New Post: Ripping Goodell for fining Ed Reed

[Goob24x7]

Hey guys, I grabbed a few drinks with Steve (message board admin) and a few of the other guys last night.

We thought it would be a good idea to bring some of the content from the forefront of the site to the board to help stir some conversations.

As I'm sure most of you were, I was livid when I saw Reed had been fined $55k and saw plenty of inconstancies with Goodell's decision making. In this post, I took him to task.

Wondering what your thoughts are...

Link: http://russellstreetreport.com/ed-re...consistencies/

[HoustonRaven]

It was a BS call for sure, but I don't get the last few paragraphs.

People like to say that all these fines show Goodell to be greedy and that it's "all about money". Huh?

As the article points out, the fine money goes to charity. And even if it didn't, a $55,000 fine is a spit in the ocean for an organization that operates in the Billions.

I don't see the correlation between Reed's fine and the theory that Goodell "is all about money".

[Goob24x7]

I think you're looking into it a little too deep but Goodell's fines are about the money. It's about protecting the money they'll have to award in a law suit, not necessarily the money the players will have to dish out from a fine.

If the NFL wasn't being sued, this initiative for player safety would exist but not be as extreme as it has come to be at this point.

Goodell is reckless and doesn't show any bit of consistency in his rulings. All he wants to be able to show is that he's doing his part to protect the players even though it's coming at the expense of diluting the game.

So yes, Goodell is about money, but not from the fines, it's about what's coming out of the leagues bank account to settle law suits from former players.

[Mista T]

Reed's fine was bullshit -- it should be appealed.

That said, I do like the way that Goodell has taken a harder line on unecessary violence and cheating. In this regard, he's been the NFL's most successful commisioner. I would next like to see him ban dirty players like Harrison for a season.

[lobachevsky]

The fact that Reed's hit drew a fine while the Torrey Smith "none-so-blind-as him-who-will-not-see"-side block did not tells you everything you need to know about the situation:

1. The league tacitly admits that the officiating last week was obscenely bad, but
2. Greedell & his flunkies weren't going to miss an opportunity to to make an example of Reed anyway.

IMHO the NFL has no shot at returning to anything resembling its former self until & unless Greedell & his greedboy staff are hanging from lampposts in the street below their offices as a warning to the next bunch of owners' thugs sent in to man the desks. Since no one's going to send in the SEALs (or pay the mob enough) to make that happen...

[HoustonRaven]

Or the players can stop these nonsensical law suits about a sport they knew was every bit as dangerous as advertised?

That way the league would not be forced into this corner and responding the way they have been.

[Coastergenius]

Or the players can stop these nonsensical law suits about a sport they knew was every bit as dangerous as advertised?

That way the league would not be forced into this corner and responding the way they have been.

Forget the fines, I care about the 15 yard penalties and free automatic first downs that opposing offenses get when the laundry comes out. It also makes so that the the safeties can't police the middle of the field, and teams can freely pick up clutch first downs in the middle whenever they want.

[lobachevsky]

Or the players can stop these nonsensical law suits about a sport they knew was every bit as dangerous as advertised?

That way the league would not be forced into this corner and responding the way they have been.

Oh, the poor, poor, poor owners!

FYI the whole point of the majority of suits is that the sport until recently has not been "advertised" as "dangerous"--the case can be (& is being) made that for years the league covered up &/or minimized the danger from head trauma caused by the violence of the game--risks of which it was well aware. The situation is analogous to cigarette companies' attempts to cover up or obfuscate the risks from smoking that their own research discovered.

[HoustonRaven]

Oh, the poor, poor, poor owners!

FYI the whole point of the majority of suits is that the sport until recently has not been "advertised" as "dangerous"--the case can be (& is being) made that for years the league covered up &/or minimized the danger from head trauma caused by the violence of the game--risks of which it was well aware. The situation is analogous to cigarette companies' attempts to cover up or obfuscate the risks from smoking that their own research discovered.

So I suppose I should put in the category that thinks these law suits do not have the potential to bring the end of football as we know it?

Because it's already happening.

We can argue all day about the merits of the law suits, but like it or not, they are fundamentally changing the way the game is playing RIGHT NOW and that's BEFORE the conclusion of 99% of the cases.

