Broncos get Sanchez from Philly

[O_P_T]

Some of the players you're using in your comparison were suspended for off-field, non-football related infractions, and the league's rights and responsibilities are under a lot of scrutiny, for being too harsh and too lenient depending on who you ask. Players like Hardy, Peterson, and Rice, for example, undoubtedly committed crimes. The only question brought to court is if the NFL has the authority to punish them. Situations like this aren't comparable to infractions that are part of or affect the play of the game.

With regards to those that are comparable, PEDs, personal fouls, etc., most of them appeal their punishment to the league and then abide by whatever that decision is, rather than going to court. I actually still get irritated when players from any team appeal a punishment that is obviously warranted, even if it's just to the league. I am not familiar with all of the cases above, but I can use the ones I know as examples.

Talib should have accepted his punishment for the eye poke without appeal. He did it, he knows he did it, we all know he did it, it was on video. An appeal in that situation is unwarranted. Von appealing his 4 game suspension was another unwarranted appeal, and it cost him an additional 2 games. While it was frustrating losing a player of his caliber for 6 games, he was wrong twice and deserved what he got. Although, I laugh at people who try to call it a PED violation when his chosen vice is weed, which is about as far from a performance enhancer you can get.

So yes, I believe any player from any team when caught doing something wrong should take their punishment and not try to weasel out. It's one thing to appeal a suspension on a late or forceful hit that you believe is borderline. It's quite another to choke up the disciplinary process with challenges to discipline that is unquestionably warranted.

OK, you clearly missed the key part of my post.

Namely the following.

Does that mean that if any NFL player appeals a suspension, their team is acting just like you think the Patriots are?​

All your posts prior to this have been about the team, not the players.

So tell me oh wise one, just how are the Patriots, as a team, responsible for one of their players appealing league discipline?

Also, please explain why all these other teams aren't "hated". After all you said this.

Nobody hates the Patriots because "we ain't you". They're hated because where other teams take accountability and accept punishment for wrong doing, the Patriots do the crime, then try to weasel out of the time, and pretend they did nothing wrong when it's obvious to everyone that they did.​

So how come these other teams aren't "hated" for having players appeal suspensions?

Oh and with regards to taking this to court, you do realize that the NFL filed in NY first, right?

At some point over the past few weeks, I considered the possibility that the courtroom portion of the Tom Brady saga could be initiated not by the NFL Players Association but by the NFL. I made a mental note of it, vowed to write about that possibility, and then forgot to do it.

The reminder came today, via the report from Scott Soshnick of Bloomberg that the NFL has filed a pre-emptive lawsuit in federal court in Manhattan, seeking affirmation of the outcome of the Brady appeal.

You do realize after Berman's ruling, it was the NFL that appealed, right?

The NFL officially filed its appeal of Judge Richard M. Berman's decision in federal court on Sept. 3 that vacated New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady's four-game suspension

So tell me, just who is responsible for this thing being in the courts in the first place and then keeping it there?

So applying your logic, since Berman was quite definitive in his ruling that the suspension was "unquestionably" unwarranted, then it's the NFL who's the weasel, right?

Oh and with regard to this comment.

It's one thing to appeal a suspension on a late or forceful hit that you believe is borderline. It's quite another to choke up the disciplinary process with challenges to discipline that is unquestionably warranted​

Just how do you claim that TFB+'s four game suspension is "unquestionably warranted"?

On what basis do you claim that it is "unquestionable" that anyone removed air from the footballs and it wasn't simply due to the environment?

On what basis do you claim that the destruction of a phone that the Well's commission told TFB+ they didn't need, that had all the same texts that they already had from the other phones, provides "unquestio0nable" evidence of anything?

So please, enlighten us just how it is that a 4 game suspension is "unquestionably warranted".

 

[Beaglebay]

You left this part unbolded.


Thanks for bolding the part where the NFL labor VP specifies that this was for cash flow alleviation and not an issue of squeezing extra players in under the cap.

Second sanctions is not the same as separate infractions. The issues for which they were punished all happened between 1996-1998. There was a round of fines in 2001, then further investigation resulted in a second set of fines in 2004. People in this thread have implied the Broncos committed an infraction, then repeated it after being fined. That's just not the case

They alleviated the cash flow problem by eliminating/reducing some cap money in the noted seasons.


