INTERESTING===PATS TRIED REGAINING THE DRAFT PICK

[Bretsky]

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25525567/robert-kraft-tried-to-regain-patriots-draft-pick-in-a-letter-to-roger-goodell

[Bretsky]

gotta agree.......year after year.........it's interesting to see how the Pats keep building their roster with a combo of draft picks, high risk trades, and FA signings.


Also interesting the NFL did their own PSI tests but won't share them. HIGHLY NOTED points the past couple days. WHY does the NFL not share them ? Good chance cause what they found out....would not help their case.

[Rutnstrut]

gotta agree.......year after year.........it's interesting to see how the Pats keep building their roster with a combo of draft picks, high risk trades, and FA signings.


Also interesting the NFL did their own PSI tests but won't share them. HIGHLY NOTED points the past couple days. WHY does the NFL not share them ? Good chance cause what they found out....would not help their case.

Ironic how the NFL bashed Brady for not cooperating. Yet it's fine for them to hide shit.

[Bretsky]

Ironic how the NFL bashed Brady for not cooperating. Yet it's fine for them to hide shit.


Everybody is quick to bash the Pats because they are jealous. Many teams hate GB and mock Rodgers mannerisms and lack of leadership on the field...IMO.......because they are jealous of our success.

I listened to a Pats fan call in; for the most part Patriots fans feel everybody is out to get them because they have hands down the best coach in the NFL and a Hall of Fame QB to go along with him ...both of which....will do nearly everything to win. They feel the rest of the NFL is jealous of their dominance.

They are at least partly correct.

Hardly anybody brings up the NFL conveniently hiding details that might at least have a bit of relevance. They do what they want. And they don't like NE or Hoody Genius.

[pbmax]

^ The reason Goodell had to come down hard on them was, at least in part, due to the lenience the League showed when the videotaping operation turned up years ago. Even after the fine and draft pick penalty, Roger had the kindness to destroy all the evidence. A lot of teams and officials think the Patriots got away with a lot on this one.

[Bretsky]

^ The reason Goodell had to come down hard on them was, at least in part, due to the lenience the League showed when the videotaping operation turned up years ago. Even after the fine and draft pick penalty, Roger had the kindness to destroy all the evidence. A lot of teams and officials think the Patriots got away with a lot on this one.

That was Goodell as well, right ?

So he punishes them more severely because he screwed up the first time ?

[Patler]

That was Goodell as well, right ?

So he punishes them more severely because he screwed up the first time ?

No, he punished them more severely because they are a repeat offender.

[Patler]

Bretsky;

Re: The title of this thread

By "Interesting" do you mean --surprising--? Why wouldn't they try to get it back? Wouldn't every other owner and Mark Murphy try to do the same? Isn't it to be expected when they have been given deference and kid-glove treatment in the past?

[Tony Oday]

No, he punished them more severely because they are a repeat offender.

He bailed them out and they crawfished on him so he is ticked.

[mraynrand]

No, he punished them more severely because they are a repeat offender.

They probably should have gotten crucifixion, first offense.

[pbmax]

He bailed them out and they crawfished on him so he is ticked.

crawfished?

[Patler]

No, he punished them more severely because they are a repeat offender.They probably should have gotten crucifixion, first offense.

No, that is not the concept for escalating punishment in repeat offenders. It's not intended to "make up" for a too light punishment of an earlier offense, nor is that what I was implying. It is intended to find a punishment sufficient to deter the offender from offending again.

[pbmax]

No, that is not the concept for escalating punishment in repeat offenders. It's not intended to "make up" for a too light punishment of an earlier offense, nor is that what I was implying. It is intended to find a punishment sufficient to deter the offender from offending again.

Was that cited by Goodell at the time of the punishment?

I haven't seen it, or don't remember it. Seems too fine a point, especially since he all but ruled out team involvement in his Brady decision.

I think he was feeling pressure from external sources about the Patriots skirting the rules (including taping the sidelines) and internal (lots of ex-AFC East people working under him). This regime is not that bright and as Tagliabue demonstrated in the Saints bounty case, Goodall doesn't understand effective leadership, he only understands public announcements of ever escalating punishments.

[Patler]

Was that cited by Goodell at the time of the punishment?

I haven't seen it, or don't remember it. Seems too fine a point, especially since he all but ruled out team involvement in his Brady decision.

