Mehta: Jets fined $100K for Revis tampering, no picks

[grogan14]

Understandable. Though I will say, you had suspected the punishment to be greater, even a high pick.

I thought there would be lower draft pick compensation, but I believe Kraft hurt that with his own comments.

Well, I did say that if they could prove there was direct contact then it I think it would have thought a stricter penalty could have been involved. All in all I think it's fair, and in the long run it lets all teams know that tampering is a real thing. Just imagine as a fan that the Jets are trying to re-sign Wilk and there's another team on the outside whispering the back channels that they will pay more no matter what? That directly effects you're chances of him extending his contract and makes it more likely he tests FA, that's not good for any fans IMO.

 

[SackExchange]

It's not so much a gray area, west of the CT river is basically N.Y. in terms of fans and East is Boston. There is however a murky strange area that produces Red Socks/Jet fans, Patriot/Yankee fans, Giants/Red Socks fans, some pretty weird combinations.

My brother lives in Fairfield County, and I have encountered some Yankees/Patriots fans - though I'm fairly convinced, for a variety of reasons, that at least some of them are simply frontrunners.

I think it's almost more of a diagonal, going through about Hartford, maybe a bit south. Starts east of New Haven, but cuts up toward the lower part of the Litchfield Hills. Hartford is more Boston, but south and west of it are more NY.

 

[SackExchange]

Well, I did say that if they could prove there was direct contact then it I think it would have thought a stricter penalty could have been involved. All in all I think it's fair, and in the long run it lets all teams know that tampering is a real thing. Just imagine as a fan that the Jets are trying to re-sign Wilk and there's another team on the outside whispering the back channels that they will pay more no matter what? That directly effects you're chances of him extending his contract and makes it more likely he tests FA, that's not good for any fans IMO.

It was a stupid comment, and Woody deserved some punishment. I have said that from the start.

That said, Revis was not, by definition, going to be a free agent. You could make the argument that everyone expected the Pats to decline the second year, but that was pure conjecture. To me, Woody made his comments with a full year left on Revis' Pats contract, and Kraft made his comments with five years left on Revis' Jets contract.

Do you draw the line at saying it's OK to comment when a guy has five years left, but not when he has one year left? If you say that, where's the line? Two years?

In both cases, the owners made comments that spoke about the past, and could be construed as speaking to the future. Woody's comments were more direct, but both said VERY similar things. In both instances, the comments were directed to past events.

That said, when you mention back channels, that wasn't the case here. Woody's comments were during a press conference. There is more evidence to suggest that the Pats used back channels to bring back Blount than the Jets used back channels to bring back Revis. After all, the league investigated and monitored any potential Jets' communications with Revis while he was still a Pat, and found nothing, but didn't look at all into any potential Pats' communications with Blount while he was still a Steeler.

 

[grogan14]

It was a stupid comment, and Woody deserved some punishment. I have said that from the start.

That said, Revis was not, by definition, going to be a free agent. You could make the argument that everyone expected the Pats to decline the second year, but that was pure conjecture. To me, Woody made his comments with a full year left on Revis' Pats contract, and Kraft made his comments with five years left on Revis' Jets contract.

Do you draw the line at saying it's OK to comment when a guy has five years left, but not when he has one year left? If you say that, where's the line? Two years?

In both cases, the owners made comments that spoke about the past, and could be construed as speaking to the future. Woody's comments were more direct, but both said VERY similar things. In both instances, the comments were directed to past events.

That said, when you mention back channels, that wasn't the case here. Woody's comments were during a press conference. There is more evidence to suggest that the Pats used back channels to bring back Blount than the Jets used back channels to bring back Revis. After all, the league investigated and monitored any potential Jets' communications with Revis while he was still a Pat, and found nothing, but didn't look at all into any potential Pats' communications with Blount while he was still a Steeler.

You do have some interesting points regarding where the lines are drawn in terms of what is tampering and what isn't. I think the NFL really should be coming out with better guidance, to site your example of comments about a player being 5 years under contract or 1, I think there is absolutely a difference and the NFL should spell it out. It's one think to make an off hand comment about what a great player "X" is and how you would love to have him on your team when the player in question is in the 1st year of a 6 year contract with another team. Those same comments are very different when they are about a player that's about to become a free agent or is restructuring off the option. I think most reasonable people can discern the difference. Now as for your Blount question I really don't get it, you've brought this up before and it still makes no sense. The Patriots benched their running back for disciplinary reasons and needed to sign a RB as insurance, so they signed Blount. I understand your Patriot hate, that's been well established, "evil cheaters that kill babies" and all but there is zero evidence of tampering, the Steelers never made any kind of accusations whatsoever, yet you seem to think the NFL should investigate the Patriots? For what exactly? It sounds more like you're just a little bitter that the Patriots signed a player late in the season and he helped them to their 4th Super Bowl title in 15 years. It's either that, or are you saying that you think the NFL should investigate all NFL teams that make a signing during the season?