They were sanctioned again for "similar" infractions. There must have been more than one to make a comparison, no?

 

[patfan64]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28969-2004Sep17.html

Broncos Penalized Again for Salary Cap Violations

By Mark Maske
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 17, 2004; 5:37 PM

Bowlen said in a written statement released Thursday by the Broncos that the club gained no competitive advantage from these cap violations.

"The non-disclosures brought to my attention by the National Football League took place in the mid-1990s," Bowlen said. "We cooperated with the NFL throughout their examination of the situation. While I regret that the circumstances took place, it is important to note that there was no competitive advantage gained by our organization, nor was there any involvement or responsibility by anyone who is currently with the Broncos in any capacity.

Harold Henderson, the chairman of the Management Council and the NFL's executive vice president of labor relations, confirmed in a written statement released by the league that "the individuals responsible for the violations are no longer with the team" and that the Broncos "have been cooperative throughout the investigation." Henderson did not directly address the issue of whether the club gained a competitive advantage but said the Broncos circumvented the cap to help pay for costs related to the construction of Invesco Field at Mile High.

Yeah, the employees that did what Bowlen told them to do have been fired.

And because Bowlen says there was no competitive advantage, the rest of the NFL is supposed to believe him? There was a HUGE competitive advantage. They weren't playing under the same salary cap restrictions that everyone else had to play under.

I can't even believe that people think this was OK.

 

[deec77]

Yeah, the employees that did what Bowlen told them to do have been fired.

And because Bowlen says there was no competitive advantage, the rest of the NFL is supposed to believe him? There was a HUGE competitive advantage. They weren't playing under the same salary cap restrictions that everyone else had to play under.

I can't even believe that people think this was OK.

Actually he retired and now is Executive Vice President of Football Operations/General Manager

~Dee~

 

[O.Z.O.]

OK, you clearly missed the key part of my post.

Namely the following.

Does that mean that if any NFL player appeals a suspension, their team is acting just like you think the Patriots are?​

All your posts prior to this have been about the team, not the players.

So tell me oh wise one, just how are the Patriots, as a team, responsible for one of their players appealing league discipline?

Also, please explain why all these other teams aren't "hated". After all you said this.

Nobody hates the Patriots because "we ain't you". They're hated because where other teams take accountability and accept punishment for wrong doing, the Patriots do the crime, then try to weasel out of the time, and pretend they did nothing wrong when it's obvious to everyone that they did.​

So how come these other teams aren't "hated" for having players appeal suspensions?

Oh and with regards to taking this to court, you do realize that the NFL filed in NY first, right?



You do realize after Berman's ruling, it was the NFL that appealed, right?



So tell me, just who is responsible for this thing being in the courts in the first place and then keeping it there?

So applying your logic, since Berman was quite definitive in his ruling that the suspension was "unquestionably" unwarranted, then it's the NFL who's the weasel, right?

Oh and with regard to this comment.

It's one thing to appeal a suspension on a late or forceful hit that you believe is borderline. It's quite another to choke up the disciplinary process with challenges to discipline that is unquestionably warranted​

Just how do you claim that TFB+'s four game suspension is "unquestionably warranted"?

On what basis do you claim that it is "unquestionable" that anyone removed air from the footballs and it wasn't simply due to the environment?

On what basis do you claim that the destruction of a phone that the Well's commission told TFB+ they didn't need, that had all the same texts that they already had from the other phones, provides "unquestio0nable" evidence of anything?

So please, enlighten us just how it is that a 4 game suspension is "unquestionably warranted".

you really aren't expecting a logical answer to any of this are you?

 

[Big/Sky/Fly]

How are the hot dogs at Sports Authority Field?

 

[305patriotfan]

I knew you guys would be all over this. So how many games will the butt fumble help us get HFA this time around? One two or six?

 

[TheBSPolice]

OK, you clearly missed the key part of my post.

Namely the following.

Does that mean that if any NFL player appeals a suspension, their team is acting just like you think the Patriots are?​

All your posts prior to this have been about the team, not the players.

So tell me oh wise one, just how are the Patriots, as a team, responsible for one of their players appealing league discipline?

