Roger Goodell and the Saints Punishment

Remove all ads!

Wow. The Saints took it hard yesterday. With all the impending Class-Action suits coming the NFL's way from former players, Goodell is really cleaning the league up, my guess in hopes of lightening the blow when the lawsuits hit home.

Yesterday's suspensions were pretty brutal. Not saying they are undeserved, but the Rams end up feeling some of the pain too, as Williams is now(was ) there Def Coord who is suspended indefinitely. Wonder what Drew Brees is thinking about right now?

 

There are definitely some sore buttholes in New Orleans this morning. The Saints took it right up the ass on this one. Plus, they're getting more in the upcoming weeks. Goodell has already stated that there may well be suspensions of players as well, but he has not completed his interviews with all involved to determine the level of action required. Unlike the coaching staff, the players have significantly lighter workloads in the off-season, so there's no rush to come to judgement on them. Sean Payton's suspension is effective April 1st, so he won't be allowed to participate in the draft either.

The Rams really got hit too. They have to hire a new defensive coordinator. The Saints obviously have to appoint a new coach for the season (Steve Spagnolo seems a logical choice - he was hired in the offseason, and received no suspension unlike fellow coordinator Vitt), but presumably he'll be back next year.

 

I am very interested to see how it will play out concerning the players. Some of Brees' comments are pretty funny as he was standing up for Peyton and his morals, meanwhile Peyton already confessed.

This is the time for Brees to get the contract he wants... and to be a leader for his team.

 

That is exactly what I was going to say when I saw this thread. Almost word for word, actually. I mean to be dumb enough to do something like this and not even having the foresight to get some form of plausible deniability claim going, they were so asking for it.

 

Especially after they got the warning about a year ago. They were told directly to stop, and didn't. I think that's really what got them into trouble. The league sent a memo to all teams about a year ago, telling them not to do exactly what the Saints were doing.

 

As a Pats fan I can sympathize with the Saints fans. It isn't fun when everyone is dumping on your team. That being said, I think the commish did the correct thing. I would suspend some players, but I would also show some mercy.

 

And now the players also are penalized...

With all of the safety issues the NFL has this year it did not need the Bounty Scandal this year.

 

I think the punishment of the players (up to one year) is excessive. With coaches, they have 30 years to make their money, so losing one year isn't a big deal. With players, they only have 5 years on average, and at best about 10 productive years. Taking away a year without pay is a huge decrease in their career earnings.

 

Goodell is just trying to put everything in place now as the law suits are pouring in. His actions in this scandal are all made with the idea that it will help soften the blow when the dollars are being calculated on what they will owe the ex-players once the NFL loses all of hte various suits against them. Every business in America would do the same. Still sucks for the players, but as they say... "Business is Business..."

 

The one problem with that line of thinking is that I think the NFL is missing doing the most obvious thing they can regarding head injuries. The NFL still does not mandate the use of concussion reducing helmets. The players can wear one if they chose, but many players still use the old fashioned shell design with the smooth exterior around the entire helmet. (The concussion reducing ones are somewhat beveled at the top.)

If you aren't mandating the use of helmets that would reduce the incidence of concussions, how can you claim you're doing all you can to protect the players? OTOH, I also wag my finger at the players that many of them do NOT opt to use the more protective helmet, on the basis that they are uncomfortable (I would imagine repeated concussions would be more uncomfortable), or that they don't like the way they look (although I'd imagine they might not like the way they look 20 years later suffering from degenerative brain damage).

 

Well, the bottom line is dollars for the NFL. I think they already know that no matter what helmet the players wear, concussions will always be a factor. AFAIK the lawsuits are stemming from "knowledge withheld" by the NFL about the danger to the players. Once the lawsuits are settled, I think the NFL will take the stance that training the players about the dangers will be enough to protect the NFL legally. they will of course ask the players to wear the new helmets, maybe even make it mandatory. But first they need testing on these new helmets to make sure they are in fact safer. Again, AFAIK, that has not been done completely.

