what should the punishment b4 NE if more cheetin is discovered | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

what should the punishment b4 NE if more cheetin is discovered

allsilverdreams

allsilverdreams

Starter
Super Donator
Club Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
4,976
Reaction score
3,692
with this new evidence from walsh i think New Englands punishment should include further loss of draft picks (the next five years 1st round picks ) a team fine and suspend the coaches involved without pay
i did not aggree that they were punished accourdingly the first time around.

a team wins 3 super bowls and eats up the league for almost a decade and all the nfl takes is a first round pick .:bs:
 
What new evidence are you refering to specifically?
 
suspend bellycheck for 2 years, also strip them of any title received where there is evidence of cheating.

also an * should be placed next to any achievement earned during belifgt's tenure.
 
If additonal spying took place, which Bill didnt already tell the commish, then they would probubly suspend Bill B between 6 months to 1 year, fine the pats up to 1 mil. (pennies to them), and strip them of next years 1st rounder.

My thinking is that Bill B told the commish EVERYTHING months ago and the commish is trying to downplay/withhold the full extent of the cheating. I believe that any "new" information learned from Walsh will not be "new" to the commish and thus will not result in any additional punishment. It will just bring more actions (which resulted in losing the original 1st rounder) to light. The commish will simply say that he knew all along and those acts were already taken in to account when he took away their 1st rounder.

edit: and if you really want to get into winning SBs by cheating and not being punished severly for it, just look at the broncos SB. They were over the cap but worked the books so noone knew till recently. The NFL only took away a 3rd rounder for that one.
 
allsilverdreams said:
with this new evidence from walsh i think New Englands punishment should include further loss of draft picks (the next five years 1st round picks ) a team fine and suspend the coaches involved without pay
i did not aggree that they were punished accourdingly the first time around.

a team wins 3 super bowls and eats up the league for almost a decade and all the nfl takes is a first round pick .:bs:
Click to expand...

Let's not put the cart before the horse. I haven't seen or heard yet what Walsh has as "evidence". Before deciding what's fair don't you think it would be prudent to know what, if any new evidence there is. He may very well have copies of tapes that were already confiscated and that's it. Or he may have that smoking gun that so many are salivating for. On the other hand he may have only the words that come out of his mouth for evidence. To be honest, I can't help but wonder if that's all he has. ie: an eye witness account. That could explain why he's asked for such blanket protection against any litigation.
Regardless; while you and many others believe the Pats penalties were too light, I do know that their's was the most severe ever handed down.

[FONT=helvetica,arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Three years after salary-cap violations by the 49ers were suspected, NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue announced the settlement. Policy will pay $400,000 and Clark $200,000. The 49ers agreed to pay $300,000 and surrender their fifth pick in the 2001 draft and third selection in 2002. The settlement, made with the agreement of the NFL Players Association, also calls for the player agents involved — Leigh Steinberg, Jeff Moorad and Gary Wichard — to contribute $350,000 to charities. But the players involved will get their money, and it won't count against the 49ers' salary cap, an apparent oversight in the settlement procedure. The league then decided to increase its power to punish future violations by allowing for suspensions of a year, fines of up to $3.5 million, and the loss of two No. 1 draft choices.

