now false advertising.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Re: New Uniforms for 2010

Funnily enough, on 7-TWO they're playing Hawthorn-Essendon 80's grand finals/fights.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Re: New Uniforms for 2010

Btw, there were always mothers and mothers worrying about and hating their sons playing football for the last 90 years around the world. I don't think it's mothers nowadays but the increasing corporatization of sport. Not to mention society in general has gotten softer and softer over the years. People were hard as nails thru the 20's-50's because the world went thru so many hardcore things like the Great Depression and world wars. But these days people are metros and soft, and political correctness has gone overboard.

 

[Woodson]

Re: Is Goodell ruining the NFL?

I'm shocked a guy with your football knowledge isn't aware that a Commissioner controls the quality and that everything is a directive from him.

Explain the debacle > Polamalu touchdown < of the lateral passing by the Chargers in the 2008 season when the score was 11-10, that play was legit and they initially signalled a TD but the referee thought different on it without wanting to consult his peers and stripped the score away. Steelers won anyway but the point is that it was actually a TD and the NFL 'fessed a few days later up that they GOT it WRONG!! That isn't something Goodell had anything to do with 'regards the bad call quality'. Otherwise INCOMPETENCE is starring him in the face. Still think he should be able to have that score re-instated.

[YOUTUBE]cVtlJgt_8FY&hl[/YOUTUBE]

Reason why the Steelers scored low wasn't due to the Chargers D or the snow flake conditions but rather the penalties the Steelers got against them. Should of wiped the floor with the Chargers, that's how dominate the Steelers were. Still can't understand how or why they called/ saw this play with a second forward pass?? and even if it was, the Steelers could always
DECLINE the penalty anyway. Downright stupid. Hope the referee was suspended. No excuses from such a boneheaded call. Why didn't Goodell step in GG??

 

[Woodson]

Re: New Uniforms for 2010

Btw, there were always mothers and mothers worrying about and hating their sons playing football for the last 90 years around the world. I don't think it's mothers nowadays but the increasing corporatization of sport. Not to mention society in general has gotten softer and softer over the years. People were hard as nails thru the 20's-50's because the world went thru so many hardcore things like the Great Depression and world wars. But these days people are metros and soft, and political correctness has gone overboard.

Agree wholeheartedly GG. That's why CYE is a MUST watch program/ entertainment.. takes the political adjustments of today and flushes 'em down the toliet. And you get to laugh at everything and still cheer on the underdog. Go Larry!! CYE >> NFL >>> light years >>> AFL.