ssmitty

you got my vote................


Mike Florio
Profile | SportingBlog | Archive | E-mail Florio



NFL should strip draft picks from rogue teams
E-MAIL PRINT COMMENTS 5 WATCH THIS TOPIC
Posted: May 9, 2008

If commissioner Roger Goodell's goal in beefing up the NFL's Personal Conduct Policy was to solve the ongoing problem of players getting arrested, the league has failed.


Miserably.

Players still are getting arrested. Sure, the players now are getting punished more harshly. But punishment isn't triggering deterrence.

The problem still can be fixed, if Goodell is willing to take a hard line with NFL franchises regarding the willingness of too many of them to give problem players second chances.

And third chances.

And eighth chances.

Put simply, the league should impose real and meaningful penalties on teams that roll the dice on guys who previously ran a tin cup over steel bars.

I'm not saying NFL teams never should sign or draft a player who previously has been convicted of a crime. But if they do, and if that player gets into more trouble, the franchise should be punished along with the player.

The team most deserving of some type of penalty for its habit of signing, drafting and/or keeping players with spotty backgrounds is the Cincinnati Bengals. Though the Bengals finally took a hard line with receiver Chris Henry, it took five arrests to exhaust their patience. Meanwhile, the Bengals continue to round up men who might be destined to land in a police line-up -- including the likes of linebacker A.J. Nicholson, defensive end Frostee Rucker, linebacker Ahmad Brooks, as well as recent additions Jason Shirley (whose exploits include crashing his car into an apartment building while allegedly drunk) and Maurice Purify (who is facing possible jail time for violating the terms of probation arising from a past no-contest plea).

The Bengals' only true penalties so far have been the constant public ridicule. That must change if we are to change the club's behavior.

Goodell recently suggested that teams will be fined a portion of a suspended player's salary and that "competitive" sanctions eventually could be imposed. But isn't the suspension of a player for one or more games already a competitive sanction? And if the threat of not having a given player for one, two, four, eight or 16 games isn't enough to get the team to take an active role in keeping the player on the right side of the law, fining the team won't make a difference, either.

So the only way to get teams to avoid players with a history of legal problems -- or, even better, help the player change his unlawful ways -- is to strip the team of draft picks.

To prevent claims that certain teams are shown favoritism while others get nailed unfairly, a formula should be created to address the problem as to each and every team.

As to any player who has been convicted of or pleaded guilty or no contest to any non-violent crime within five years prior to any new incident:

• The team would lose a sixth-round draft pick if the player is convicted of or pleads guilty or no contest to any non-violent crime as a result of that new incident.

• The penalty would increase to a fourth-round draft pick for any violent crimes arising out of the new incident.

If a player has two or more convictions or guilty/no-contest pleas to non-violent crimes within five years prior to any new incident:

• The team would lose a fourth-round draft pick if the player is convicted of or pleads guilty or no contest to any non-violent crime as a result of that new incident.

• The penalty would be a second-round pick for violent crimes.

If a player has been convicted of or pleaded guilty or no contest to any violent crime within five years prior to any new incident,

• The team would lose a fifth-round draft pick if the player is convicted of or pleads guilty or no contest to any non-violent crime.

• The penalty would increase to a third-round draft pick for any violent crime arising out of the new incident.

And if a player has two or more convictions or guilty/no-contest pleas with at least one of them being a violent crime within the five years prior to any new incident:

• The team would lose a third-round pick for any non-violent crime resulting from the new incident.

• The team loses a first-round draft pick if it's a violent crime.

The distinction between violent and non-violent crimes would be made on a case-by-case basis, driven by common sense, a simple list of guidelines and precedent created as the rule is applied to specific situations.

With any luck, such an approach would give NFL general managers and owners the incentive necessary to devote resources to assist those ever-coddled players to change their ways.

And if teams are not willing to try to help their players become better men, then this new penalty structure would serve as incentive to avoid such troublesome players.

Mike Florio writes and edits ProFootballTalk.com and writes two columns a week for Sporting News.

lynwood

I vote no. You don't punish the organization unless the coaches/owner are contribiting to something illegal. You fine suspend the player until he bleeds. These are "adults" and should be treated as such.

hagan714

That is totally stupid
Rather than rake the teams over the coals for a second time, the first actually making the team pay a suspended player, Why not force the players into a conduct clause in their contract. No play = no pay. Scale it if you want but make the offender pay not the team. If the NFL thinks the teams should have the for site to predict a players behavior, then the NFL should have this same gift and refuse to let them enter the draft.
Like I said Totally stupid.

QBREES9

I agree with Hagan NO PLAY NO PAY. These guy all know right from wrong.

CantonLegend

the teams have no say in what goes on off the field with the players...even if u have strict curfews and rules about what you can and cant do obviously doesnt mean that the players are going to follow it....its the same with laws...u can make them but not everybody follows them....players should be punished and allow the teams to sort them out....the bengals did the right thing by getting rid of henry who was a true meat head...i dont like that pac man is getting so much attention from the cowboys however because it gives off the impression that its ok to do bad things because ur a good player

"deal with it or you can go play the saints and get trounced by 30 and you won't have to worry about it."-colin cowherd

jeanpierre

This would be a mistake and for this reason and no other...you would force teams into collusion by not signing an unsavory individual which would violate the terms of the federal anti-trust status that the NFL currently enjoys...

saintsfan1976

This is perfect, it makes complete sense and I love it!!! A little "real world" in the league.