I didn't miss it, I ignored it because it was overly pedantic about the team as an organization vs. the team as a group of people who all individually represent the franchise. The Patriots are a single entity, but Tom Brady, Bill Belichick, and Robert Kraft also represent the Patriots.

Oh and with regards to taking this to court, you do realize that the NFL filed in NY first, right?

You do realize what "pre-emptive" means? The NFLPA was definitely going to court, so the NFL filed the counter-suit first to try to put the case in NY. It doesn't mean that Brady didn't drag this into court.

As for the rest of it, that's for another thread, and besides, I'm pretty certain that even if there was video of the whole thing being done, most here would find a reason to deny it. I don't really see the point of getting into it again.

They alleviated the cash flow problem by eliminating/reducing some cap money in the noted seasons.

Reducing cap money doesn't free up cash, it frees up cap space. Freeing up cash was done by not paying people what was already on the books until later. John didn't receive any money that the NFL wasn't aware of and that wasn't accounted for in his contract. He received it later than was allowed by the league rules. That's why the NFL exec speaking about this in the article is a VP of labor relations. The violation was against the players not against the other teams.

Yeah, the employees that did what Bowlen told them to do have been fired.

And because Bowlen says there was no competitive advantage, the rest of the NFL is supposed to believe him? There was a HUGE competitive advantage. They weren't playing under the same salary cap restrictions that everyone else had to play under.

I can't even believe that people think this was OK.

Again, it's not like they got 120 million dollars worth of players inside a 100 million dollar cap. All of the contracts were paid what they were reported. They were paid later than allowed. Essentially the team borrowed money from the players, which is a violation of the rules.

 

[O_P_T]

you really aren't expecting a logical answer to any of this are you?

Well in the strictest definition of the term, it is possible that there is a logical answer.

By that I mean that a system of logic is defined as being internally self consistent.

Is there such a system of logic that would allow such an answer?

Of course, the easiest one has two basic rules.

1) If the Patriots do it, "Oh the Humanity"

2) If anyone else does it, "no Big Whoop"

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine if this is the same system of logic that is in general usage.

 

[O_P_T]

I didn't miss it, I ignored it because it was overly pedantic about the team as an organization vs. the team as a group of people who all individually represent the franchise. The Patriots are a single entity, but Tom Brady, Bill Belichick, and Robert Kraft also represent the Patriots.

So then, your position is that the Denver Broncos "weasel" out of punishment because some of their players have appealed suspensions.

As such they are no different in this regard than the Patriots.

Yes?

You do realize what "pre-emptive" means?

Yes, it means acting first.

The NFLPA was definitely going to court, so the NFL filed the counter-suit first to try to put the case in NY. It doesn't mean that Brady didn't drag this into court.

Right, and I'm sure the NFL appealing Berman's ruling was just another "pre-emptive" move because TFB+ was going to appeal his victory, right?

As for the rest of it, that's for another thread, and besides, I'm pretty certain that even if there was video of the whole thing being done, most here would find a reason to deny it. I don't really see the point of getting into it again.

So that's a no then.

You can't show how the suspension is "unquestionably warranted", we just have to take it on your word that it is.

Got it.

 

[AkPatsFan]

I didn't miss it, I ignored it because it was overly pedantic about the team as an organization vs. the team as a group of people who all individually represent the franchise. The Patriots are a single entity, but Tom Brady, Bill Belichick, and Robert Kraft also represent the Patriots.


You do realize what "pre-emptive" means? The NFLPA was definitely going to court, so the NFL filed the counter-suit first to try to put the case in NY. It doesn't mean that Brady didn't drag this into court.

As for the rest of it, that's for another thread, and besides, I'm pretty certain that even if there was video of the whole thing being done, most here would find a reason to deny it. I don't really see the point of getting into it again.



Reducing cap money doesn't free up cash, it frees up cap space. Freeing up cash was done by not paying people what was already on the books until later. John didn't receive any money that the NFL wasn't aware of and that wasn't accounted for in his contract. He received it later than was allowed by the league rules. That's why the NFL exec speaking about this in the article is a VP of labor relations. The violation was against the players not against the other teams.


