Is there a bigger hypocrite/phony than Dungy?

[DarrylStingley]

Please explain the NFL dropping the largest fine in history on him then.

Not the media, not Tony Dungy.

The NFL.

What Alcy said.

An overreaction, in part fueled by the media and the likes of Dungy.

BB's actions were so in your face that the NFL had to react. That's part of the damnable hubris. It does not mean that BB's crime was actually terrible. The defiance put the NFL in a tough spot.

Is your premise that everything Goodell does is perfect?

 

[Alcoholic9*]

I see your point, but look at the people Goddell brought the hammer down on prior to Bill.

It's not exactly a group you want to be a member of. So I don't think it's fair to completely write the seriousness of the punishment off to a power trip.

I wouldn't doubt that had something to do with it, but at the same time it doesn't makes sense to come down that hard unless there was something of semi-significance on those tapes.

With the memo that came out and Belichick blatantly defying it the commish's authority was in question. He had to send a message, not just to the Pats, but to every team in the league.

 

[Jaric]

Is your premise that everything Goodell does is perfect?

No.

My premise is that one of the only people to actually know what took place, instead of making assumptions like we are, made the decision that he saw enough to levy the fine he did.

Is it not at least in the realm of possibility that Goddell DID in fact see something other than arrogance that warrented the fine he gave?

 

[tehrick67]

Noboy messe's with Tony Scali

 

[tehmackdaddy]

With the memo that came out and Belichick blatantly defying it the commish's authority was in question. He had to send a message, not just to the Pats, but to every team in the league.

Right, violating a rule and defying the Commissioner was a BIG deal. Glad we agree.

 

[Alcoholic9*]

No.

My premise is that one of the only people to actually know what took place, instead of making assumptions like we are, made the decision that he saw enough to levy the fine he did.

Is it not at least in the realm of possibility that Goddell DID in fact see something other than arrogance that warrented the fine he gave?

I'm not exactly sure the punishment was all that bad either.

Let's look at a few things that were left on the table first.

Suspend Belichick - nope
Forfeit game - nope
Dock us an entire draft or whatever - nope

Now look at the punishment we did get.

Loss of a 1st round (2nd and 3rd if we don't make playoffs) draft pick - okay that does hurt but Goodell knew we had 2 anyway so really not as bad as it could've been and he was even willing to let us keep it if we sucked for some reason this year.

$250k fine to the team - Kraft probably spends that much on booze each year.

$500k fine to Belichick - now Goodell must have known Belichick would never end up paying this out of his own pocket. What was it the next day that Belichick go a contract extension? Would you be willing to bet that his extension offer was $500k higher than it normally would've been?

Looking at it objectively it's not much more than a slap on the wrist. Sure you can throw out the "largest fine in history," and the draft pick does hurt, but nobody is losing any sleep over it.

 

[DarrylStingley]

No.

My premise is that one of the only people to actually know what took place, instead of making assumptions like we are, made the decision that he saw enough to levy the fine he did.

Is it not at least in the realm of possibility that Goddell DID in fact see something other than arrogance that warrented the fine he gave?

First, Alcy makes good points about the fine not really being all that bad. I was a bit worried about a forfeit or, more likely, BB getting suspended for a few games. I don't care about the money as a fan. So he took away a first rounder. Harsh, but the Pats already had another one and Goodell knew that, so it wasn't that huge a penalty and it could have been worse.

Second, of course it's possible. There could have been a smoking gun. There could have been kiddie porn, too. My point is that asking whether it's possible doesn't tell you much because everything is possible, practically.

The reality, I think, is that the fact that Goodell fined BB as he did doesn't tell you or anybody else that what BB did was that big a deal. Putting aside some horrible evidence that neither of knows about, if it was just what we do know about, I think that BB got caught in a perfect storm in which Goodell had to act harshly for PR reasons.

 

[DarrylStingley]

And that I have more objective facts to support my opinions. Such as: what was the fine for Dungy not calling a timeout at the end of the Colts/Titans game?

It's too bad you can't see reality, though, as even some Patriots fans have no problem with Dungy's comments. Which would lead one to believe that you just have an issue with Dungy, and anything or everything he does or says is wrong and you'll find something to complain about. Since this is a free country and a message board, that's fine...but it doesn't mean it represents a rational thought process.

So the fact that some Pats fans disagree means that I am not rational?

That's some scary logic, soldier.

I don't like Dungy. But he is a fine coach. He apparently doesn't phuck sheep.

But he made some jackass comments and they piss me off. That doesn't prove any of your points above about me not being rational.

 

[tehmackdaddy]

Originally posted by DarrylStingley on 01-08-2008 at 04:50 PM
I don't like Dungy. But he is a fine coach. He apparently doesn't phuck sheep.

But he made some jackass comments and they piss me off. That doesn't prove any of your points above about me not being rational.

That's the very definition of irrational thinking. You aren't using reason, you're using your hatred of Dungy to judge an event.

 

[Jaric]

The reality, I think, is that the fact that Goodell fined BB as he did doesn't tell you or anybody else that what BB did was that big a deal. Putting aside some horrible evidence that neither of knows about, if it was just what we do know about, I think that BB got caught in a perfect storm in which Goodell had to act harshly for PR reasons.