 

[sg3]

You do have some interesting points regarding where the lines are drawn in terms of what is tampering and what isn't. I think the NFL really should be coming out with better guidance, to site your example of comments about a player being 5 years under contract or 1, I think there is absolutely a difference and the NFL should spell it out. It's one think to make an off hand comment about what a great player "X" is and how you would love to have him on your team when the player in question is in the 1st year of a 6 year contract with another team. Those same comments are very different when they are about a player that's about to become a free agent or is restructuring off the option. I think most reasonable people can discern the difference. Now as for your Blount question I really don't get it, you've brought this up before and it still makes no sense. The Patriots benched their running back for disciplinary reasons and needed to sign a RB as insurance, so they signed Blount. I understand your Patriot hate, that's been well established, "evil cheaters that kill babies" and all but there is zero evidence of tampering, the Steelers never made any kind of accusations whatsoever, yet you seem to think the NFL should investigate the Patriots? For what exactly? It sounds more like you're just a little bitter that the Patriots signed a player late in the season and he helped them to their 4th Super Bowl title in 15 years. It's either that, or are you saying that you think the NFL should investigate all NFL teams that make a signing during the season?

I thought you posted that you were out of hete, troll?

 

[sg3]

Pretty simple what the problem here is. The NFL Commissioner is supposed to work for all 32 owners but Goodell only works as the Assistant Commissioner (reporting to Commissioner Kraft) for ONE owner.

The other 31 owners need to rise up and give the boot to this KraftLackey and hire a Commissioner who does what he is supposed to do, like Bell, Roselle and Tagliabue did

 

[grogan14]

:im-outta-here-bye-b

I thought you posted that you were out of hete, troll?

 

[sg3]

:im-outta-here-bye-b

What a pathetic dope

 

[grogan14]

Pretty simple what the problem here is. The NFL Commissioner is supposed to work for all 32 owners but Goodell only works as the Assistant Commissioner (reporting to Commissioner Kraft) for ONE owner.

The other 31 owners need to rise up and give the boot to this KraftLackey and hire a Commissioner who does what he is supposed to do, like Bell, Roselle and Tagliabue did

:stoned-smiley:

 

[sg3]

:stoned-smiley:

No hobson. you're right. He's adding valuable content again, certainly not trolling

 

[grogan14]

No hobson. you're right. He's adding valuable content again, certainly not trolling

Trust me, anyone reading what you've decided to bring to the table, understands my response to you perfectly.

 

[sg3]

Trust me, anyone reading what you've decided to bring to the table, understands my response to you perfectly.

Get lost

 

[SackExchange]

You do have some interesting points regarding where the lines are drawn in terms of what is tampering and what isn't. I think the NFL really should be coming out with better guidance, to site your example of comments about a player being 5 years under contract or 1, I think there is absolutely a difference and the NFL should spell it out. It's one think to make an off hand comment about what a great player "X" is and how you would love to have him on your team when the player in question is in the 1st year of a 6 year contract with another team. Those same comments are very different when they are about a player that's about to become a free agent or is restructuring off the option. I think most reasonable people can discern the difference. Now as for your Blount question I really don't get it, you've brought this up before and it still makes no sense. The Patriots benched their running back for disciplinary reasons and needed to sign a RB as insurance, so they signed Blount. I understand your Patriot hate, that's been well established, "evil cheaters that kill babies" and all but there is zero evidence of tampering, the Steelers never made any kind of accusations whatsoever, yet you seem to think the NFL should investigate the Patriots? For what exactly? It sounds more like you're just a little bitter that the Patriots signed a player late in the season and he helped them to their 4th Super Bowl title in 15 years. It's either that, or are you saying that you think the NFL should investigate all NFL teams that make a signing during the season?

It's like you can't help yourself. You always end up resorting to the jealousy angle, like there's validity. Honestly, why would anyone be jealous of the team that may be considered the most corrupt in North American professional sports? Every title, every win, is cast in serious doubt.

Someone can start a civil discussion with you, but you resort to this sort of stuff, "evil cheaters that kill babies." Please.

As for Blount, there is enough reason to believe an investigation would have been merited. Why?

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/29/questions-raised-about-blount-orchestrating-his-return-to-patriots/

http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/steelers/2014/11/23/On-the-Steelers-Twist-in-Blount-s-career-raises-a-suspicious-eyebrow/stories/201411230134

You see, that's what investigations are for. When there is suspicion but no evidence, investigations help determine whether there is evidence or not.

And save your "jealous" and "bitter" stuff. It only serves to prove you're the troll some believe you to be. I'm giving you another chance, but posts like this do not help your cause in the least.

