Should NFL Teams Be Accountable For Player Misconduct?

[PurpleRulz]

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

***(Edit) I meant to say Penalized, not accountable.***

I found this to be an interesting article. I think there should be an accountability of the franchise for employing problem players. It would help the Titans, for instance, to make a bold decision in getting rid of Pacman Jones without the fear that another team will simply pick him up. It would also, as the article suggests, cause teams like the Bengals to do actual scouting (like we do) on their talent instead of overlooking their legal troubles. Additionally, it would give these athletes something to think about- while in college- that "hey, I may not be drafted if I don't get my character together."

What do you guys think.

[GreenWave52]

You got a nice shout out in that PFT article Tony and the website got some free publicity which is always welcome.

And teams should not be held accountable if they cannot discipline the players for off-field problems. That would be like punishing me if my neighbors kids break the law. Well, ok that wasn't the best analogy but you guys get the point.

[ExiledRaven]

That is part of the problem.

punishing the actual players of the team is pretty lame. That's like the old high school rules ~ everyone can use the back stairs....oh wait, we caught someone smoking. No more back stairs for anyone.

So how can anyone be punished? Punish the owners directly? Of course some of these guys have so much money they don't care (ie, Jerry Jones, Al Davis) that they just want to win. They'll pay the "extra" cost to win it all if that's what it takes.

Removing home games also punishes the fans ...the last thing the league needs to do.

However, when you get Pacman or Bengals type of craziness, something more should be done. Pacman has a lot of it on him, he didn't report incidents and outside of Haynesworth on the field, the Titans are in line pretty well.

The Bengals....oh the Bengals.
Some random options that come to mind (they are all problematic)
Loss of the ability to franchise or transition tag players
Ability of "good" characters on a team with 15%+ of players in trouble with the law able to void contracts for a price
Loss of home prime time games
Loss of draft picks
Loss of revenue sharing monies
NFL-enforced buyout of a team (if it's REALLY REALLY bad)
Loss of national games or coverage
loss of tiebreakers in playoff seeding (ie 3 9-7 teams, you're #3 now)


It really is a problem. Each one of those options are really...unattractive...in some shape or form.

What does need to happen is that the players need football taken away from them. Drug tests you're losing 4 games. You get arrested for a DUI and plead down? 4 games. If it happens again within 2 years, it's 8 games. Third time a year or gone from the league with discretion to let you back in.

[crazyraven]

There should be no interference from the league except for when it is proven that a player is guilty. What a player does off the field should be left there. A NFL team doesn't have to look into every single players history to make and evaluation of weather or not they are hire-able. That's not fair to them, even if the team provides the player with training there is no way to ensure that they will use the information that was given to them So I don't think a team should be punished if something goes wrong.

When Law enforcement steps in and the players is shipped off to jail the league is allowed to handle the situation with a suspension etc because of CBA provisions. Teams should be allowed to make roster changes and salary cap adjustments, and still keep the player protected even if a player falls into this type of category with his team. A player is not a baby so lets stop acting as if they are.

[ExiledRaven]

There should be no interference from the league except for when it is proven that a player is guilty.

That has to be a given, otherwise the whole system is a mockery.

What do you think about individual compared to systematic problems?

For instance, the old portland trailblazers, the bengals this past year, etc.

Just curious on your take or if you think it should all be CBA and things already in place.

I do agree there shouldn't be a concern with what a player does off the field (I'd hope my job wouldn't care what I do during my time off unless I am out being convicted), but the media seems to be ever more fascinated with celebrity news. They'll keep reporting it until people stop reading.

[festivus]

ER, I am sympathetic with PR's original post. And unlike Crazy, I *do* think the NFL and its teams bear some responsibility for the behavior of the players who they enable.

That said, I don't think you have to do anything. The Bengals went 8-8 (or whatever) last year, and are a laughingstock across the country. That can't be good business, and it's certainly not the on-field success they wanted to have.

Until some team shows how this is a formula for success, taking other teams' sociopaths/drunkards/criminals at a discount and winning (or making money) with them, I don't think there's a need for systemic change.

[highwater]

You got a nice shout out in that PFT article Tony and the website got some free publicity which is always welcome.

Yeah, that was pretty cool to see Tony's name mentioned in the Rumor Mill.

Regarding this idea of punishing teams, I know it's being discussed, but I would be very surprised if the league actually goes that far. They have a tough enough time now just punishing players who keep getting into trouble -- smacking the teams seems like a real reach to me.

It's interesting that the players, because of the CBA I guess, have far more protection than coaches. When that assistant coach at Arizona got arrested recently for solicitating an undercover cop that he thought was a prostitute, the Cardinals fired him a couple of days later. They wouldn't be able to do that to a player.

[crazyraven]

And unlike Crazy, I *do* think the NFL and its teams bear some responsibility for the behavior of the players who they enable.

Why? Why should SB and the Ravens be held accountable if say Ed Reed is caught drinking and driving or beating on some girl?

The way I look at that the Ravens employed someone to play football, be a role model etc etc.

Why not throw some blame at the real enablers like their agents who brokered the players big pay day?

