49ers accuse Jets of Tampering *Updated*

I honestly think the 49ers should let it go,

I think the NFL is gonna find a way to screw us over.

Originally posted by carl:

Originally posted by TheChozen:

Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:
NFL needs to come down hard on Jets, so in future, draft picks are not tampered with. If we have good evidence, we should get at least a 3rd rounder in 2010. A 2nd rounder would be the most fair deal.

They traded away their 3rd and 5th for Edwards. They were scared the NFL was gonna take their picks away for tampering. Ok, maybe a stretch but that's what I've been telling one of the guys I work with who happens to be a Jets fan. I also told him the only reason they made the trade was cuz we signed Crabtree and they couldn't cheat anymore so they had to make a legit trade.

All in good fun.

Well, there may be more truth there than fiction. You just don't know what's going to happen.

I didn't realize they traded their 3rd and 5th pick... those are the same picks the league penalized us with. Another interesting coincidence anyways.

And we called an agents cell phone twice w/out leaving a VM and never actually talking to the player... and our punishment was losing a 5th and swapping 3rds. If they did indeed talk to Crabby and offer him more money, I wouldn't be surprised to see us have 3 first round picks next year.

After the Super Bowl I'm guessing, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

It's a conditional pick. If edwards meets likely to be met playing time the Jets trade their 2nd and 5th, if he doesn't it will be their 3rd and 5th.

You know what Chicago received for us tampering with Briggs? They received the 70th pick instead of the 75th pick. We swapped 3rd rounders with them they did not receive our 3rd rounder as well as theirs. On the draft value chart the difference between 70 and 75 is 35 points. Many of you guys think we're getting their 1st rounder which is at minimum worth 590 points.

If the Jets get busted look for a multiple pick punishment, but you guys have to quit living in a fairy tale world here. One of the picks will be forfeited and our compensation will be minimum at best.

[ Edited by tjd808185 on Oct 11, 2009 at 10:00:39 ]

Originally posted by tjd808185:
You know what Chicago received for us tampering with Briggs? They received the 70th pick instead of the 75th pick. We swapped 3rd rounders with them they did not receive our 3rd rounder as well as theirs. On the draft value chart the difference between 70 and 75 is 35 points. Many of you guys think we're getting their 1st rounder which is at minimum worth 590 points.

If the Jets get busted look for a multiple pick punishment, but you guys have to quit living in a fairy tale world here. One of the picks will be forfeited and our compensation will be minimum at best.

I agree to an extent. There is a huge differance between the impact the tampering had on the Bears and our beloved niners. Briggs ended up signing just like Crabs, yes. But we lost him all of training camp and a good portion of the season. He's a rookie and Briggs a vet. I still think we won't get as we should, though it is a very differant circumstance.

[ Edited by Giant9er on Oct 13, 2009 at 13:04:10 ]

nothing right?

Haven't heard or seen anything yet.

Originally posted by ads_2006:
I honestly think the 49ers should let it go,

I think the NFL is gonna find a way to screw us over.

IDK??

I hope they keep pushing for the Jets to be disciplined, if we give up now then other teams wont hesitate to screw with us again knowing we wont fight back.

I say we dont let up, even if the NFL f**ks us over, at least other teams will get the message that we wont let anyone f**k around with us.

Originally posted by teeohh:

Originally posted by Chief:
http://blogs.nfl.com/2009/10/10/jets-called-49ers-about-trading-for-crabtree/

Jets called 49ers about possibly trading for Crabtree

could it be we obviously shut down trading him and then out of desperation they call up eugene and say they will pay crabs double to sit out

I think its more likely we simply knew more about what constitutes tampering than the jets did.

You have to remember how our own tampering charge came about - We called the Bears to trade for Briggs, had a few discussions with their management, and apparently spoke with Briggs' agent about some things to make sure we could sign him to a LT deal if we traded for him. The Bears filed tampering charges against us for speaking to Briggs' agent, even though they knew we were simply looking to explore trade possibilities (not undermine their attempts to resign him).

And this year the roles are reversed for us. We knew the Jets wanted to trade for Crabtree and had (in all probability) contacted his agent to get some idea of whether or not they could sign him after trading for him. I wouldn't say there was any "intent" to tamper on their part, just a GM making sure he doesn't trade for an unsignable diva. We learned that "intent" doesn't matter in these situations, and I'm guessing that's a lesson the jets are about to learn themselves.

Originally posted by Overkill:

Originally posted by teeohh:

Originally posted by Chief:
http://blogs.nfl.com/2009/10/10/jets-called-49ers-about-trading-for-crabtree/

Jets called 49ers about possibly trading for Crabtree

could it be we obviously shut down trading him and then out of desperation they call up eugene and say they will pay crabs double to sit out

I think its more likely we simply knew more about what constitutes tampering than the jets did.

You have to remember how our own tampering charge came about - We called the Bears to trade for Briggs, had a few discussions with their management, and apparently spoke with Briggs' agent about some things to make sure we could sign him to a LT deal if we traded for him. The Bears filed tampering charges against us for speaking to Briggs' agent, even though they knew we were simply looking to explore trade possibilities (not undermine their attempts to resign him).