Really?

You don't think the amount of the fine levied has anything to do with the seriousness of the offense?

Because that pretty much flies in the face of normal logic.

That fact that the Pats were able to afford the fine and punishment is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the fine and punishment are far and away higher than "normal" fines the league levies.

And while I don't doubt the manner in which BB conducted himself (The hubris as you call it) played some role in that, you don't drop the hammer down that hard simply because BB may come off rude at times, or because he was arrogant about the whole situation.

Basically that may explain some of it, but you don't lose half a million dollars for being rude.

 

[DarrylStingley]

Really?

You don't think the amount of the fine levied has anything to do with the seriousness of the offense?

Because that pretty much flies in the face of normal logic.

That fact that the Pats were able to afford the fine and punishment is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the fine and punishment are far and away higher than "normal" fines the league levies.

And while I don't doubt the manner in which BB conducted himself (The hubris as you call it) played some role in that, you don't drop the hammer down that hard simply because BB may come off rude at times, or because he was arrogant about the whole situation.

Basically that may explain some of it, but you don't lose half a million dollars for being rude.

You really don't understand that a multiplicity of factors go into a fine?

Goodell was balancing the seriousness of the offense, the public reaction, the need to establish himself as the authority in the first year in the job and many other things that I'm not thinking about.

There were plenty of factors at play here.

And even if it was all about the seriousness of the offense, the public reaction and comments like those made by your man Dungy likely shaped Goodell's mindset, at least in part. I'm not saying that he's a jelly-fish but I am saying that everyone is subject to being influenced by external factors.

It wasn't rudeness that got him the fine. It was blowing off a league memo and brazenly violating the rule -- at least as to the hubris element. BB left Goodell little choice because he broke a rule after being reminded of that very rule in a memo.

This isn't complicated.

 

[Jaric]

It wasn't rudeness that got him the fine. It was blowing off a league memo and brazenly violating the rule -- at least as to the hubris element. BB left Goodell little choice because he broke a rule after being reminded of that very rule in a memo.

This isn't complicated.

And you don't consider that serious?

 

[DarrylStingley]

And you don't consider that serious?

No, I consider it mostly arrogant and brazen to ignore an NFL directive.

But the underlying conduct -- taping from the sideline when taping from the stands is legal -- is not something that I think was a big deal.

Thumbing your nose at the principal is not serious, it's arrogant.

 

[tehmackdaddy]

But the underlying conduct -- taping from the sideline when taping from the stands is legal --

Taping defensive signals from the stands isn't legal either.

 

[tehmackdaddy]

And this doesn't sound serious at all:

"This episode represents a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid long-standing rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field," Goodell said in a letter to the Patriots.

 

[DarrylStingley]

Taping defensive signals from the stands isn't legal either.

I'm not sure that is right.

 

[tehmackdaddy]

I'm not sure that is right.

I am.

 

[DarrylStingley]

And this doesn't sound serious at all:

So we're drawing conclusions from press releases?

Face it. Belichick did wrong. No one here debates that.

People debate if the rules violation was really a big deal.

You differ with me, Jimmy Johnson, Bill Parcells and Howie Long and you agree with Goodell and Dungy and others.

Is that really a reason to post pictures of eyes rolling and otherwise pretend that your opinion is manifestly correct because, after all, you are expressing it?

 

[DarrylStingley]

I am.

Well I feel better now.

Care to show that to be true?

And even if you are right, which I doubt, I still can't quite understand why it's such a big deal to video signals when you are allowed to watch them with a naked eye, use binoculars, use a telephoto lens and take copious notes.

It's not as if we are talking about stealing a playbook.

 

[tehmackdaddy]

So we're drawing conclusions from press releases?

Yes, DS, I'm drawing conclusions about this issue based upon the facts of the matter. The fact that BB was fined the maximum amount, that the team was also fined and has to forfeit a first round draft pick leads one to believe the matter was "serious." The fact that BB actually violated two rules, not just one, trumps the message board argument that has been repeated ad nauseum that the Patriots could have legally taped "from the stands" (which is absolutely false and violates both the same rules as being on the sideline).

When I'm debating, DS, I do like to deal with the facts of the matter, whereas you admittedly have a biased view of all things Tony Dungy. I realize that someone such as yourself, who has gulped down so much Homer-flavored Kool-Aid he's practically drowning, doesn't want to deal with facts, DS, but please don't be angry with the rest of us who do.

Now, the two rules in question (since you asked so nicely):

The "Game Operations Manual" states that "no video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game," and I'm presuming this is what the false notion of "taping from the stands" being legal was derived from. However, later in the same rule it is stated, "all video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." That certainly wouldn't include shooting the camera from the stands, would it DS?

Lastly, the rules clearly state that taping signals OF ANY KIND is prohibited. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. No special place. No room for "misinterpretation."

It sure is nice to know, though, that you base your arguments (which you defend so vehemently, mind you) on heresay found on the internet. And you wonder why I roll my eyes.