[ExiledRaven]

Why not throw some blame at the real enablers like their agents who brokered the players big pay day?

I don't know why I don't think of that...but I really like that idea as well. One or two times, that's ok. BUT, you get Chris Henry, the agents are supposed to be looking out for their clients.

[festivus]

Why not throw some blame at the real enablers like their agents who brokered the players big pay day?

I didn't use the word 'blame,' that's yours. But I agree with you, the agents are to blame, probably at least as much as the teams.

The difference between someone enabling and someone's acts being blameworthy?

This is how I meant it, your mileage with the same words may vary:
Let's say you have a 20 year old young man becoming an alcoholic. His parents and wife enable him by seeing something is wrong and occasionally asking him if he's ok, but never taking the hard steps to confront him and bring him back to health. They are close with him and in a position to help and guide, but by their inaction are failing to help or even making it worse.

His cousin who gives him the booze? That's not enabling. That's being an agent.

'Blaming' the cousin does not change the fact that the enablers are in a position to help and at best are failing to act. Taking the agent behind the woodshed does not help the player now suffering.

I'm not saying all teams or the league necessarily *are* enablers, because those kinds of tough confrontations are going to be undoubtedly behind closed doors.

That said, the teams and the league are a very large part of the environment these young men are growing in, and they *can* be enablers if they are lazy or indifferent. Considering how much the teams and the league benefit from the players growing up under their spotlight, I don't think it's much to ask them to take reasonable steps to protect the players from themselves.

Am I moralizing? Yes. Do you tolerate others moralizing? Not so much, as far as I can tell. So I don't expect to persuade you, Crazy, but you asked, and this is how I expand my previous post.

[crazyraven]

I don't know why I don't think of that...but I really like that idea as well. One or two times, that's ok. BUT, you get Chris Henry, the agents are supposed to be looking out for their clients.

Exactly and if you take chris henry and boot him off the bengals he is free to get a new deal and start fresh somewhere else meanwhile (i think) the Bengals are still eating any type of upfront bonus money. Why does he get a clean slate and the team is still paying for something they had absolutely no control over.

The NFL does all kinds of charity work and does its best to promote good behavior. The players need to be responible for there own actions. The player and their "people" should be held responsible when they break the law or cause harm to themselves or others, not the team.

[festivus]

Exactly and if you take chris henry and boot him off the bengals he is free to get a new deal and start fresh somewhere else meanwhile (i think) the Bengals are still eating any type of upfront bonus money. Why does he get a clean slate and the team is still paying for something they had absolutely no control over.

With 2 convictions for incarcerable offenses in one twelve month period, the team may cut the player at any time within the following six months, or April 1, whichever comes later, with no salary cap burden carried beyond the date of the cut.

I like it! :toast:

[TL24x7]

You got a nice shout out in that PFT article Tony and the website got some free publicity which is always welcome.


Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then :179421:

Actually, very nice of Mike to do that. We had him on GAMETIME several weeks back and he said he would one day lift that comment about the Bengals and their thin scouting department. Cool of him to give us credit.:thumbup:

[RavensNTerps]

didn't read the article, but the topic came up on Sirius, and I'm sure its similar.

My main point is this:

If you draft or sign a player with a clean previous record, you have no right to be punished by the league if said player has a run in with the law.

IF, however, you go the Bengals route, and draft guys like Chris Henry, Odell Thurman, Frostee Rucker, A.J. Nicholson, and Ahmad Brooks, etc...guys with known records coming in, then its a risk-reward thing.

[crazyraven]

How is it different from me being a registered nurse and losing my lic. if I break the law ( new law now in effect), They are now doing background checks.
There is a huge difference. A football player isn't in any position to endanger a life. The two jobs are worlds apart.

If a team wants to make a decision base on a players past, thats up to them. But the name of the game is getting players who are good enough to get you to a championship. If the players can't control themselves they should try a little harder at being good citizens.



I didn't use the word 'blame,' that's yours. But I agree with you, the agents are to blame, probably at least as much as the teams.

The difference between someone enabling and someone's acts being blameworthy?

This is how I meant it, your mileage with the same words may vary:
Let's say you have a 20 year old young man becoming an alcoholic. His parents and wife enable him by seeing something is wrong and occasionally asking him if he's ok, but never taking the hard steps to confront him and bring him back to health. They are close with him and in a position to help and guide, but by their inaction are failing to help or even making it worse.

His cousin who gives him the booze? That's not enabling. That's being an agent.

'Blaming' the cousin does not change the fact that the enablers are in a position to help and at best are failing to act. Taking the agent behind the woodshed does not help the player now suffering.

I'm not saying all teams or the league necessarily *are* enablers, because those kinds of tough confrontations are going to be undoubtedly behind closed doors.

That said, the teams and the league are a very large part of the environment these young men are growing in, and they *can* be enablers if they are lazy or indifferent. Considering how much the teams and the league benefit from the players growing up under their spotlight, I don't think it's much to ask them to take reasonable steps to protect the players from themselves.

Am I moralizing? Yes. Do you tolerate others moralizing? Not so much, as far as I can tell. So I don't expect to persuade you, Crazy, but you asked, and this is how I expand my previous post.

