The Garrett situation got me thinking. The Browns are hurt by the loss of one of their top players, but the silver lining is that they save cap space because of it. My question is: should they?
Maybe it should be that Garrett's salary is re-directed elsewhere (pension fund, disability payments, etc) rather than erased from Cleveland's payroll. And I think losing a draft pick is also warranted. It sends a message that teams should emphasize character and teach character or risk paying a hefty price for it (rather than getting cap relief!).
How slippery of a slope would this create? I would think it should certainly include domestic violence and sexual assault, but should teams lose draft picks over a steroids suspension? Marijuana suspension?
The draft pick punishment absolutely not. That is a punishment for an organizational wrong, not a player losing his temper. The team is already hurt by losing the platyer to suspension. That seems like a gross overrreaction.
Teams need to pick their players wisely especially repeat offenders.
I'm not talking about the occasional late hit or punches being thrown. I'm talking about a team's responsibility when they allow a player to build a reputation for unnecessary roughness.
If a team loses a player due to suspensions, they have one less player on their roster and can dress one less person on game day.
If the suspension is a PS player, that team has one less PS player.
And a TEAM should not lose draft picks based on a bad decision by one of their players. The only reason a team should lose draft choices based on one or more of their players' bad behavior is if that behavior was directed by or encouraged by coaches, management or owners.
When the Saints had their Bounty Scandal some years ago HC Payton and DC Williams were suspended without pay for one year. The team was also fined $500K and they had to forfeit two second round draft picks.
You can't hold a team accountable for an individual player's in-game actions, unless the team specifically directs the player to take the offensive action.
Teams need to pick their players wisely especially repeat offenders.
If a team loses a player due to suspensions, they have one less player on their roster and can dress one less person on game day.
If the suspension is a PS player, that team has one less PS player.
No offense but this is ridiculous. The league is all about player safety now. You think going into a game undermanned is something that should be done? No way.
You can't hold a team accountable for an individual player's in-game actions, unless the team specifically directs the player to take the offensive action.
From PFT...
That’s the word from Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, who said on Friday that incidents like the Thursday fracas between the Browns and Steelers turn into topics of discussion in Patriots team meetings, where Belichick tells the players what he expects.
“Coach Belichick tries to use it as teaching moments. Talks about not throwing punches, not touching referees and staying on the sidelines,” Brady said.
That’s not to say the Patriots are perfect on that score — Rob Gronkowski was suspended for a cheap shot in 2017, and a fight marred the end of the Patriots’ Super Bowl win over the Seahawks — but good coaches understand that their players need to be disciplined. Browns coach Freddie Kitchens took umbrage with reporters when he was asked after Thursday’s game whether he condones fighting, but it’s hard not to look at Kitchens’ team and think the coach needs to do a better job of finding teaching moments.
Quote:
You can't hold a team accountable for an individual player's in-game actions, unless the team specifically directs the player to take the offensive action.
They can do whatever they want. If they want to hold a team accountable for a player's pattern of bad behavior that has gone on unchecked by management, there is nothing stopping them. It's a sin of omission.
OK. Change the word "can't" to "shouldn't".
Better?
Maybe only way to send message that repeat offenders aren't welcome