From same article, a point about where the owners understand their limitations but also do not understand the possibilities of making an effective change.

During one meeting, Jones reminded Goodell of his impatience with the ongoing Elliott inquiry. Behind closed doors, Jones repeated to other owners that the NFL shouldn't be in the "investigative business." Jones knew many owners agreed; Bob Kraft, for example, has complained for years that the league "wastes" money on seemingly endless player discipline investigations, including a reported $22.5 million on Deflategate. Jones also challenged Goodell's practice of punishing players who are not charged with crimes, let alone convicted.
The League should NOT be in the business of investigating. Though the owners really have only themselves and George Steinbrenner to blame for this (for decades teams have hired ex-polie and ex-FBI agents to run point on trouble with local law enforcement. In fact, the different between the former prosecutor Friel and the ex-FBI guys probably explains some of the tension. As would an internal team investigation that never sees the light of day versus the League process that is far more open and subject to discovery.

But had Goodell not thought he would solve these problems by discovering the truth, he might have headed down the path of placing incentives and training to reduce the problematic behaviors initially. You could still suspend players for wrongdoings that involve publicly investigated wrongdoing, but the emphasis on all the other gray areas could have been less on punishment or banishment and more on eliminating the behavior.