Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   Cris Carter admits he used to put bounties on players who were trying to injure him, which means the Saints are to be awarded three Super Bowls and Jonathan Vilma is automatically President   (espn.go.com) divider line 177
    More: Asinine, Jonathan Vilma, Cris Carter, Super Bowl, Saints, Vikings, Bill Romanowski, Gregg Williams, defensive coordinator  
•       •       •

1140 clicks; posted to Sports » on 09 May 2012 at 10:13 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



177 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-09 02:04:05 PM  
Whoops didn't see someone had posted him
 
2012-05-09 02:04:47 PM  

robsul82: Slow To Return: VvonderJesus: How about we treat this like baseball steroids. Everybody gets immunity from before, and from now on if there are bounty programs you get x amount of games suspension.

Though the non-player penalties should still stand because they were instructed to stop the program and didn't.

This may be the sanest thing I've ever seen someone say about this entire scandal.

+1

Didn't see that. I'd agree to it, if proven.


Agreed.
 
2012-05-09 02:05:51 PM  

robsul82: Jim from Saint Paul: There was no "system". Carter never says that at all. He says "If dude threatens me, I will grab an O-Linemen or two and say "watch this guy and i'll make it worht your while".

Dude. "I put bounties on defenders and the Vikings routinely used them to protect Randy Moss, Daunte Culpepper, and Randall Cunningham" isn't a system?


...

So apparently I need the full transcript of this interview.
 
2012-05-09 02:06:43 PM  

robsul82: Didn't see that. I'd agree to it, if proven.


If what was proven? That the coaches were told to stop it, and didn't?
 
2012-05-09 02:07:15 PM  

robsul82: fireside68: Why, in all honesty, should I go through and essentially line-item-veto all your emotional diatribe?

You know what? I'll do it with one statement: Cris Carter's admission is solid proof that such systems are widespread the league around, and all the faux outrage over ESPN's frothing mouths is thusly meritless.

Happy?

Why just Carter's? Cris Carter is approximately the 112th player to say something like this, lol.


So therefore the Saints being caught, proven cheating, shouldn't be punished.

Also, Cris Carter's admission is in no way proof that there was even ONE system in place, let alone widespread. I find it funny how the same people who say this is proof, adamantly disagree that a sworn, signed statement, and personal admission of the program is NOT proof.

Can you morons get anymore dilluded/hypocritical? Seriously.
 
2012-05-09 02:09:55 PM  

justtray: Also, Cris Carter's admission is in no way proof that there was even ONE system in place, let alone widespread. I find it funny how the same people who say this is proof, adamantly disagree that a sworn, signed statement, and personal admission of the program is NOT proof.


Again, proof of what? Are you, in your blind impotent rage, implying that anyone is taking the stance that the Saints did NOT have a bounty program in place??

I apologize in advance if I misunderstand, but it's really hard to read through the derp.
 
2012-05-09 02:10:34 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: ...

So apparently I need the full transcript of this interview.


Yeah, for some strange reason, ESPN failed to do that.

PFT

Slow To Return: robsul82: Didn't see that. I'd agree to it, if proven.

If what was proven? That the coaches were told to stop it, and didn't?


If this pay-for-injury system were proven. God knows the Hargrove statement failed to do that, despite the blatant mischaracterizations of it by the NFL and their "independent" reviewer.
 
2012-05-09 02:12:02 PM  

justtray: So therefore the Saints being caught, proven cheating, shouldn't be punished.

Also, Cris Carter's admission is in no way proof that there was even ONE system in place, let alone widespread. I find it funny how the same people who say this is proof, adamantly disagree that a sworn, signed statement, and personal admission of the program is NOT proof.

Can you morons get anymore dilluded/hypocritical? Seriously.


The Hargrove statement does not admit to the existence of a program, and none of the coaches admitted to anything more than a pay-for-performance system. Work on your reading skills.

/cheating cheating CHEAAAAAAAAAATING
 
rka
2012-05-09 02:12:14 PM  

drkats: Chris Carter cussed on the Mike and Mike show yesterday and I recorded it.

