C-Mac
11-04-2009, 08:51 AM
Chiefs, Johnson both have incentive to make marriage work (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/12467385)
Nov. 3, 2009
By Charley Casserly
CBS Sports
As Larry Johnson sits out his one-game, unpaid suspension with the Kansas City Chiefs, I thought I would give you my thoughts on the why of the penalty and the why of the settlement.
Many times in my 16-year career as a general manager, I had to deal with suspensions, grievances and potential settlements. You end up having many discussions with lawyers from your team and the NFL about how to handle discipline and possible suspensions.
Johnson made comments regarding his dad, a coach at Penn State, and Todd Haley, his coach at Kansas City. Among them: "My father played for the Redskins briefly. My coach played golf." He also reportedly used a homosexual slur to a reporter and made disparaging comments about the fans.
For the totality of his actions the Chiefs suspended Johnson for conduct detrimental to the team. The suspension was for two weeks, the bye week and a game against the Jacksonville Jaguars. He is paid $267,000 per week, plus a roster bonus of $62,500 for each game he is active.
His comments about Haley are technically accurate and would be hard to justify a suspension, but my interpretation would have been that they were disparaging to the coach. His other comments clearly are not appropriate.
The problem you have when you go to suspend a player is the NFLPA will always argue, with some success, that all discipline must be progressive. In other words, first a warning, then a fine, then progressive fines before you suspend a player.
That is what the Chiefs faced. There was no precedent for Johnson's actions to warrant the length of suspension they decided to impose. The largest fine that I know of for an inappropriate comment similar to Johnson's was $10,000 to Joey Porter. There has never been a suspension that I know of for making comments about fans, though there have been fines -- but certainly nothing like the amount Johnson would lose during his two-week suspension.
I go over these points because as a GM you listen to these points from the lawyers. I would not be surprised if they recommended the Chiefs not suspend Johnson because the case would be hard to win. If the suspension is overturned, you the player comes back without any loss of money. One factor to remember is that besides lacking precedent, you also did not use progressive discipline.
It is at this point you have to step back as a GM and decide what is in the best interests of the team. You can pick which point you want to stress most, but I believe all are important for different reasons.
As for the comment about Haley playing golf in college, Johnson questioned his coach's qualifications. Players cannot do that publicly. You have to be strong in support of your coach. Is a suspension an overreaction? Possibly.
Johnson's comments about the reporter are in bad taste and not what I would call professional behavior. And as for disparaging the fans, there is no place for that, and in a struggling economy with a rebuilding team this cannot be tolerated. Johnson must realize the fans are paying his salary. That person making "$5 an hour" he talked about is the heart and soul of the Chiefs faithful. Kansas City needs that $5/hour person to be loyal to the team during this rebuilding period.
I would have been in favor of suspending Johnson, even against the advice of the lawyers. When I heard about his actions, I thought a one-week suspension was fair. The more I thought about it I would have done what the Chiefs did -- go for two weeks. In the first year of rebuilding the program, you have to come down hard to make it clear to your coach, fans and the media that the team does not tolerate this type of behavior. Also, with a two-week suspension there is the chance it could be reduced to one week or there could be a settlement.
The union would obviously settle this case, because the NFLPA would not want to defend Johnson's comments, at least from a PR point of view.
After resolving the penalty situation, the team must decide whether to cut the player or allow him to return to the team. I would not cut the player. Remember, you are responsible for the remainder of his $4.4 million salary for this season because it is guaranteed. Johnson immediately apologized for his actions. I would accept the apology and move on.
Without an acceptable alternative to Johnson at running back, you must treat this situation the same as when a player asks to be traded -- only trade him if it benefits the club. If you succumb to the wishes of disgruntled players, you lose control of the team and have no chance of winning.
The key now is Johnson's future behavior. The Chiefs have to put him -- and the whole team -- on notice of what is considered acceptable and unacceptable behavior. The players have to understand who is running the team, and it is not them.
You base your decision on keeping Johnson on how he acts and performs going forward. Sometimes players need a wakeup call in their career. Maybe this is Johnson's wakeup call. One thing he has to face is that he is in the twilight of his career and this is probably the end of his big money. Some players recognize this, like Randy Moss when he went to the Patriots and changed his attitude. Johnson must realize where he is in his career.
I give GM Scott Pioli and owner Clark Hunt of the credit for their aggressive and bold action. I also give Peter Schaeffer, Johnson's agent, credit for using common sense and settling the grievance. It was a winnable argument, but even if he won, he would have lost in the long run. Instead of repairing a relationship with the Chiefs he would have antagonized it even more. A point to reiterate is that Johnson earns a roster bonus of $62,500 per game. The Chiefs could simply deactivate him and cost him this money. So there is a motivation for Johnson to make this work, even though his salary of $4.4 million is guaranteed for the rest of this year.
Nov. 3, 2009
By Charley Casserly
CBS Sports
As Larry Johnson sits out his one-game, unpaid suspension with the Kansas City Chiefs, I thought I would give you my thoughts on the why of the penalty and the why of the settlement.
Many times in my 16-year career as a general manager, I had to deal with suspensions, grievances and potential settlements. You end up having many discussions with lawyers from your team and the NFL about how to handle discipline and possible suspensions.
Johnson made comments regarding his dad, a coach at Penn State, and Todd Haley, his coach at Kansas City. Among them: "My father played for the Redskins briefly. My coach played golf." He also reportedly used a homosexual slur to a reporter and made disparaging comments about the fans.
For the totality of his actions the Chiefs suspended Johnson for conduct detrimental to the team. The suspension was for two weeks, the bye week and a game against the Jacksonville Jaguars. He is paid $267,000 per week, plus a roster bonus of $62,500 for each game he is active.
His comments about Haley are technically accurate and would be hard to justify a suspension, but my interpretation would have been that they were disparaging to the coach. His other comments clearly are not appropriate.
The problem you have when you go to suspend a player is the NFLPA will always argue, with some success, that all discipline must be progressive. In other words, first a warning, then a fine, then progressive fines before you suspend a player.
That is what the Chiefs faced. There was no precedent for Johnson's actions to warrant the length of suspension they decided to impose. The largest fine that I know of for an inappropriate comment similar to Johnson's was $10,000 to Joey Porter. There has never been a suspension that I know of for making comments about fans, though there have been fines -- but certainly nothing like the amount Johnson would lose during his two-week suspension.
I go over these points because as a GM you listen to these points from the lawyers. I would not be surprised if they recommended the Chiefs not suspend Johnson because the case would be hard to win. If the suspension is overturned, you the player comes back without any loss of money. One factor to remember is that besides lacking precedent, you also did not use progressive discipline.
It is at this point you have to step back as a GM and decide what is in the best interests of the team. You can pick which point you want to stress most, but I believe all are important for different reasons.
As for the comment about Haley playing golf in college, Johnson questioned his coach's qualifications. Players cannot do that publicly. You have to be strong in support of your coach. Is a suspension an overreaction? Possibly.
Johnson's comments about the reporter are in bad taste and not what I would call professional behavior. And as for disparaging the fans, there is no place for that, and in a struggling economy with a rebuilding team this cannot be tolerated. Johnson must realize the fans are paying his salary. That person making "$5 an hour" he talked about is the heart and soul of the Chiefs faithful. Kansas City needs that $5/hour person to be loyal to the team during this rebuilding period.
I would have been in favor of suspending Johnson, even against the advice of the lawyers. When I heard about his actions, I thought a one-week suspension was fair. The more I thought about it I would have done what the Chiefs did -- go for two weeks. In the first year of rebuilding the program, you have to come down hard to make it clear to your coach, fans and the media that the team does not tolerate this type of behavior. Also, with a two-week suspension there is the chance it could be reduced to one week or there could be a settlement.
The union would obviously settle this case, because the NFLPA would not want to defend Johnson's comments, at least from a PR point of view.
After resolving the penalty situation, the team must decide whether to cut the player or allow him to return to the team. I would not cut the player. Remember, you are responsible for the remainder of his $4.4 million salary for this season because it is guaranteed. Johnson immediately apologized for his actions. I would accept the apology and move on.
Without an acceptable alternative to Johnson at running back, you must treat this situation the same as when a player asks to be traded -- only trade him if it benefits the club. If you succumb to the wishes of disgruntled players, you lose control of the team and have no chance of winning.
The key now is Johnson's future behavior. The Chiefs have to put him -- and the whole team -- on notice of what is considered acceptable and unacceptable behavior. The players have to understand who is running the team, and it is not them.
You base your decision on keeping Johnson on how he acts and performs going forward. Sometimes players need a wakeup call in their career. Maybe this is Johnson's wakeup call. One thing he has to face is that he is in the twilight of his career and this is probably the end of his big money. Some players recognize this, like Randy Moss when he went to the Patriots and changed his attitude. Johnson must realize where he is in his career.
I give GM Scott Pioli and owner Clark Hunt of the credit for their aggressive and bold action. I also give Peter Schaeffer, Johnson's agent, credit for using common sense and settling the grievance. It was a winnable argument, but even if he won, he would have lost in the long run. Instead of repairing a relationship with the Chiefs he would have antagonized it even more. A point to reiterate is that Johnson earns a roster bonus of $62,500 per game. The Chiefs could simply deactivate him and cost him this money. So there is a motivation for Johnson to make this work, even though his salary of $4.4 million is guaranteed for the rest of this year.