I could give two shits about the owners. It's the game I am worried about. But if class warfare is your thing, keep at it. Me, I see the larger picture that these law suits (a vast majority of which are frivolous at best -- see Jamal Lewis et all) have the very real potential of ruining, if not completely destroying, the NFL.

[DrUnk]

So hitting shoulder to shoulder/chest is illegal....oh wait. Total bullshit. Goodell is effing up this game royally. It truly will be flag football in the future.

[Ravenswintitle]

Reed should appeal because he would likely get a reduction at least if not a dismissal

[TheJoker]

I totally agree with you Goob. I can't believe he was fined. I was screaming when I saw the penalty flags for it. It is all about the money like you said. Another thing if Goodell really cared about players health, he would NOT being pushing for a 18 game schedule. Look at all the injuries that happen now. I mean this is a violent knock 'em out sport. We love it for what it is. Stop saying we want more Goodell and stop saying you CARE about the players safety. That is all political talk to me.

Anyways great post and article.

[Ravens27Girl]

Or the players can stop these nonsensical law suits about a sport they knew was every bit as dangerous as advertised?

That way the league would not be forced into this corner and responding the way they have been.

Exactly!! This has been my argument on this situation. Players come in knowing how physical and, at times, dangerous this game can be. THEY CHOOSE TO PLAY and then sue the NFL for their injuries. Shouldn't this be a 'play at your own risk' game? Kind of like the whole smokers lawsuit....choosing to smoke and then suing the cigarette companies for their health issues after already knowing the risks of smoking beforehand. I don't get it...and the fact that many of these people are quite successful in their lawsuits. There is something wrong with this picture and if I'm missing something here, someone chime in and enlighten me.

[Ravens27Girl]

Oh, the poor, poor, poor owners!

FYI the whole point of the majority of suits is that the sport until recently has not been "advertised" as "dangerous"--the case can be (& is being) made that for years the league covered up &/or minimized the danger from head trauma caused by the violence of the game--risks of which it was well aware. The situation is analogous to cigarette companies' attempts to cover up or obfuscate the risks from smoking that their own research discovered.

LOL...I used the same analogy before reading through all the posts but it truly is the same!

[Ravens27Girl]

Another thing if Goodell really cared about players health, he would NOT being pushing for a 18 game schedule.

Or as Ed Reed stated previously...why do they play Thursday night football only giving these guys 3 days to recover from a previous game? Where's the player safety in that?

[jaydee414]

...and it's all about "player safety".......and those players are Franklin, Grant, Jackson, Hamilton, Lincoln, Jefferson and Washington.

(thanks, Lob)

[NCRAVEN]

I've got an idea. How about the players propose what they think will not hurt the game but will eliminate the penalties and also make them safer. Just an idea, that probably makes too much sense to happen.

[lobachevsky]

...and it's all about "player safety".......and those players are Franklin, Grant, Jackson, Hamilton, Lincoln, Jefferson and Washington.

Fixed that for ya.

And to flesh out the roster: McKinley, Cleveland, Madison, Chase & Wilson--still legal tender though discontinued 34 years ago.

[steelerhater]

Oh, the poor, poor, poor owners!

FYI the whole point of the majority of suits is that the sport until recently has not been "advertised" as "dangerous"--the case can be (& is being) made that for years the league covered up &/or minimized the danger from head trauma caused by the violence of the game--risks of which it was well aware. The situation is analogous to cigarette companies' attempts to cover up or obfuscate the risks from smoking that their own research discovered.

This is ridiculus. In 1978, Darryl Stingley was paralyzed by a hit in a preseason game. In 1985, Joe Theisman had his leg broken in one of the most gruesome fashions seen. In 1991, Mike Utley was paralyzed by making a tackle. I remember watching pregame shows in the '70's and early '80's discussing how many retired players had trouble getting out of bed in the morning and that the life-expectancy on an NFL player was about 10-15 years less than normal. Anyone who claims that they didn't know this sport was dangerous has no business in a court room. They don't have the basic intelligence to make any kind of argument.

[mmi16]

Or the players can stop these nonsensical law suits about a sport they knew was every bit as dangerous as advertised?

That way the league would not be forced into this corner and responding the way they have been.

If it was your brain that was scrambled would it still be nonsense?