Here it is(NSFW):

Link


You were a hall monitor in grade school weren't you.
 
2012-05-09 02:12:55 PM  

Slow To Return: justtray: Also, Cris Carter's admission is in no way proof that there was even ONE system in place, let alone widespread. I find it funny how the same people who say this is proof, adamantly disagree that a sworn, signed statement, and personal admission of the program is NOT proof.

Again, proof of what? Are you, in your blind impotent rage, implying that anyone is taking the stance that the Saints did NOT have a bounty program in place??

I apologize in advance if I misunderstand, but it's really hard to read through the derp.


You misunderstand. Don't worry, there's a lot of derp, it's hard to figure out who is on what side.

I am of the opinion that apples are not the same as oranges.
 
2012-05-09 02:12:58 PM  

Slow To Return: Again, proof of what? Are you, in your blind impotent rage, implying that anyone is taking the stance that the Saints did NOT have a bounty program in place??

I apologize in advance if I misunderstand, but it's really hard to read through the derp.


I'm pretty sure he thinks that. He's certainly put forth the previous opinion that "wants to see the evidence" = NOTHING HAPPENED, MOVE ALONG HERE.
 
2012-05-09 02:13:45 PM  

robsul82: If this pay-for-injury system were proven.


Ok, what? I guess I missed something along the way. There's doubt about the program's existance? Didn't all Saints coaches involved fess up to it?
 
2012-05-09 02:14:27 PM  

robsul82: justtray: So therefore the Saints being caught, proven cheating, shouldn't be punished.

Also, Cris Carter's admission is in no way proof that there was even ONE system in place, let alone widespread. I find it funny how the same people who say this is proof, adamantly disagree that a sworn, signed statement, and personal admission of the program is NOT proof.

Can you morons get anymore dilluded/hypocritical? Seriously.

The Hargrove statement does not admit to the existence of a program, and none of the coaches admitted to anything more than a pay-for-performance system. Work on your reading skills.

/cheating cheating CHEAAAAAAAAAATING


But Cris Carter's verbal statement is proof that everyone was doing it. And you don't see a logical inconsistency. This literally tells everyone all they need to know about you.
 
2012-05-09 02:14:53 PM  
Link

He said he never offered money to "maim or hurt the dude," and that his bounty system was "based on protection or (a) big hit, excitement or helping your team win." He said that while playing in Minnesota, bounties were offered not only to protect him but other offensive stars like Randy Moss, Daunte Culpepper and Randall Cunningham.

My problem has ALWAYS been the mentality of "cart-offs". The "Injure the guy" mentality. Not the "Did they break a rule of spending money for preformance" problems. Oh sure, that breaks the rules. I don't personally care. I care about guys purposley trying to end careers. Which is what "cart-offs" and telling your team to go after an ACL does.
 
2012-05-09 02:15:32 PM  

Slow To Return: robsul82: Didn't see that. I'd agree to it, if proven.

If what was proven? That the coaches were told to stop it, and didn't?


This is why rob can't be taken seriously, it had been proven they were told to stop, even the farking owner admits he was questioned and told the GM to knock it off and they didn't. So there is nothing left to be proven 3 time's they were warned and told the NFL to go fark themselves.

I still think the suspensions were too light.
 
2012-05-09 02:18:12 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: I don't personally care. I care about guys purposley trying to end careers. Which is what "cart-offs" and telling your team to go after an ACL does.


And I'd be in the same boat. If there was one iota of evidence that it was more dangerous to play the saints than anyone else. fact is it wasn't. Glad they were found out. Glad it was stopped. But I'll be damned if I can see that the program accomplished anything except pissing people off.
 
2012-05-09 02:18:12 PM  

Slow To Return: robsul82: If this pay-for-injury system were proven.

Ok, what? I guess I missed something along the way. There's doubt about the program's existance? Didn't all Saints coaches involved fess up to it?