I think he was feeling pressure from external sources about the Patriots skirting the rules (including taping the sidelines) and internal (lots of ex-AFC East people working under him). This regime is not that bright and as Tagliabue demonstrated in the Saints bounty case, Goodall doesn't understand effective leadership, he only understands public announcements of ever escalating punishments.

I wouldn't have expected him to say so even if it was his reason.
He was simply getting tired of the Patriots coming up again and again, so he treated them more severely.

After all, "managing" the NFL ownership is a bit like running a nursery school for spoiled rich kids.

[pbmax]

I wouldn't have expected him to say so even if it was his reason.
He was simply getting tired of the Patriots coming up again and again, so he treated them more severely.

After all, "managing" the NFL ownership is a bit like running a nursery school for spoiled rich kids.

I don't know. He treated them very similar to the last time with a big fine and a lost draft pick (he did add a future fourth rounder).

The big difference this time was Brady's involvement.

I actually would have expected him to mention escalating punishment if he wanted to deter others. Maybe the fourth round pick was it.

[Teamcheez1]

I don't know how anyone can feel any outrage or compassion for the Patriots when it comes to anything. Their philosophy is "it's not cheating if you don't get caught."

[mraynrand]

No, that is not the concept for escalating punishment in repeat offenders. It's not intended to "make up" for a too light punishment of an earlier offense, nor is that what I was implying. It is intended to find a punishment sufficient to deter the offender from offending again.

monty python reference

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EI7p2p1QJI

[woodbuck27]

Everybody is quick to bash the Pats because they are jealous. Many teams hate GB and mock Rodgers mannerisms and lack of leadership on the field...IMO.......because they are jealous of our success.

I listened to a Pats fan call in; for the most part Patriots fans feel everybody is out to get them because they have hands down the best coach in the NFL and a Hall of Fame QB to go along with him ...both of which....will do nearly everything to win. They feel the rest of the NFL is jealous of their dominance.

They are at least partly correct.

Hardly anybody brings up the NFL conveniently hiding details that might at least have a bit of relevance. They do what they want. And they don't like NE or Hoody Genius.

THe NFL isn't even approaching a decent PR move as this case continues. The NFL should demonstrate integrity.

I'm impressed with the way Robert Kraft has handled this entire affair. I'm sure Pat's fans are as well.

[Patler]

I don't know. He treated them very similar to the last time with a big fine and a lost draft pick (he did add a future fourth rounder).

The big difference this time was Brady's involvement.

I actually would have expected him to mention escalating punishment if he wanted to deter others. Maybe the fourth round pick was it.

My comment was specifically in reply to Bretsky's remark, which I quoted, questioning if he punished them more severely because he screwed up the first time. It presupposed that the second punishment was more severe. I'm not arguing that it was. I'm merely stating that if it was, the reason was not that he screwed up the first time but that the Patriots were repeat offenders.

There would have been absolutely no need for him to make a public statement about any enhanced punishment due to the Patriots being repeat offenders. The only "others" who need to be deterred are the other owners, GM's, head coaches, etc. of the 31 other teams, all with whom he meets regularly and communicates directly whenever he so chooses. For the most part, the NFL wants to conceal their dirty laundry behind closed doors not emphasize it in public, nor rehash previous transgressions by other teams. The commish would have handled that by direct private correspondence, not a public proclamation.

[Patler]

THe NFL isn't even approaching a decent PR move as this case continues. The NFL should demonstrate integrity.

I'm impressed with the way Robert Kraft has handled this entire affair. I'm sure Pat's fans are as well.

Robert Kraft plays the PR game well, but it doesn't make his organization any less the rule-benders that they are.
They have flaunted the rules and have been caught. They deserve punishment.

[Fritz]

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25525567/robert-kraft-tried-to-regain-patriots-draft-pick-in-a-letter-to-roger-goodell


I understand the Patriots have two second-round picks. One way to get a first rounder back would be to trade those two picks, plus maybe a fourth, to Green Bay for the #27 overall.

[esoxx]

I'm still in favor of a dispersal draft.

[mraynrand]

I understand the Patriots have two second-round picks. One way to get a first rounder back would be to trade those two picks, plus maybe a fourth, to Green Bay for the #27 overall.