Again, it's not like they got 120 million dollars worth of players inside a 100 million dollar cap. All of the contracts were paid what they were reported. They were paid later than allowed. Essentially the team borrowed money from the players, which is a violation of the rules.

Now see, that's where you're wrong on this, if they had video proof of them tampering with the footballs air pressure, that would change everything and this whole thing would have been settled a year ago.

But there is no proof of tampering with the air in those footballs, you know it, I know it and the whole NFL world knows it. "More probable than not" is not proof of anything and the NFL did not prove their case against TB.

 

[king of kings]

So this turned from laughing at denver for trading for butt fumble. Too another pats cheated thread .

 

[PatsFanLisa]

I didn't miss it, I ignored it because it was overly pedantic about the team as an organization vs. the team as a group of people who all individually represent the franchise. The Patriots are a single entity, but Tom Brady, Bill Belichick, and Robert Kraft also represent the Patriots.


You do realize what "pre-emptive" means? The NFLPA was definitely going to court, so the NFL filed the counter-suit first to try to put the case in NY. It doesn't mean that Brady didn't drag this into court.

As for the rest of it, that's for another thread, and besides, I'm pretty certain that even if there was video of the whole thing being done, most here would find a reason to deny it. I don't really see the point of getting into it again.



Reducing cap money doesn't free up cash, it frees up cap space. Freeing up cash was done by not paying people what was already on the books until later. John didn't receive any money that the NFL wasn't aware of and that wasn't accounted for in his contract. He received it later than was allowed by the league rules. That's why the NFL exec speaking about this in the article is a VP of labor relations. The violation was against the players not against the other teams.


Again, it's not like they got 120 million dollars worth of players inside a 100 million dollar cap. All of the contracts were paid what they were reported. They were paid later than allowed. Essentially the team borrowed money from the players, which is a violation of the rules.

This a$$hole is still here making excuses for his lying, cheating franchise while still bashing our team?

How novel.

 

[O_P_T]

So this turned from laughing at denver for trading for butt fumble. Too another pats cheated thread .

Well how else would we send a message to the Jets?

 

[king of kings]

Well how else would we send a message to the Jets?

I thought he was here to talk football. Not keep bringing up the pats cheated debate.

 

[TheBSPolice]

I thought he was here to talk football. Not keep bringing up the pats cheated debate.

I was talking about football when some of you started spouting nonsense about 20 year old infractions and not even getting the details right. It spiraled a bit out of control, and I have twice tried to bail out of the debate to get back to football, but some of the membership here won't let it go, and of course, I'm the one getting blamed for it.

In case you forgot...

As for the rest of it, that's for another thread

 

[deec77]

I was talking about football when some of you started spouting nonsense about 20 year old infractions and not even getting the details right. It spiraled a bit out of control, and I have twice tried to bail out of the debate to get back to football, but some of the membership here won't let it go, and of course, I'm the one getting blamed for it.

In case you forgot...

means sarcasm a form of irony. It was a joke Denver put all their eggs in a basket as they did with Elway. Although they had an accounting mishap that later was discovered to be more then a mishap concerning Elway. Both times they won. Now they (under Elway) have cap issues because they put all their eggs in one basket.

~Dee~

 

[patfan64]

Again, it's not like they got 120 million dollars worth of players inside a 100 million dollar cap. All of the contracts were paid what they were reported. They were paid later than allowed. Essentially the team borrowed money from the players, which is a violation of the rules.

Thereby giving them a competitive advantage.

 

[TheBSPolice]

Thereby giving them a competitive advantage.

So the Broncos paid exactly the same as everyone else in the league for their roster, but because they cut some of the checks later they got a competitive advantage? You're messing with me right now aren't you? And I'm falling for it by taking you seriously? Is that what's happening?

 

[deec77]

So the Broncos paid exactly the same as everyone else in the league for their roster, but because they cut some of the checks later they got a competitive advantage? You're messing with me right now aren't you? And I'm falling for it by taking you seriously? Is that what's happening?

Because they cut them later they weren't counted against the cap when they should have ( circumventing the cap) for those years, ya know those Super Bowl years. So sure they paid the same except they promised those players more that never was counted toward the cap. This isn't brain surgery

~Dee~