Players not liking the new equipment isn't only about looks. It about getting comfortable playing in them as well.

 

It has been shown to be effective in college, which is why nearly all Division I schools have switched over the them.

 

You don't need ten years of study to show a piece of protective equipment is better in a collision. That's straight physics.

 

That does not automatically cross-over to the NFL .The average size per player every defensive position is larger in the NFLwhen compared to. They hit harder, move faster and more muscle.

 

That's a fair point, but I find it hard to believe that a helmet that reduces concussions on a college level wouldn't also reduce concussions on the professional level. The companies provide the studies they perform as a marketing device for exactly this reason. I will concede that because the hits are harder in the NFL, you may not see the exact same reduction that you see on a collegiate level. But these helmets have been shown to reduce head injuries from the hits you see in college. Unless you assert that all hits in the NFL are harder than all hits in college, I can't see how the helmets wouldn't be an improvement.

And I imagine the NFL already has a pretty good sample size at this point to work with. Many players on each team are using the new Revo helmets, and have been for the past couple of years. With 53 guys on each team, and 32 teams in the league, that's 1696 players, some wearing the new helmets and some wearing the old helmets. With 16 games per season, that's 16 separate test events per player per year. While I certainly don't have the data, it would seem to be pretty easy to compare number of concussions per position with players wearing the different types of helmets.

The final point is that a lot of the neurological studies in recent years have shown that the long term head injuries are not linked to the hardest hits, but the repeated impact of smaller, more routine hits. And I still can't help but feel that the NFL is dragging it's heels on this issue for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me. Most colleges have switched to the new helmets, and they can't possibly have any more data than the NFL does. They apparently find the studies conducted and data collected up to this point to be convincing, or at the very least plausible. And given the choice, wouldn't it be more prudent to err on the side of caution? I know if I had the ability to play in the NFL I would be using that new helmet, irrespective of how it looked, or if it didn't feel quite as comfortable on my head. That's a price I'd be willing to pay to still recognize my kids 20 years down the road. (Some high schools have switched to the new helmets as well, although at a cost of $200 per helmet, it's simply not in the budget of many school districts.)

 

I don't disagree Aldeth, but I think in th case of the NFL, there is more to the thought process of Goodells group than just worrying about the hits. Will new helmets change the way the players play? Will it "Wussify" the game, costing them fans which can ultimately cost them major dollars? TBH, I don't know the answers but I think they don't either. Hence their snail pace to implenting safer equipment. I would of thought they would of went with the equipment changes first, but since they didn't, their is something motivating them to hammer the players and coaches with big fines/penalties.

Think of all the great defenseive players in the Hall. Most are there because they were fan favorites. Why were they favorites? Because they hammered the opposition. Butkus, Lambert, Lott, LT, etc.... The fans want the hits. It is probably the biggest attraction to the game. Once they lose that atmosphere, they lose fans and dollars. I would think it's the last thing the owners want to do. Just my opinion... who really knows what these rich bastards are really thinking...

 

I doubt it. If penalties, fines, and suspensions for big hits haven't done it, I don't see why changing to a different helmet would. If anything changes, I think it would be more egregious hits, if the players feel better protected.

I doubt that in the extreme, based on my answer to the previous question.

But wouldn't that make them only more safety-conscious? I mean, another thing that costs them dollars is when star players miss a lot of games to injury, because the team usually performs poorly, and people don't want to buy tickets if their team sucks. If you can make equipment changes that make players less prone to injuries, isn't that having your cake and eating it too? You get the hits, AND you get less injured players. If anything would wussify the game, it would be the rule changes, not equipment changes, and definitely not changing a helmet...

 

But they haven't changed the equipment. That is puzzling to me. If the NFL has so much money to spend on research as compared to the NCAA who has already taken the step of the equipment change, why doesn't the NFL? What other reason could possibly make them not go there(yet..)? They have to be thinking dollars. That is all the owners will ever think about. I don't see any other answer...