As the members of PFT Planet continue to chime in with their predictions as to the team(s) that might be interested in former Bengals receiver Chris Henry, and as more and more players continue to get arrested, we’re starting to wonder whether the much-publicized revisions to the NFL’s Personal Conduct Policy from April 2007 have had the desired effect.

Despite the renewed focus on deterring criminal conduct, players are still getting arrested.  The “Days without an Arrest” meter rarely makes it into double digits.  When it does, it doesn’t stay there for very long.

The all-time record is 27 days.  But that was also the only time the number made it out of the teens.

So is the Personal Conduct Policy working?  If the goal was to reduce the number of player arrests, then the answer clearly is no.

Perhaps the league should broaden its focus in this regard.  Maybe the NFL should look to punish the teams as aggressively as the league punishes the players.  If that happens, then maybe the teams will avoid signing or drafting guys with a history of off-field problems, or (better still) maybe the teams will devote time and money to the challenge of helping players with a propensity for misconduct to change their ways, and in so doing improve their lives.

When the new Personal Conduct Policy was unveiled, Commissioner Roger Goodell vowed that teams would be punished when their players commit a violation.  However, we’re aware of no discipline that has been imposed on any team.

“We talked about fines at the league meetings, and that may not do the trick,” Colts coach Tony Dungy said last year.  “But when you start talking about playing time and draft picks, that seems to get your attention.”

So why then hasn’t it happened?  Why haven’t the Bengals been punished for keeping Chris Henry long enough for Henry to get arrested a fifth time?  And what will happen to the Cowboys if Pacman Jones gets in trouble with the law for whatever number of times his next one will be?  (We lost count at “umpteenth.”)

The problem is that teams justify acquiring players with checkered pasts by explaining that the player deserves a second chance.  But is it enough to give a guy a second chance (or, in Henry’s case, a sixth one) and then merely cut him loose the next time he screws up?  And just how many question marks can we cram into one story?

If teams are going to draft, sign, or retain players who have committed misdeeds in the past, the teams should face real consequences if the player gets in trouble again.  It’s the only way to get teams like the Cowboys or the Bengals or the Broncos or any of the other 32 franchises to realize that the potential downside is more grave than having to simply sever ties with the player who proved to be incorrigible.

If it’s true (and we think it is) that playing in the NFL is a privilege, teams need to be held accountable for taking risks on guys who have shown that they aren’t worthy of the sport — and for then failing to help these players learn how to become productive and responsible members of society.

Absent such accountability, excuses will continue to be made for the most physically gifted of the league’s players, extending a pattern that likely began not long after the players used what they could do between the lines to get folks to overlook the stuff that happened away from the field.