They admitted to a pay-for-performance system. INTs, fumbles, big hits, the common program around NFL locker rooms that are still illegal, but not the NFL's vision of "they were going out there to maim people!", no.

justtray: But Cris Carter's verbal statement is proof that everyone was doing it. And you don't see a logical inconsistency. This literally tells everyone all they need to know about you.


There's no logical inconsistency present in "you read things into statements that are not there," friendo. And no, not JUST Cris Carter, as previously referenced.

For someone so opposed to personal accounts going the other direction, you're going to be really shocked to find out (if the NFL ever releases their evidence) just how much of the pay-to-injure stuff is based on hearsay. That's just my theory about what's in there, YMMV.
 
2012-05-09 02:20:57 PM  

rka: drkats: Chris Carter cussed on the Mike and Mike show yesterday and I recorded it.

Here it is(NSFW):

Link

You were a hall monitor in grade school weren't you.


No, but I was a crossing guard. We got to go to one Pirate game for free every year. It was in the '70's and they were good.
 
2012-05-09 02:21:10 PM  
I don't get what's hearsay about a signed written statement and admission by all those involved. (at least the management)

I guess to a Homer, it's like the R Kelly incident. There's no standard of proof you will ever accept. But you have no problem holding a hypocritical view on Roethlisberger, Williams wall (for dieretics), etc.

You ARE a hypocrite. You do not have logical consistency. At least admit it so people know not to waste their time with you.
 
2012-05-09 02:21:25 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: My problem has ALWAYS been the mentality of "cart-offs". The "Injure the guy" mentality. Not the "Did they break a rule of spending money for preformance" problems. Oh sure, that breaks the rules. I don't personally care. I care about guys purposley trying to end careers. Which is what "cart-offs" and telling your team to go after an ACL does.


And the players who heard the ACL speech did nothing of the sort. No one got carted off playing the Saints. I'm sorry, the Saints were not trying to maim people.

steamingpile: This is why rob can't be taken seriously, it had been proven they were told to stop, even the farking owner admits he was questioned and told the GM to knock it off and they didn't. So there is nothing left to be proven 3 time's they were warned and told the NFL to go fark themselves.


...because I'm really arguing THAT happened, moron.

I still think the suspensions were too light.

No kidding, the only way the Falcons get anything done is if the Saints are crippled for years, lol.
 
2012-05-09 02:22:45 PM  
"They admitted to a pay-for-performance system. INTs, fumbles, big hits, the common program around NFL locker rooms that are still illegal, but not the NFL's vision of "they were going out there to maim people!", no."

Ah, I see. So it's a very weak, semantic argument you're trying to present. You agree they cheated, you just don't agree with the proof to the degree in which they cheated, or something equally stupid.
 
2012-05-09 02:23:35 PM  

justtray: I don't get what's hearsay about a signed written statement and admission by all those involved. (at least the management)

I guess to a Homer, it's like the R Kelly incident. There's no standard of proof you will ever accept. But you have no problem holding a hypocritical view on Roethlisberger, Williams wall (for dieretics), etc.

You ARE a hypocrite. You do not have logical consistency. At least admit it so people know not to waste their time with you.


Show. Your. Evidence. Don't just lick Goodell's boots.

Amazing how this is a controversial viewpoint.
 
2012-05-09 02:23:58 PM  

justtray: I don't get what's hearsay about a signed written statement and admission by all those involved. (at least the management)

I guess to a Homer, it's like the R Kelly incident. There's no standard of proof you will ever accept. But you have no problem holding a hypocritical view on Roethlisberger, Williams wall (for dieretics), etc.

You ARE a hypocrite. You do not have logical consistency. At least admit it so people know not to waste their time with you.


I have been saying that for a year now but until lately nobody believed me, sure I can be an ass sometimes but I'm logical and lovable......in a crow bar over the head kind of way.
 
2012-05-09 02:24:29 PM  

justtray: "They admitted to a pay-for-performance system. INTs, fumbles, big hits, the common program around NFL locker rooms that are still illegal, but not the NFL's vision of "they were going out there to maim people!", no."