And this year the roles are reversed for us. We knew the Jets wanted to trade for Crabtree and had (in all probability) contacted his agent to get some idea of whether or not they could sign him after trading for him. I wouldn't say there was any "intent" to tamper on their part, just a GM making sure he doesn't trade for an unsignable diva. We learned that "intent" doesn't matter in these situations, and I'm guessing that's a lesson the jets are about to learn themselves.

But the big difference is the Bears had proof the Niners contacted Briggs agent. Not sure if the Niners do but that article didn't say anything about that and it also stated that the Jets contacted them during the period in which Crabtree could be traded. In all probability isn't proof though. Bears had Niners tape recorded messages to Briggs agent. Unless Niners have some evidence like that they aren't gonna win. You are also forgetting the the Niners front office really dropped the ball in the Briggs situation b/c at that time the deadline had based to trade for a franchised player and give him a new deal. Even if it had worked out with the Bears, the NFL rules would have voided that trade. Hopefully there is something the Niners have to win this case. But that article doesn't say much regarding tampering.

Originally posted by lamontb:

Originally posted by Overkill:

Originally posted by teeohh:

Originally posted by Chief:
http://blogs.nfl.com/2009/10/10/jets-called-49ers-about-trading-for-crabtree/

Jets called 49ers about possibly trading for Crabtree

could it be we obviously shut down trading him and then out of desperation they call up eugene and say they will pay crabs double to sit out

I think its more likely we simply knew more about what constitutes tampering than the jets did.

You have to remember how our own tampering charge came about - We called the Bears to trade for Briggs, had a few discussions with their management, and apparently spoke with Briggs' agent about some things to make sure we could sign him to a LT deal if we traded for him. The Bears filed tampering charges against us for speaking to Briggs' agent, even though they knew we were simply looking to explore trade possibilities (not undermine their attempts to resign him).

And this year the roles are reversed for us. We knew the Jets wanted to trade for Crabtree and had (in all probability) contacted his agent to get some idea of whether or not they could sign him after trading for him. I wouldn't say there was any "intent" to tamper on their part, just a GM making sure he doesn't trade for an unsignable diva. We learned that "intent" doesn't matter in these situations, and I'm guessing that's a lesson the jets are about to learn themselves.

But the big difference is the Bears had proof the Niners contacted Briggs agent. Not sure if the Niners do but that article didn't say anything about that and it also stated that the Jets contacted them during the period in which Crabtree could be traded. In all probability isn't proof though. Bears had Niners tape recorded messages to Briggs agent. Unless Niners have some evidence like that they aren't gonna win. You are also forgetting the the Niners front office really dropped the ball in the Briggs situation b/c at that time the deadline had based to trade for a franchised player and give him a new deal. Even if it had worked out with the Bears, the NFL rules would have voided that trade. Hopefully there is something the Niners have to win this case. But that article doesn't say much regarding tampering.

My point wasn't about the "strength" of the 9ers case, more like a general statement on the logic behind their moves. My comments were intended merely as an alternative to teeohh's comments (hence the quote).

And I'm not forgetting Scot M dropped the ball on the franchise deadline, I simply don't feel it's relevant to this discussion. The point is that "intent" doesn't have to be proven in these cases, not that Scot made a great move when he called Briggs' agent about a longterm deal that couldn't be signed in the first place. It was a bonehead move, but its not relevant.

I am wishing that the reason Roger G. has yet to release the outcome of this claim, is because it will impact the picks of both the 49ers & Jets. It all depends on how the season plays out. It all depends on where both teams pick in the draft.

I can see Roger G. doing 1 of 2 things.

Option #1 (similar to 49ers & Bears situation)

Jets & 49ers swap 1st or 2nd rd picks. I would prefer the first round obviously. This all depends on where both teams draft. If the Jets have an earlier pick then the 49ers, I can see both teams swapping picks. This option rests heavily on the Jets picking before us. The Jets would also have to give up a mid round pick.

Option #2

Roger G. gives us 1 or more of the Jets picks in any given round. The Jets would also face other penalties (pay a fine).


My friend is a Jets fan and he follows them closely. He thinks they are guilty and owe the 49ers a high pick.

Only time will tell.

Originally posted by JR80Forever:
I am wishing that the reason Roger G. has yet to release the outcome of this claim, is because it will impact the picks of both the 49ers & Jets. It all depends on how the season plays out. It all depends on where both teams pick in the draft.

I can see Roger G. doing 1 of 2 things.

Option #1 (similar to 49ers & Bears situation)

Jets & 49ers swap 1st or 2nd rd picks. I would prefer the first round obviously. This all depends on where both teams draft. If the Jets have an earlier pick then the 49ers, I can see both teams swapping picks. This option rests heavily on the Jets picking before us. The Jets would also have to give up a mid round pick.

Option #2

Roger G. gives us 1 or more of the Jets picks in any given round. The Jets would also face other penalties (pay a fine).


My friend is a Jets fan and he follows them closely. He thinks they are guilty and owe the 49ers a high pick.

Only time will tell.

Swapping picks would most likely be bad for us as the jets will most likely have a better record....

where is the update?

Originally posted by rxrunner:
where is the update?

lol I was thinking the same thing but I think that the thread title was added with "update" on an earlier "update" and this thread just got bumped.

Originally posted by ghostrider:

Originally posted by rxrunner:
where is the update?

lol I was thinking the same thing but I think that the thread title was added with "update" on an earlier "update" and this thread just got bumped.

oh ok got it.