:)

[Patler]

I understand the Patriots have two second-round picks. One way to get a first rounder back would be to trade those two picks, plus maybe a fourth, to Green Bay for the #27 overall.

I was intrigued by that thought, until I discovered their second round picks are #60 and #61.

[Patler]

I'm not sure I would trade #27 for the Patriots entire draft. Their third round pick is #91, and they have no picks in the 4th and 5th rounds. Their draft looks like this:

First round: None

Second round: 60th overall selection
Second round: 61st overall selection (from Arizona Cardinals)

Third round: 91st overall selection
Third round: 96th overall selection (compensatory)

Fourth round: None

Fifth round: None

Sixth round: 196th overall selection (from Houston Texans)
Sixth round: 204th overall selection (reacquired from Chicago Bears)
Sixth round: 208th overall selection (compensatory)
Sixth round: 214th overall selection (compensatory)
Sixth round: 221st overall selection (compensatory)

Seventh round: 243rd overall selection (from Houston)
Seventh round: 250th overall selection

[pbmax]

My comment was specifically in reply to Bretsky's remark, which I quoted, questioning if he punished them more severely because he screwed up the first time. It presupposed that the second punishment was more severe. I'm not arguing that it was. I'm merely stating that if it was, the reason was not that he screwed up the first time but that the Patriots were repeat offenders.

There would have been absolutely no need for him to make a public statement about any enhanced punishment due to the Patriots being repeat offenders. The only "others" who need to be deterred are the other owners, GM's, head coaches, etc. of the 31 other teams, all with whom he meets regularly and communicates directly whenever he so chooses. For the most part, the NFL wants to conceal their dirty laundry behind closed doors not emphasize it in public, nor rehash previous transgressions by other teams. The commish would have handled that by direct private correspondence, not a public proclamation.

When Goodell went ballistic over tampering and the Chiefs, they not only released a statement that talked about the deterrent effect they hoped for, they sent Troy Vincent out to deliver the news via interviews.

So the idea that Goodell doesn't need to announce it as deterrence for recidivism is answering the wrong question. He would announce it, talk about it publicly and tell you what purpose it was meant to serve several times over.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25510804/nfl-hammers-chiefs-for-tampering-with-huge-fine-loss-of-two-draft-picks

As for the (possible) escalation for deterrence, I should not have responded directly to you since you were not making that point directly.

But I stand by the point generally. A team penalty that was very much in line with the sideline taping penalty satisfied no one. I think he got tremendous blowback inside and outside the League office. Officials wanted the Patriots hit hard for this one. Not just as deterrence with a view to the future, but as payback for previous instances where folks felt the Patriots got a break from the New York offices.

That meant Brady was doomed and Kraft wasn't going to get any further accommodation.

[Patler]

When Goodell went ballistic over tampering and the Chiefs, they not only released a statement that talked about the deterrent effect they hoped for, they sent Troy Vincent out to deliver the news via interviews.

So the idea that Goodell doesn't need to announce it as deterrence for recidivism is answering the wrong question. He would announce it, talk about it publicly and tell you what purpose it was meant to serve several times over.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25510804/nfl-hammers-chiefs-for-tampering-with-huge-fine-loss-of-two-draft-picks


Wasn't the Chiefs situation pretty much the exact opposite of the Patriots? Vincent said the punishment recognized their clean history and cooperation in the investigation. To explain an enhanced penalty for a repeat offender like NE, the league would have had to rehash things they hope the public has forgotten or will soon forget.

All Vincent explained was the general concept behind any punishment.

[Fritz]

I'm not sure I would trade #27 for the Patriots entire draft. Their third round pick is #91, and they have no picks in the 4th and 5th rounds. Their draft looks like this:

First round: None

Second round: 60th overall selection
Second round: 61st overall selection (from Arizona Cardinals)

Third round: 91st overall selection
Third round: 96th overall selection (compensatory)

Fourth round: None

Fifth round: None

Sixth round: 196th overall selection (from Houston Texans)
Sixth round: 204th overall selection (reacquired from Chicago Bears)
Sixth round: 208th overall selection (compensatory)
Sixth round: 214th overall selection (compensatory)
Sixth round: 221st overall selection (compensatory)

Seventh round: 243rd overall selection (from Houston)
Seventh round: 250th overall selection

Depending on Thompson's board, I could see him trading away the #27 overall for both seconds and the #91 in the third. But the Pats would be crazy - one first, one third, and a bunch of sixths.