[/SIZE][/FONT] In December 2001, the Broncos were fined $968,000 and lost a third-round pick in the 2002 draft for violations reportedly relating to $29 million in deferred payments to quarterback John Elway and running back Terrell Davis.
On Thursday, the league announced that the Broncos have been fined $950,000 and will lose a third-round selection in next year's draft for circumventing the salary cap between 1996 and '98. The penalties were set in an agreement between the league, the Players Association and the Broncos and resolve a case against the team brought before the sport's special master by the NFL's Management Council in January 2003, the league announced.
Again, even though you believe the penalty wasn't harsh enough, you should be able to take solace in knowing that losing that second 1st rd pick screwed up BB's plan. Consider: he knew that he was going to lose several players to FA this year - several DBs in fact. I would think that he also knew this upcoming draft was deep with DBs. He probably planned on being able to draft 2 CBs in rd 1. Or he could have used them both to move up and get Chris Long or McFadden. Who knows? But watching as several FAs have left the Pats this year, it seems pretty clear that losing even that one #1 pick was a blow to them.
But really let's wait and see if Walsh has something first. If he does, then IMO he should be suspended for the upcoming season. But consider this as well.
You've probably noticed that the NFL is pretty much closing ranks on this thing. For them, this is becoming less about the Pats and more about the image of the league overall. They're anxious for it to go away.
If Walsh does in fact have some tapes (excluding the alleged SB walkthrough) then once the NFL views them who can contradict them if they say they're copies of the same tapes that Goodell had destroyed last Fall? In other words - no new evidence.
Another possibility, as I stated before is that all he has are the words coming out of his mouth.
But, if he has a tape of a walkthrough practice of the Rams, then that would be noteworthy. If this is the case then he does have something.
 
how does going over on the cap even come close to spying on another team to get an advantage .
 
allsilverdreams said:
how does going over on the cap even come close to spying on another team to get an advantage .
Click to expand...

First think about how much 29 mill counted against the salary cap back in the 90's.
The Broncos paid Elway and Terrell Davis 29 mill under the table over a 3 year period. That's 29 mill over the salary cap. That means they were able to keep some high priced and talented players that they would have otherwise had to cut. Everyone else was making hard decisions about who to keep and who to let hit the open market. The Broncos didn't do that. They kept a very strong team together because of that. They subsequently won 2 SBs this way. By the way one of the teams they scorched on the way to winning their 2nd SB was the Dolphins 38-3 in 98.
For the 49ers it was the same thing. Both Steve Young and Brent Jones were payed much the same way. This in turn allowed the 49ers the same luxury of keeping a strong team together. They of course won the 95 SB because of this.
Both the salary cap and the rule against the video taping are mechanisms to keep a competitive balance. Whether your video taping opponents or paying players under the table, either way you're setting yourself up with a significant advantage over your opponents.
So while Denver would still keep Elway and Davis, they might not be able to keep Shannon Sharpe. Or maybe they would have to let Ed MCCaffrey go to FA. Maybe it would have been Bill Romanowski or Steve Atwater. Maybe Rod Smith.....both McCaffrey and Smith had 1000+ yd seasons in 98. Losing one or 2 of the above named playmakers probably makes a difference in winning the SB or not.
For SF: Garrison Hearst, Jerry Rice, JJ Stokes, (a high priced punter)Reggie Roby. How about Terrell Owens? Both RIce and Owens had 1000+ yd seasons. Bryant Young, Merton Hanks, Ken Norton, Winfred Tubbs, Chris Doleman. The 49ers were loaded. But they didn't have to let people go because they were paying players under the table.

So yes, to me those violations were every bit as bad as the video taping.
 
allsilverdreams said:
how does going over on the cap even come close to spying on another team to get an advantage .
Click to expand...
Late again pretty much sums it up but if you don't think that's a huge advantage you're insane. The cap has skyrocketed in the last 10-15 years so think about what it was then. Plus teams weren't very good at managing their cap (they are getting much better).

If you pay Elway $4Mil under the table and not against the cap, you can afford to keep Ed McCaffrey and not be forced to part ways with him to afford everybody.

LOL @ "cheetin"
 
MR NFLFAN said:
What new evidence are you refering to specifically?
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: at you and your team.

I really HOPE that you stick around here once the truth is let out. You think that because its taken so long, because nobody knows any details yet...that your pats are safe? Its a LEGAL MATTER. Dont u understand that hes going against one of the most powerful franchises in the world of sports and the league that does not want to be flamed even more for impurity?

Please come back when its all in the media.


the truth will out :woot:
 
They should have patches with asterisks sewn onto there uniforms for next season. Reasonably sized and in a very visible area. The shame it would bring them would likely deter any team or coach that would consider doing the same thing that the Pats did.

Of course they would never actually do that but one can dream.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom