Jump to content

Atlanta/PHI tampering resolution announced, p.7


vike daddy

Recommended Posts

The difference between these examples and the Brady tampering the Dolphins got in trouble for was that Cousins (and Barkley) had contracts that were expiring at the start of the league year whereas Brady had a full year on his contract left when the Dolphins came calling, albeit he was on the reserve/retired list.

It's pretty clear the NFL considers it a more egregious breach of the tampering rules to call a retired player whose team would retain his rights were he to unretire than to contact a guy who is going to be a free agent a few weeks early.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, scar988 said:

Mike Florio is a self-admitted Vikings fan. He's complaining because the Vikings got nothing. 

no, he's complaining because he went out on a limb saying tampering occurred and should be punished heavily, and now that it hasn't been he has to try and save face by claiming a coverup. he needs to be the smartest guy in the room.

he may be a Viking fan but he is far more critical of them than complimentary, so that's not it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dll2000 said:

Should I be mad about Mooney?  We weren't resigning him either.

 

I'm more than happy to punish other teams regardless of lack of actual impact on my team. That's just me being somewhat spiteful though. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

The league already collectively agreed they dont care about RBs so why penalize Philly over nothing?

Need evidence to penalize, just saying.  Well exactly what I've said from the Jump, there wasn't any!

 

Howie Roseman of all people, isn't STUPID enough to make that mistake!!! 

Pipe dream by the haters!

Edited by Nabbs4u
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, PossibleCabbage said:

The difference between these examples and the Brady tampering the Dolphins got in trouble for was that Cousins (and Barkley) had contracts that were expiring at the start of the league year whereas Brady had a full year on his contract left when the Dolphins came calling, albeit he was on the reserve/retired list.

It's pretty clear the NFL considers it a more egregious breach of the tampering rules to call a retired player whose team would retain his rights were he to unretire than to contact a guy who is going to be a free agent a few weeks early.

Except the Falcons didn’t contact any of these guys a few weeks early. They got in trouble for scheduling flights and having PR people and medical talk to them. The terms for all 3’s contracts were agreed to at the point the inappropriate contact occurred. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, vike daddy said:

no, he's complaining because he went out on a limb saying tampering occurred and should be punished heavily, and now that it hasn't been he has to try and save face by claiming a coverup. he needs to be the smartest guy in the room.

he may be a Viking fan but he is far more critical of them than complimentary, so that's not it.

He’s also a dishonest moron. So it is what it is. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the Vikings went from Cousins to Darnold at the QB position, and they didn't get a thing after another team was caught and punished for tampering with Cousins? 

This is reminiscent of when the league suspended Sean Payton the entire next season for Bountygate in the NFCCG.  He went on and won a Super Bowl, albeit one that is arguably tainted, but the Vikings season was ended by this and they got nothing in return for what was taken from them. 

I'm not even sure what a team should get in their situation here, but it sure seems like they are owed something.

Edited by SodeeWater_Cheezburger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, SodeeWater_Cheezburger said:

So the Vikings went from Cousins to Darnold at the QB position, and they didn't get a thing after another team was caught and punished for tampering with Cousins? 

This is reminiscent of when the league suspended Sean Payton the entire next season for Bountygate in the NFCCG.  He went on and won a Super Bowl, albeit one that is arguably tainted, but the Vikings season was ended by this and they got nothing in return for what was taken from them. 

I'm not even sure what a team should get in their situation here, but it sure seems like they are owed something.

Because the Falcons made travel and medical arrangements with Cousins after he agreed to terms with the Falcons, the Vikings are owed something? Make it make sense. 

 

Sean Payton got suspended for bounties 2 years after they won the super bowl. And it's one of the more tainted SB wins ever.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, scar988 said:

Because the Falcons made travel and medical arrangements with Cousins after he agreed to terms with the Falcons, the Vikings are owed something? Make it make sense. 

 

Sean Payton got suspended for bounties 2 years after they won the super bowl. And it's one of the more tainted SB wins ever.

If that's the case, then my statement doesn't really make sense.  I'll retract my statement, Scar.  Thanks for the clarification.

As for Sean Payton, I thought it was the next year.  Oh well, even if it was the second year after, I absolutely do stand by my statement on that one.  If that had happened to the Bears, I would still be angry about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, SodeeWater_Cheezburger said:

If that's the case, then my statement doesn't really make sense.  I'll retract my statement, Scar.  Thanks for the clarification.

As for Sean Payton, I thought it was the next year.  Oh well, even if it was the second year after, I absolutely do stand by my statement on that one.  If that had happened to the Bears, I would still be angry about it. 

 

It was the case. NFL straight up said it to Florio that was the case. For all 3 players, it was after they agreed to terms with the team.

  

16 hours ago, scar988 said:

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/nfl-answers-specific-questions-about-falcons-investigation-in-lieu-of-making-someone-available-for-interview

Quote

2. “On March 13, Kirk Cousins said he talked to the head athletic trainer during the negotiating window. Was that investigated?”

3. “On March 13, Cousins said he spoke to director of player personnel Ryan Pace. Cousins didn’t specify a day or time, but it likely was before 4:00 p.m. ET on March 13. Was that investigated?”

A: “And yes to your questions 2-3. The evidence found that no Falcons’ employee had direct contact with any of the players before their agents had agreed to terms. The impermissible contact came after that and was done with respect to discuss administrative logistical matters.”

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...