Ah, I see. So it's a very weak, semantic argument you're trying to present. You agree they cheated, you just don't agree with the proof to the degree in which they cheated, or something equally stupid.


No, they did not cheat, period, full stop. No unfair competitive advantage is gained through this system.

I'm sorry they beat your team.
 
2012-05-09 02:25:25 PM  

steamingpile: I have been saying that for a year now but until lately nobody believed me, sure I can be an ass sometimes but I'm logical and lovable......in a crow bar over the head kind of way.


You are being truly, unbearably pathetic right now.
 
2012-05-09 02:26:06 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: He said he never offered money to "maim or hurt the dude," and that his bounty system was "based on protection or (a) big hit, excitement or helping your team win." He said that while playing in Minnesota, bounties were offered not only to protect him but other offensive stars like Randy Moss, Daunte Culpepper and Randall Cunningham.

My problem has ALWAYS been the mentality of "cart-offs". The "Injure the guy" mentality. Not the "Did they break a rule of spending money for preformance" problems. Oh sure, that breaks the rules. I don't personally care. I care about guys purposley trying to end careers. Which is what "cart-offs" and telling your team to go after an ACL does.


It's silly to argue semantics, analyizing every little word and phrase to death.

You either believe that pay-to-injure bounties were limited to one locker room, or you believe that such bounties were widespread. Period.

As much as I'd LIKE to believe that it was limited to the Saints, I'm going to go ahead and use my common sense and put myself into the "widespread" category.

My common sense and knowledge of human nature tells me that pay-for-performance systems are illegal across the board because it's obvious that such systems, left to fester on their own, will eventually devolve into pay-for-injure systems.
 
2012-05-09 02:26:56 PM  

justtray: "They admitted to a pay-for-performance system. INTs, fumbles, big hits, the common program around NFL locker rooms that are still illegal, but not the NFL's vision of "they were going out there to maim people!", no."

Ah, I see. So it's a very weak, semantic argument you're trying to present. You agree they cheated, you just don't agree with the proof to the degree in which they cheated, or something equally stupid.


Yet one of the NFL audio guys had one of them screaming "give me my money" when he took out favre.

Its proof to everyone except bandwagon jumper, acknowledge that he's a recent fan only and it all makes sense.
 
2012-05-09 02:27:45 PM  

robsul82: justtray: "They admitted to a pay-for-performance system. INTs, fumbles, big hits, the common program around NFL locker rooms that are still illegal, but not the NFL's vision of "they were going out there to maim people!", no."

Ah, I see. So it's a very weak, semantic argument you're trying to present. You agree they cheated, you just don't agree with the proof to the degree in which they cheated, or something equally stupid.

No, they did not cheat, period, full stop. No unfair competitive advantage is gained through this system.

I'm sorry they beat your team.


I don't know how you can say this with a straight face when you are quoted right above. You are literally, the only person that believes your nonsense. I hope you at least realize that much. You are so horribly pathetic.

I have more ire at bad reffing over losing a game than "bountygate." I'm sorry your team got caught.
 
2012-05-09 02:27:47 PM  

JohnBigBootay: Jim from Saint Paul: I don't personally care. I care about guys purposley trying to end careers. Which is what "cart-offs" and telling your team to go after an ACL does.

And I'd be in the same boat. If there was one iota of evidence that it was more dangerous to play the saints than anyone else. fact is it wasn't. Glad they were found out. Glad it was stopped. But I'll be damned if I can see that the program accomplished anything except pissing people off.


Ok. So you're setting me up for something right?

...

Ok, I feel like this is a trap. I'll bite anyway:

www.examiner.com

s3.guyism.com

Also proof it wasn't a fluke accident:

Gregg Williams special.

Maybe the best way to say this is that a "Gregg Willaims coached team is more dangerous to play then others instead of "The Saints Defense etc..."
 
2012-05-09 02:28:35 PM  

robsul82: you're going to be really shocked to find out (if the NFL ever releases their evidence) just how much of the pay-to-injure stuff is based on hearsay.