[Patler]

Depending on Thompson's board, I could see him trading away the #27 overall for both seconds and the #91 in the third. But the Pats would be crazy - one first, one third, and a bunch of sixths.

I could see him trading down into the first 10 picks or so of the 2nd round, but not all the way down to the bottom of the second round. Especially not when his own second isn't until #57

[pbmax]

Wasn't the Chiefs situation pretty much the exact opposite of the Patriots? Vincent said the punishment recognized their clean history and cooperation in the investigation. To explain an enhanced penalty for a repeat offender like NE, the league would have had to rehash things they hope the public has forgotten or will soon forget.

All Vincent explained was the general concept behind any punishment.

He explicitly said the sanctions were designed to act as a deterrent as well. But yes, he did mention the lack of a history with the Chiefs and tampering.

[Patler]

He explicitly said the sanctions were designed to act as a deterrent as well. But yes, he did mention the lack of a history with the Chiefs and tampering.


Every penalty has a deterrent component. It could be mentioned for any sanction what so ever, including a small fine to a player for wearing the wrong socks. That's the concept that Vincent was talking about, but not close to what I was referring to, an enhanced penalty given to a repeat offender because of that organization's past transgressions. That is what I would not expect the league to air very often. That is what can be harmful to their image. The fact that they design any and all penalties to have a deterrent effect is just sensible, and they are more than happy to pretend they are that.

[George Cumby]

I could see him trading down into the first 10 picks or so of the 2nd round, but not all the way down to the bottom of the second round. Especially not when his own second isn't until #57

Right. When he traded down for Nelson, that pick was close to the top of the second, iirc.

[pbmax]

We are inferring the intent of the sanction by a lack of a statement on a particular purpose.

And the boldest part of the sanction, Brady's suspension and the subsequent denied appeal, came after the rest of the League found the team portion of the penalty wanting.

The only evidence in existence seems to indicate all parties besides the Patriots, their fans and Goodell thought the Patriots should have been punished harder for past crimes.

[mraynrand]

Right. When he traded down for Nelson, that pick was close to the top of the second, iirc.

Stop gumming up the legal proceedings here with your football talk!

[Bretsky]

Bretsky;

Re: The title of this thread

By "Interesting" do you mean --surprising--? Why wouldn't they try to get it back? Wouldn't every other owner and Mark Murphy try to do the same? Isn't it to be expected when they have been given deference and kid-glove treatment in the past?


My impression was Kraft at first accepted this with some confidence this would be it. But when he figured out the NFL wanted to stick him in the @ss perhaps partly because they were not strong enough before.............he tried to get it back.

Perhaps the NFL should not have given the kid glove treatment in the first place. Won't argue there.

[Bretsky]

I could see him trading down into the first 10 picks or so of the 2nd round, but not all the way down to the bottom of the second round. Especially not when his own second isn't until #57

I think we all dream of TT doing this every year but it seem to happen once every blue moon

[swede]

I think we all dream of TT doing this every year but it seem to happen once every blue moon

A blue moon is the second full moon within the same calendar month. This happens quite regularly
within intervals of two to three years. The next one happens sometime in 2018

Jordy Nelson was born in a Blue Moon year. He turned three years old on the May 31st Blue Moon of 1988.

This coming month there will be a "seasonal" Blue Moon on May 21st...meaning the 4th full moon within a single season.

In October of this year we will have a second new moon, referred to by hip astronomer types as a "Black Moon". Lambeau Field was treated to its own Black Moon on January 9th of 2005.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2394/1304/320/moss.jpg

Oh...and I have no doubt the Patriots will survive this punishment with their will to cheat fully intact.

[pbmax]

^Thank you Paul Harvey. Now we know, the rest of the story.

[mraynrand]

Lambeau Field was treated to its own Black Moon on January 9th of 2005.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2394/1304/320/moss.jpg

Mraynrand is in that picture. For me, there was a goalpost eclipse of the moon.

[pbmax]

I still think it was hysterical. He's no Terrell Owens comedic genius, but he's light years ahead of Joe Cell Phone Horn.

[George Cumby]

Stop gumming up the legal proceedings here with your football talk!

Sorry. My bad.:-)