 

[SackExchange]

Now back to my initial point. I am still waiting to hear why it IS tampering to talk about a guy with one year left on his deal, and not tampering to talk about a guy with five years left on his deal. Both are under contract.

Or is it OK because one guy is Bob Kraft, and not OK because the other guy is Woody Johnson?

 

[maxmet]

Anyone have the address for the Woody Tampering Defense Fund? We cant let him bear this burden. If every fan just sent a dollar.....

oh, never mind....

 

[grogan14]

It's like you can't help yourself. You always end up resorting to the jealousy angle, like there's validity. Honestly, why would anyone be jealous of the team that may be considered the most corrupt in North American professional sports? Every title, every win, is cast in serious doubt.

Someone can start a civil discussion with you, but you resort to this sort of stuff, "evil cheaters that kill babies." Please.

As for Blount, there is enough reason to believe an investigation would have been merited. Why?

[URL="http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/29/questions-raised-about-blount-orchestrating-his-return-to-patriots/"]http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/29/questions-raised-about-blount-orchestrating-his-return-to-patriots/[/URL]

http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/steelers/2014/11/23/On-the-Steelers-Twist-in-Blount-s-career-raises-a-suspicious-eyebrow/stories/201411230134

You see, that's what investigations are for. When there is suspicion but no evidence, investigations help determine whether there is evidence or not.
And save your "jealous" and "bitter" stuff. It only serves to prove you're the troll some believe you to be. I'm giving you another chance, but posts like this do not help your cause in the least.

So because two talking heads say "I wonder???" and one slanted blog guy that covers the Steelers speculates out of the blue what might happened with nothing more than a curious mind, and you think the NFL should start an investigation? Yet it has nothing to do with hate and jealousy? You know that before the Patriots signed him about 25 teams had the right to do so, and you think this was the Patriots master plan to get player? Are you up in arms over every other team that picked up a player off waivers during the season, calling for NFL investigations? I don't think so, yet at the same time you expect everyone to believe there's no hate and jealousy involved that shades your judgment on this matter? Look if you really believe any random guys speculation without a single shred of proof is grounds for a full scale NFL investigation then you can forget about football, espn can start a new network called the "Rumors and Accusations League?"

 

[sg3]

ZzZzzzzxzzzzZzZzzzZzzxxx

 

[SackExchange]

So because two talking heads say "I wonder???" and one slanted blog guy that covers the Steelers speculates out of the blue what might happened with nothing more than a curious mind, and you think the NFL should start an investigation? Yet it has nothing to do with hate and jealousy? You know that before the Patriots signed him about 25 teams had the right to do so, and you think this was the Patriots master plan to get player? Are you up in arms over every other team that picked up a player off waivers during the season, calling for NFL investigations? I don't think so, yet at the same time you expect everyone to believe there's no hate and jealousy involved that shades your judgment on this matter? Look if you really believe any random guys speculation without a single shred of proof is grounds for a full scale NFL investigation then you can forget about football, espn can start a new network called the "Rumors and Accusations League?"

When a player makes a response during Super Bowl week that adds fuel to the fire, then yes, it should be investigated.

What about the fact that there was ZERO investigation of the Patriots when both Spikes and Talib said the team abuses and misuses the injury report system?

Seriously, with all your talk about jealousy and hatred, when you know it's false, I've had enough of it.

 

[SackExchange]

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24492030/brandon-spikes-aqib-talib-allege-patriots-falsify-injury-reports

Of course, CBS is biased against the Patriots. After all, they are the Patriots' financial partners in Patriots Place, and Kraft is on the board at Viacom.

Maybe CBS is just jealous.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/03/19/spikes-talib-say-patriots-file-false-injury-reports/

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/another-spygate-former-patriots-say-belichick-is-cheating-injury-reports-032014

This one, too. That anti-Patriots, jealous, hateful Comcast SportsNet New England.

http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/spikes-talib-say-patriots-file-false-injury-reports

I respond to you with evidence, every time. You respond to me with the same arrogant BS that makes the entire world outside of 5 1/2 states hate Patriots fans with a passion.

I don't know who your baseball team is. I'm wonder if you're like most, and are a provincial, Yankees-hating Sox fan who cries about how arrogant Yankees fans are, and then becomes even worse than them when talking football.

 

[grogan14]

When a player makes a response during Super Bowl week that adds fuel to the fire, then yes, it should be investigated.

What about the fact that there was ZERO investigation of the Patriots when both Spikes and Talib said the team abuses and misuses the injury report system?

Seriously, with all your talk about jealousy and hatred, when you know it's false, I've had enough of it.

Please Sack, you have an "Opinion" nothing more or less valid than mine or anyone else's for that matter. So once again, we will have to agree to disagree.