I usually agree with you and not your herper derper detractors, but hearsay? More like colloborating statements, which can be quite damning.
 
2012-05-09 02:29:29 PM  

Slow To Return: It's silly to argue semantics, analyizing every little word and phrase to death.

You either believe that pay-to-injure bounties were limited to one locker room, or you believe that such bounties were widespread. Period.

As much as I'd LIKE to believe that it was limited to the Saints, I'm going to go ahead and use my common sense and put myself into the "widespread" category.

My common sense and knowledge of human nature tells me that pay-for-performance systems are illegal across the board because it's obvious that such systems, left to fester on their own, will eventually devolve into pay-for-injure systems.


If I actually thought for a second that these punishments might stop people from doing such things, I might even agree with these punishments. At least something good was achieved, you know?

But I don't. MY common sense and knowledge of human nature tells me that this will only be picked up a little further down the line by someone who thinks they're too smart and too smooth to get busted.

That means, of course, that positively nothing has been achieved. Nothing but the release of pent up frustration by fans with personal agendas, that is.
 
2012-05-09 02:31:59 PM  

Slow To Return: It's silly to argue semantics, analyizing every little word and phrase to death.

You either believe that pay-to-injure bounties were limited to one locker room, or you believe that such bounties were widespread. Period.


I do not agree that it's silly.

The mentality of having a proverbial "pot of money" for people who made a difference in the game is different then having a "pot of money" for guys going out and trying to possibly end careers. This has been my point all along.

If it can be shown where the Minnesota Vikings defense had/has a "Pay-to-injure" bounty system then THROW THE BOOK AT MY TEAM.
Don't purposley take away a guy's career simply for being on the other side of the ball!
 
2012-05-09 02:32:08 PM  

Slow To Return: Jim from Saint Paul: He said he never offered money to "maim or hurt the dude," and that his bounty system was "based on protection or (a) big hit, excitement or helping your team win." He said that while playing in Minnesota, bounties were offered not only to protect him but other offensive stars like Randy Moss, Daunte Culpepper and Randall Cunningham.

My problem has ALWAYS been the mentality of "cart-offs". The "Injure the guy" mentality. Not the "Did they break a rule of spending money for preformance" problems. Oh sure, that breaks the rules. I don't personally care. I care about guys purposley trying to end careers. Which is what "cart-offs" and telling your team to go after an ACL does.

It's silly to argue semantics, analyizing every little word and phrase to death.

You either believe that pay-to-injure bounties were limited to one locker room, or you believe that such bounties were widespread. Period.

As much as I'd LIKE to believe that it was limited to the Saints, I'm going to go ahead and use my common sense and put myself into the "widespread" category.

My common sense and knowledge of human nature tells me that pay-for-performance systems are illegal across the board because it's obvious that such systems, left to fester on their own, will eventually devolve into pay-for-injure systems.


I'd just like to say, that I personally believe the bounty programs were wide spread. At least more than just the Saints. I also believe that makes no difference, just like it didn't make any difference during spygate.

It's a non argument. You got caught cheating, you get punished. If you feel like others were cheating, go ahead, rat them out. We've been waiting for that proof so we can punish them too.

Other people cheating doesn't change a damn thing for the Saints, even if it were true.
 
2012-05-09 02:32:58 PM  

steamingpile: Yet one of the NFL audio guys had one of them screaming "give me my money" when he took out favre.

Its proof to everyone except bandwagon jumper, acknowledge that he's a recent fan only and it all makes sense.


Prove it.

justtray: You are literally, the only person that believes your nonsense


Uh, no. I know how you don't like to take players' words for it, but most of them feel the same way I do about whether the Saints were cheating.

Jim from Saint Paul: Also proof it wasn't a fluke accident:


Not really, seeing as how your favorite picture does not show Ayodele pulling up or McCray stumbling to make a diving tackle after being shoved down from behind. Still images don't tell the whole story.

Slow To Return: robsul82: you're going to be really shocked to find out (if the NFL ever releases their evidence) just how much of the pay-to-injure stuff is based on hearsay.

I usually agree with you and not your herper derper detractors, but hearsay? More like colloborating statements, which can be quite damning.


We'll see. Maybe, if we EVER see what they have. All we know is that, among the 50,000 pages of evidence, the first thing we see has been totally misrepresented by the league and their "independent" reviewer. Not a very good start for Goodell, you know.
 
2012-05-09 02:33:15 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: Ok, I feel like this is a trap. I'll bite anyway:


I watched this video within the last week or so... Didn't #92 pull up on that play?
 
2012-05-09 02:35:50 PM  

Slow To Return: Jim from Saint Paul: Ok, I feel like this is a trap. I'll bite anyway:

I watched this video within the last week or so... Didn't #92 pull up on that play?


And McCray got shoved down from behind, which is why he was stumbling to wrap up Favre's legs.

Still images don't tell the whole story, as much as I've tried to tell Jim that every time he brings it up.
 
2012-05-09 02:36:16 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: Don't purposley take away a guy's career simply for being on the other side of the ball!


What the hell is THIS derp? Whose career got taken away?? Joe Theismann?
 
2012-05-09 02:37:47 PM  

Slow To Return: Jim from Saint Paul: Ok, I feel like this is a trap. I'll bite anyway:

I watched this video within the last week or so... Didn't #92 pull up on that play?


No the initial guy who sacked Manning went low (as was legal then) but the other guy goes high with what looks like a flying arm bar and rips off Manning's helmet. It was a pretty brutal hit. The 2nd guy easily could have gone lower (and should have if looking for solid form)
 
2012-05-09 02:38:32 PM  

redmid17: No the initial guy who sacked Manning went low (as was legal then) but the other guy goes high with what looks like a flying arm bar and rips off Manning's helmet. It was a pretty brutal hit. The 2nd guy easily could have gone lower (and should have if looking for solid form)


...whut?
 
2012-05-09 02:38:43 PM  

redmid17: No the initial guy who sacked Manning went low (as was legal then) but the other guy goes high with what looks like a flying arm bar and rips off Manning's helmet. It was a pretty brutal hit. The 2nd guy easily could have gone lower (and should have if looking for solid form)


Wut?
 
2012-05-09 02:43:05 PM  

Slow To Return: robsul82: you're going to be really shocked to find out (if the NFL ever releases their evidence) just how much of the pay-to-injure stuff is based on hearsay.

I usually agree with you and not your herper derper detractors, but hearsay? More like colloborating statements, which can be quite damning.


I think he will be shocked when or if its released that a coach ratted them out one that is looking to shorten a suspension.....
 
2012-05-09 02:45:28 PM  

steamingpile: I think he will be shocked when or if its released that a coach ratted them out one that is looking to shorten a suspension.....


Considering we've already seen their statements?

Go back in your corner and keep touching yourself that some Vikings and Pats fans don't like me anymore.
 
2012-05-09 02:46:42 PM  

justtray: I'd just like to say, that I personally believe the bounty programs were wide spread. At least more than just the Saints. I also believe that makes no difference, just like it didn't make any difference during spygate.

It's a non argument. You got caught cheating, you get punished. If you feel like others were cheating, go ahead, rat them out. We've been waiting for that proof so we can punish them too.

Other people cheating doesn't change a damn thing for the Saints, even if it were true.


True enough.

I'm just saying when I hear things like what Cris Carter has to say, or what Darren Woodson has to say, or what Devin Thomas and Jacquian Williams have to say, or what Carlos Rodgers has to say, or what Philip Daniels has to say, well... I just kinda lump it all in the same category and don't really get caught up in the semantics of it all.

In my mind, having a goal to knock Eli Manning out of the game is no different than having a goal to knock Brett Favre out of the game, no matter how you semantically slice it.
 
2012-05-09 02:48:24 PM  

Slow To Return: In my mind, having a goal to knock Eli Manning out of the game is no different than having a goal to knock Brett Favre out of the game, no matter how you semantically slice it.


In my mind, that's what the D-line is trying to do every game, but anyway. "Get Mark Brunell in the game" is what the mullethead had in mind, I'm sure, if only the Saints O-line had let him through that day.
 
2012-05-09 02:55:13 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: Ok. So you're setting me up for something right?


Not at all. Dude got hit hard. Should have been a penalty - your beef is with the officiating crew. But there's nothing saints/vikes specific about it. Roethlisberger had a bum ankle end of last year and was brutalized because of it. I could post a bunch of screen shots but none involve the saints so no one cares. All qb's get maimed on a regular basis and it would be a simple matter to reverse engineer 'evidence' that something evil was afoot for all of them. Fact is this supposedly went on for three years. So there should be statistically demonstrable evidence that there were more personal fouls or injuries vs the saints than their peers but it's just not there. These dudes have all been trying to knock out the qb their entire careers, even if you aren't allowed to talk about it. I'm sorry but in my heart of hearts I honestly believe the saints would not have hit favre any different on any play, bounty or no bounty. It just doesn't add up that they'd intentionally risk a game changing penalty intentionally for a few grand when it could end up costing them a shot at the super bowl. They got lucky no penalty was called - end of story. And if you go back and look at the threads for that week I was pulling hard for favre and the vikes that game.
 
2012-05-09 02:56:22 PM  

Slow To Return: redmid17: No the initial guy who sacked Manning went low (as was legal then) but the other guy goes high with what looks like a flying arm bar and rips off Manning's helmet. It was a pretty brutal hit. The 2nd guy easily could have gone lower (and should have if looking for solid form)

Wut?


robsul82: redmid17: No the initial guy who sacked Manning went low (as was legal then) but the other guy goes high with what looks like a flying arm bar and rips off Manning's helmet. It was a pretty brutal hit. The 2nd guy easily could have gone lower (and should have if looking for solid form)

...whut?


I was talking about the Redskins game footage he just linked to. You know, the one he commented on. The 2nd guy didn't let up at all. I don't really see how you can come to any other conclusion
 
2012-05-09 02:58:44 PM  

JohnBigBootay: Jim from Saint Paul: Ok. So you're setting me up for something right?

Not at all. Dude got hit hard. Should have been a penalty - your beef is with the officiating crew. But there's nothing saints/vikes specific about it. Roethlisberger had a bum ankle end of last year and was brutalized because of it. I could post a bunch of screen shots but none involve the saints so no one cares. All qb's get maimed on a regular basis and it would be a simple matter to reverse engineer 'evidence' that something evil was afoot for all of them. Fact is this supposedly went on for three years. So there should be statistically demonstrable evidence that there were more personal fouls or injuries vs the saints than their peers but it's just not there. These dudes have all been trying to knock out the qb their entire careers, even if you aren't allowed to talk about it. I'm sorry but in my heart of hearts I honestly believe the saints would not have hit favre any different on any play, bounty or no bounty. It just doesn't add up that they'd intentionally risk a game changing penalty intentionally for a few grand when it could end up costing them a shot at the super bowl. They got lucky no penalty was called - end of story. And if you go back and look at the threads for that week I was pulling hard for favre and the vikes that game.


+1
 
2012-05-09 02:59:40 PM  

redmid17: I was talking about the Redskins game footage he just linked to. You know, the one he commented on. The 2nd guy didn't let up at all. I don't really see how you can come to any other conclusion


The lesson is to always click the link, lol.
 
2012-05-09 03:00:06 PM  

robsul82: redmid17: I was talking about the Redskins game footage he just linked to. You know, the one he commented on. The 2nd guy didn't let up at all. I don't really see how you can come to any other conclusion

The lesson is to always click the link, lol.


Been guilty of that before
 
2012-05-09 03:00:56 PM  

redmid17: robsul82: redmid17: I was talking about the Redskins game footage he just linked to. You know, the one he commented on. The 2nd guy didn't let up at all. I don't really see how you can come to any other conclusion

The lesson is to always click the link, lol.

Been guilty of that before


LOL, yes. Whoops.
 
Displayed 50 of 177 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report