Does anyone have an emoticon with one of those smiley faces scratching his head because this would be a good place to place it. I saw this earlier but I wanted to get back to it because I didnt want to fall asleep at work.

Dude I say blame and you go on for days about nothing? honestly Fetivus i don't understand why you went on and on about the definitions of Blaming, enabling, moralizing and alcohol etc. Dude put me to sleep why don't you. talk about tangents. None of that answered my original question.

Originally I asked, "Why? Why should SB and the Ravens be held accountable if say Ed Reed is caught drinking and driving or beating on some girl"

The reason why I said "BLAME" was because you said
"And unlike Crazy, I *do* think the NFL and its teams bear some responsibility for the behavior of the players...."

Blame: attribute responsibility to; "We blamed the accident on her";

[festivus]

Crazy, you asked a question, I gave you a respectful answer. It bored you, too bad. Next time I will be rude and use shorter words. Will that keep you awake?

For those like Crazy, who need the Cliff's Notes version, my point was that teams & the league can have the responsibility of an enabler without the blameworthiness of, for instance, the drug dealer.

> The reason why I said "BLAME" was because you said
> "And unlike Crazy, I *do* think the NFL and its teams
> bear some responsibility for the behavior of the players...."

Yup. Reading that again, I don't see your point. I didn't say 'blame', though you'd like to put that word in my mouth. I am beginning to sense a pattern of you not reading my posts carefully, which is ok with me.

[crazyraven]

Crazy, you asked a question, I gave you a respectful answer. It bored you, too bad. Next time I will be rude and use shorter words. Will that keep you awake?

No just make a point and try to stay on point. in other words, keep it short and sweet.
Going on about who said blame or enabled and then going on about the meaning of the word was also a little too condescending for me thank you very much and to boot, extremely boring. As for being respectful you must think I was born yesterday. I wont even get into the morality BS you were spewing.


I didn't say 'blame', though you'd like to put that word in my mouth.
First off I never said you said blame. However When you lay responsibility on someone (in this case a team) you are attributing blame, I defined it for you but you seemed to have over looked it.

[PurpleRulz]

Exactly and if you take chris henry and boot him off the bengals he is free to get a new deal and start fresh somewhere else meanwhile (i think) the Bengals are still eating any type of upfront bonus money. Why does he get a clean slate and the team is still paying for something they had absolutely no control over.

The NFL does all kinds of charity work and does its best to promote good behavior. The players need to be responible for there own actions. The player and their "people" should be held responsible when they break the law or cause harm to themselves or others, not the team.

Say that the above happens; The Bengals cut Chris Henry and no other team is allowed to sign Henry because of fear of a penalty. This would cause the player to think twice, because at that point he is blackballed from the league. Playing in the NFL is not an entitlement, but a priviledge. If I get in trouble with the law, I not only lose my job, but I lose my license to practice and thus my career.

Some of these guys come from the same background as I. I grew up in the Inner city of Baltimore surrounded by crime, and yet I have not been arrested nor even "caught up." Thanks be to God for that, but my point is that it is possible to not gt caught up.

A lot of these players get their money and suddenly no one can tell them anything. Hell, these athletes may have been cuddled throughout their amateur careers and thus they gain sort of a "god complex."

A guy like Chris Henry must be taught a lesson at the expense of his career regardless of his talent. If another NFL team is dumb enough to sign him despite his attributes, that team should be heavily penalized.

[PurpleRulz]

I didn't use the word 'blame,' that's yours. But I agree with you, the agents are to blame, probably at least as much as the teams.

The difference between someone enabling and someone's acts being blameworthy?

This is how I meant it, your mileage with the same words may vary:
Let's say you have a 20 year old young man becoming an alcoholic. His parents and wife enable him by seeing something is wrong and occasionally asking him if he's ok, but never taking the hard steps to confront him and bring him back to health. They are close with him and in a position to help and guide, but by their inaction are failing to help or even making it worse.

His cousin who gives him the booze? That's not enabling. That's being an agent.

'Blaming' the cousin does not change the fact that the enablers are in a position to help and at best are failing to act. Taking the agent behind the woodshed does not help the player now suffering.

I'm not saying all teams or the league necessarily *are* enablers, because those kinds of tough confrontations are going to be undoubtedly behind closed doors.

That said, the teams and the league are a very large part of the environment these young men are growing in, and they *can* be enablers if they are lazy or indifferent. Considering how much the teams and the league benefit from the players growing up under their spotlight, I don't think it's much to ask them to take reasonable steps to protect the players from themselves.

Am I moralizing? Yes. Do you tolerate others moralizing? Not so much, as far as I can tell. So I don't expect to persuade you, Crazy, but you asked, and this is how I expand my previous post.

Excellent points, Fest.

(Sidenote) Why do folks criticize someone for "moralizing?" While none of us are perfect (only God), we all should have a basic set of morals taught to us that we live by. The lack of morals is a huge part of the cesspool that some NFL teams (the Bengals) have become.

[festivus]

Thanks, PR. :toast: