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.

(Deadspin)   The NFL had no problem with bounties. Had   (deadspin.com) divider line 92
    More: Interesting, NFL, Scott Fujita, Reggie White, NFLPA, Roger Goodell  
•       •       •

2704 clicks; posted to Sports » on 19 Oct 2012 at 5:41 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-19 01:23:30 PM  
"Of course it's all about the timing. The league knew about, and didn't care about bounty programs, back in the days when nobody cared about concussions. But now, facing lawsuits from hundreds of retired players, and safety concerns from parents, players and fans at all levels of the game, the Saints bounty scandal is barely about standing up for the game's integrity, and all about the opportunity for some masterful PR. It's been said that lots of teams have some sort of bounty program, the Saints just had the misfortune of getting caught. That's not strictly true, as we know the league has been aware of others in the past. The Saints just had the misfortune of getting caught now, at a time the league could really use a scapegoat for more fundamental problems."

The whole article can pretty much be summed up in that last paragraph.
 
2012-10-19 01:32:06 PM  

AnotherBluesStringer: The whole article can pretty much be summed up in that last paragraph.


Yeah, the Saints were just unfortunately. Not dirty at all, not playing filthy at all, they were just unfortunate and it's sad they were punished rightly for the utter unsportsmanlike conduct of the team.
 
2012-10-19 01:32:38 PM  
The memo filed by Vilma's lawyer is pretty strong. Judge Berrigan isn't going to be looking too fondly on the NFL right now.
 
2012-10-19 01:33:25 PM  

GAT_00: AnotherBluesStringer: The whole article can pretty much be summed up in that last paragraph.

Yeah, the Saints were just unfortunately. Not dirty at all, not playing filthy at all, they were just unfortunate and it's sad they were punished rightly for the utter unsportsmanlike conduct of the team.


How do Roger Goodell's balls taste?
 
2012-10-19 01:38:31 PM  
The 85 Eagles would never have done that!
 
2012-10-19 01:39:17 PM  
If they were really concerned about bounties, they'd ban those incentives from contracts related to the number of sacks, tackles, etc.
 
2012-10-19 01:40:13 PM  
Wasn't the issue that the Saints were told to stop and continued anyway? There was an investigation in 2010 that involved a coverup and whatnot?
 
2012-10-19 01:42:08 PM  

Aarontology: If they were really concerned about bounties, they'd ban those incentives from contracts related to the number of sacks, tackles, etc.


That is a really good point that quite honestly hadn't occurred to me.

JerseyTim: Wasn't the issue that the Saints were told to stop and continued anyway? There was an investigation in 2010 that involved a coverup and whatnot?


Hush, the facts are unimportant. The poor Saints are the victims here, remember? Not the scumbags of the NFL.
 
2012-10-19 01:48:41 PM  

GAT_00: That is a really good point that quite honestly hadn't occurred to me.


It's a bounty without calling it a bounty. It's just not specific.

Having Vilma say "I''ll give ten grand to bulldoze Favre" isn't really all that different than saying "If you get 10 sacks, you get an extra half million"

GAT_00: Hush, the facts are unimportant. The poor Saints are the victims here, remember? Not the scumbags of the NFL.


For me, it's the bullshiat sanctimonious attitude the NFL is taking about the issue. I agree that the Saints should have been punished, but the reason they were so harsh is because Goodell wants to appear tough on player safety now that all those lawsuits are on the horizon. They claim to care about bounties, but allow them to be written into contracts.

That's why it's about "protecting the shield" and not "protecting the players"
 
2012-10-19 01:54:19 PM  

Aarontology: GAT_00: That is a really good point that quite honestly hadn't occurred to me.

It's a bounty without calling it a bounty. It's just not specific.

Having Vilma say "I''ll give ten grand to bulldoze Favre" isn't really all that different than saying "If you get 10 sacks, you get an extra half million"

GAT_00: Hush, the facts are unimportant. The poor Saints are the victims here, remember? Not the scumbags of the NFL.

For me, it's the bullshiat sanctimonious attitude the NFL is taking about the issue. I agree that the Saints should have been punished, but the reason they were so harsh is because Goodell wants to appear tough on player safety now that all those lawsuits are on the horizon. They claim to care about bounties, but allow them to be written into contracts.

That's why it's about "protecting the shield" and not "protecting the players"


You aren't going to find too many Saints fans who don't agree that Payton and Loomis should not have done more when they were warned the first time, but at no point had any team ever been disciplined for what we know had gone on in the League for many years without a problem. And, the problem the League did have was when money for such pay-for-performance schemes came from the team or other sources. At no time has the NFL ever had a problem with gifts or anything from one player to another. QB's buy the linemen dinner after a game without any sacks quite often. Troy Aikman used to buy Rolex watches for his entire O-line at the end of a good season. The NFL added the "intent to injure" angle and played it up after the fact. Note that Gregg Williams' own affidavit that the League is waving as evidence states payments were made only for good, clean, LEGAL hits. So, yes, Payton and Loomis should not have left the Saints vulnerable to the Commissioner's apparently arbitrary wrath, but the scope of the penalty seems way out of proportion.
 
2012-10-19 01:59:12 PM  

Aarontology: For me, it's the bullshiat sanctimonious attitude the NFL is taking about the issue. I agree that the Saints should have been punished, but the reason they were so harsh is because Goodell wants to appear tough on player safety now that all those lawsuits are on the horizon. They claim to care about bounties, but allow them to be written into contracts.

That's why it's about "protecting the shield" and not "protecting the players"


I'm somewhat convinced what really caused the penalties wasn't just the bounty program itself, but the Saints actively trying to hide it and lying to the NFL to try to keep doing it. Owning up to it and apologizing would have not only preserved the integrity of the team but I think substantially reduced sanctions. Instead they hid it and got offended when they were punished. In every single way the Saints have handled this wrong and honestly the steadfast support of Saints fans no matter what is just as bad. I mean, they make Eagles fans look good IMO.

Aarontology: Having Vilma say "I''ll give ten grand to bulldoze Favre" isn't really all that different than saying "If you get 10 sacks, you get an extra half million"


A counterargument here is that sacks are a legitimate part of the game, and more sacks is a good thing generally. Targeting is a bit different, where incentives are to increase overall performance. But I wouldn't really argue against banning incentives.
 
2012-10-19 02:09:49 PM  

Nabb1: The NFL added the "intent to injure" angle and played it up after the fact. Note that Gregg Williams' own affidavit that the League is waving as evidence states payments were made only for good, clean, LEGAL hits. So, yes, Payton and Loomis should not have left the Saints vulnerable to the Commissioner's apparently arbitrary wrath, but the scope of the penalty seems way out of proportion.


I think the "intent to injure" part is some of the proof that it's about PR and not their supposed outrage over the bounties themselves. Like you said, Aikman giving out gifts is a hell of an incentive for a lineman to bury a defensive player as hard as he can.

But it's like they say "it's the cover up, not the crime" which, as a Saints fan, upset me more than the rough hits. Aside from that bit about Williams wanting to target Smith because of his concussion. That was beyond f*cked up.

GAT_00: 'm somewhat convinced what really caused the penalties wasn't just the bounty program itself, but the Saints actively trying to hide it and lying to the NFL to try to keep doing it. Owning up to it and apologizing would have not only preserved the integrity of the team but I think substantially reduced sanction


I'm going to have to agree with you there.

mean, they make Eagles fans look good IMO.

I will not hesitate to cut a biatch.

A counterargument here is that sacks are a legitimate part of the game, and more sacks is a good thing generally. Targeting is a bit different, where incentives are to increase overall performance. But I wouldn't really argue against banning incentives.

True, but the hits (aside from the Smith bounty) were legal too, just delivered with a lot more force. Notice that the Saints weren't called for significantly more flags for late hits, roughing the passer, etc as the rest of the league. I don't even think they were at the top. I'm not condoning it, but they weren't going full retard with chop blocks and the like.

But think of it like this. You're a linebacker with a ten sack incentive. You're going to want to deliver those sacks with some authority in order to show that you're worth the incentive money and a bit more. I doubt many organizations are going to be all that concerned if those sacks were delivered and Matt Ryan had to take a game or two off because they were really hard.
 
2012-10-19 02:14:04 PM  
Newsflash just popped up on my iPhone: "Roger Goodell recuses self from Saints investigation." Looks like someone must have hit pretty close to the mark.
 
2012-10-19 02:18:12 PM  

Nabb1: GAT_00: AnotherBluesStringer: The whole article can pretty much be summed up in that last paragraph.

Yeah, the Saints were just unfortunately. Not dirty at all, not playing filthy at all, they were just unfortunate and it's sad they were punished rightly for the utter unsportsmanlike conduct of the team.

How do Roger Goodell's balls taste?


i1123.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-19 02:19:01 PM  

Aarontology: I will not hesitate to cut a biatch.


Aww man, you're a Saints fan? Well, you I will excuse since you are the only Saints fan I can think of who has actually condemned this crap. Because no offense man, but I do think less of Saints fans than any other.

Aarontology: Notice that the Saints weren't called for significantly more flags for late hits, roughing the passer, etc as the rest of the league. I don't even think they were at the top. I'm not condoning it, but they weren't going full retard with chop blocks and the like.


I cannot refute this, and I can't recall anyone doing a study that showed anything like that one way or another.
 
2012-10-19 02:23:39 PM  

GAT_00: Aarontology: I will not hesitate to cut a biatch.

Aww man, you're a Saints fan? Well, you I will excuse since you are the only Saints fan I can think of who has actually condemned this crap.


Really, then I guess you haven't read the multiple posts by myself, robsul, downstairs and others who post regularly in football threads who have said all along that the Saints made a big mistake, but have a problem with the penalty seeming disproportionate.

Then again, I guess you haven't read mine...
 
2012-10-19 02:24:58 PM  

GAT_00: Aww man, you're a Saints fan? Well, you I will excuse since you are the only Saints fan I can think of who has actually condemned this crap. Because no offense man, but I do think less of Saints fans than any other.


Nabb1 has several times, too.

I cannot refute this, and I can't recall anyone doing a study that showed anything like that one way or another.

Yeah, I can't find a cite for it at the moment.. I'm recalling a half time show or a podcast or something.
 
2012-10-19 02:31:24 PM  

Aarontology: I cannot refute this, and I can't recall anyone doing a study that showed anything like that one way or another.

Yeah, I can't find a cite for it at the moment.. I'm recalling a half time show or a podcast or something.


Actually, I think the Wall Street Journal ran an analysis. IIRC, the Saints weren't squeaky clean on penalties and fines, but they weren't the worst offenders by far.

That said, it seems very interesting that Vilma's team filed this memorandum in court, in part attacking Goodell's lack of impartiality and no suddenly Goodell is recusing himself from the player appeals and letting Paul Tagliabue come in and do it. Very interesting, indeed.
 
2012-10-19 02:31:31 PM  

Aarontology: Nabb1 has several times, too.


I really don't care what he thinks. He got put on ignore when he demanded I cite his own opinions to him.
 
2012-10-19 02:36:40 PM  

Nabb1: Actually, I think the Wall Street Journal ran an analysis. IIRC, the Saints weren't squeaky clean on penalties and fines, but they weren't the worst offenders by far.


That's probably it.

That said, it seems very interesting that Vilma's team filed this memorandum in court, in part attacking Goodell's lack of impartiality and no suddenly Goodell is recusing himself from the player appeals and letting Paul Tagliabue come in and do it. Very interesting, indeed.

Yeah, that is interesting. I figured it'd just be Goodell going "I AM THE GREAT AND POWERFUL COMMISH I HAVE SPOKEN"
 
2012-10-19 02:43:06 PM  

GAT_00: Aww man, you're a Saints fan? Well, you I will excuse since you are the only Saints fan I can think of who has actually condemned this crap. Because no offense man, but I do think less of Saints fans than any other.


Your hatred of Saints fans is unfounded, as I can't think of a single fan in real life or on Fark who actively condones what the team did. As noted elsewhere, what we're pissed about is the disproportionate severity of the punishment and Goodell's arbitrary bulldozing of an entire franchise.

I'm sure you can remember a couple of stupid posts made by some kid defending the bounty system, but no one I know has - certainly not Fark's more vocal and consistent fans. But if it makes you feel better to think less of what is arguably the most dedicated and non-douchey fanbase in the league, then by all means do so. You don't know jack sh*t about us.
 
2012-10-19 02:49:00 PM  

Nabb1: GAT_00: Aarontology: I will not hesitate to cut a biatch.

Aww man, you're a Saints fan? Well, you I will excuse since you are the only Saints fan I can think of who has actually condemned this crap.

Really, then I guess you haven't read the multiple posts by myself, robsul, downstairs and others who post regularly in football threads who have said all along that the Saints made a big mistake, but have a problem with the penalty seeming disproportionate.

Then again, I guess you haven't read mine...



Thanks for posting this.  Yeah, you got me right.  What the Saints did was wrong... especially lying about it.  I'm a huge Saints fan, they're part of my life (consider that statement crazy if you want.)
 
I have no qualms about them being punished in some fashion.  I just thought it was way too much.  That's all I have an issue with.
 
But whatever, Goodell can enjoy eating alone in his hotel room during the Superbowl.
 
2012-10-19 02:52:42 PM  

GAT_00: Aarontology: Nabb1 has several times, too.

I really don't care what he thinks. He got put on ignore when he demanded I cite his own opinions to him.


Yes, you put me on ignore when you accused me of saying something I was certain I never said and I demanded you back it up. How awful of me. Well, if I hurt your feelings, that was not my intent, and all I can respond with is
 
2012-10-19 02:54:20 PM  
Whoops, image size limits are pretty ridiculous around here.

{Sigh} Here: Link
 
2012-10-19 02:54:48 PM  

JerseyTim: Wasn't the issue that the Saints were told to stop and continued anyway? There was an investigation in 2010 that involved a coverup and whatnot?


That's why the coaches and management got so royally effed. Lied to NFL investigators, were told to stop, continued anyway. Deserved what they got.
Next time an NFL investigation comes to your franchise... be truthful. You may be punished, but it will be a pittance compared to the consequences if you lie.

As noted in the article, White's payouts weren't explicitly for injuring players, but I think it's more the coverup and the continuation of the program after being explicitly told that such a program would be illegal, which got them the hammer.

The punishments for some of the players may be on the harsh side. I really don't know.
 
2012-10-19 02:55:53 PM  

Nabb1: Actually, I think the Wall Street Journal ran an analysis. IIRC, the Saints weren't squeaky clean on penalties and fines, but they weren't the worst offenders by far.



And if anyone thinks other teams... if not EVERY other team... didn't have bounty programs, they're fooling themselves.  The Saints merely did a Richard Nixon and got nabbed for covering it up and lying about it.  After being warned
 
Thus, they deserved punishment.  I think it was too much of a punishment, as well I think all other teams should have been investigated.  But guess what... water under the bridge now.
 
Yes, the team you root for had the same program.
 
2012-10-19 02:58:52 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: JerseyTim: Wasn't the issue that the Saints were told to stop and continued anyway? There was an investigation in 2010 that involved a coverup and whatnot?

That's why the coaches and management got so royally effed. Lied to NFL investigators, were told to stop, continued anyway. Deserved what they got.
Next time an NFL investigation comes to your franchise... be truthful. You may be punished, but it will be a pittance compared to the consequences if you lie.

As noted in the article, White's payouts weren't explicitly for injuring players, but I think it's more the coverup and the continuation of the program after being explicitly told that such a program would be illegal, which got them the hammer.

The punishments for some of the players may be on the harsh side. I really don't know.



The punishments on the players hinge on actual evidence, which the NFL doesn't seem to have.
 
Thats the only issue here.  Show us the evidence, and we'll be on your side.
 
The coaches?  Yeah... they got caught and rightfully so.  Can't deny that.
 
2012-10-19 03:20:34 PM  
"Sure hope Tagliabue is a speed reader. He's only got a few days to read 50,000 pages!"

Wonder who told Goodell to recuse himself. No way that dude had that epiphany on his own, haha.
 
2012-10-19 03:28:12 PM  

robsul82: "Sure hope Tagliabue is a speed reader. He's only got a few days to read 50,000 pages!"

Wonder who told Goodell to recuse himself. No way that dude had that epiphany on his own, haha.


League lawyers, most likely.
 
2012-10-19 03:35:31 PM  

Nabb1: robsul82: "Sure hope Tagliabue is a speed reader. He's only got a few days to read 50,000 pages!"

Wonder who told Goodell to recuse himself. No way that dude had that epiphany on his own, haha.

League lawyers, most likely.


Yeah, figured. Just wish there were cameras rolling for Roger, We Need to Have a Talk.
 
2012-10-19 03:37:33 PM  
Oh my, this is embarrassing for the league.

It's bad when the supposed whistleblower says he didn't know or say anything about bounties.
 
2012-10-19 05:29:19 PM  

IAmRight: Oh my, this is embarrassing for the league.

It's bad when the supposed whistleblower says he didn't know or say anything about bounties.


The courtrooms of America periodically see like this one pass through...they know all about the crime in question until they figure out that their street cred will be damaged, then they didn't see anything. Hopefully the League has him on tape or has a signed affidavit and can play/read it back for him to "refresh" his memory.
 
2012-10-19 05:44:16 PM  
The NFL was fine with horse-collar tackles 16 years ago too.
 
2012-10-19 05:45:49 PM  

AnotherBluesStringer: "Of course it's all about the timing. The league knew about, and didn't care about bounty programs, back in the days when nobody cared about concussions. But now, facing lawsuits from hundreds of retired players, and safety concerns from parents, players and fans at all levels of the game, the Saints bounty scandal is barely about standing up for the game's integrity, and all about the opportunity for some masterful PR. It's been said that lots of teams have some sort of bounty program, the Saints just had the misfortune of getting caught. That's not strictly true, as we know the league has been aware of others in the past. The Saints just had the misfortune of getting caught now, at a time the league could really use a scapegoat for more fundamental problems."

The whole article can pretty much be summed up in that last paragraph.


Well that and there have been no changes in the league or it contracts with the labor unions since then at all....
 
2012-10-19 05:47:31 PM  
I'm just glad the mystery of Greg Robinson's stuffed beaver has finally been revealed.
 
2012-10-19 05:48:27 PM  

IAmRight: Oh my, this is embarrassing for the league.

It's bad when the supposed whistleblower says he didn't know or say anything about bounties.


He was the source from the source, its not that embarrassing and will just call childress back to clarify.
 
2012-10-19 05:53:44 PM  
So before the Saints players were saying there was no bounty or they didn't participate in it and now they are saying, ok maybe we did but the NFL thought it was OK before.
 
2012-10-19 06:22:20 PM  

Treygreen13: The NFL was fine with horse-collar tackles 16 years ago too.


And they changed the rules. You can read them.

I don't see anything indicating they changed the rules on this particular behavior.
 
2012-10-19 06:22:43 PM  

Incog_Neeto: So before the Saints players were saying there was no bounty or they didn't participate in it and now they are saying, ok maybe we did but the NFL thought it was OK before.


No, I imagine they're saying "we didn't have a bounty program but, even if we did, we can clearly show that, for at least 15 years or so, the NFL has allowed bounty programs provided that players use their own monies, the amounts weren't exorbitant, and the payments weren't for illegal hits."

The NFL is, frankly, screwed. Unless there was a clear policy change somewhere, in writing, the NFLPA is basically claiming that the NFL did an about-face on what appears to be a historically accepted policy solely because of the resulting PR nightmare, and that the players were playing within established NFL policy.
 
2012-10-19 06:36:34 PM  

mediablitz: Treygreen13: The NFL was fine with horse-collar tackles 16 years ago too.

And they changed the rules. You can read them.

I don't see anything indicating they changed the rules on this particular behavior.


Glad to see someone else sees the obvious difference.
 
2012-10-19 06:44:17 PM  
What difference does it make what the league was like a generation ago. Hey, they used to allow head-slaps, too. Guess that makes it OK today, because at one time it wasn't banned.

Saints fans continue to reach to justify something that ought never have happened in the NFL circa 2010. It would be amusing we're it not so pathetic. Football tu quoques. What's next, I know you are but what am I?
 
2012-10-19 07:02:00 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: What difference does it make what the league was like a generation ago. Hey, they used to allow head-slaps, too. Guess that makes it OK today, because at one time it wasn't banned.


Yep, the rules on head slaps have changed and you can read the revised NFL rules and know this. Of course there were no written rules on bounties than or now, so you can't show that there's been a policy change other than just this apparently undocumented one called for by the concussion publicity. Of course undocumented = lack of proof.
 
2012-10-19 07:03:27 PM  
Lets see, where to start with the derpers in this thread.

Lets start with downstairs since he is the most willfully ignorant. "Thats the only issue here. Show us the evidence, and we'll be on your side."

I see this post in every ESPN board, and then I do this.

https://www.nflplayers.com/Articles/Public-News/NFLPA-Makes-Exhibits- A vailable-for-Review/
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/06/18/new.or l eans.saints.bounties/index.html
http://www.cbssports.com/columns/story/20216104/williams-outlines-sai n ts-pay-for-performance-program-$10k-favre-bounty-in-affidavit

And then they don't respond or move the goalposts to say something ignorant like, "but that's not proof enough," except that it's far more than proof enough, especially in an employment dispute, which is why Tagliabue will reaffirm the suspensions.

Who's next? Looks like FormlessOne

FormlessOne:
The NFL is, frankly, screwed. Unless there was a clear policy change somewhere, in writing, the NFLPA is basically claiming that the NFL did an about-face on what appears to be a historically accepted policy solely because of the resulting PR nightmare, and that the players were playing within established NFL policy.

There doesn't need to be a policy change because it was never within the rules to allow inproper incentives, or to have a bounty. It was simply overlooked 16 years ago. This entire argument is based on a faulty premise. And contrary to your initial assertion, they not only are admitting to the program existing, from which they had previously said it did not, but they also admitted as much in court, when they tried to argue that cart-offs mean a player missing a play, not necessarily an injury.

And finally, I'm not sure anyone has brought it up, but I'm sure some other herpaderp Aints homer will, Goodell passing the baton to Tagliabue is in no way a concession or admission of bias. He is simply doing this to show good faith in the court case so that the judge has literally no option other than to throw out the case. Since he's doing exactly as the players ask, they lose their only slightly plausable legal defense. And as mentioned, since Tagliabue is a lawyer himself, he will see the legally binding evidence, the lack of any real defense from the players, and affirm the suspensions, and this will be over, as it should have been 4 months ago.

Thanks for playing, don't let the door hit you on the way out. And those on my ignore list, don't bother raging out, and you know who you are.
 
2012-10-19 07:06:50 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Saints fans continue to reach to justify something that ought never have happened in the NFL circa 2010


As per multiple above posts (including my own), we're not trying to "justify" what happened. We're openly questioning the wildly disproportional punishment.

Everyone, including Saints fans, knows and admits that what happened was wrong by current standards. The question is, does this punishment fit the crime, or are we being made an example of? And you already know the answer to this, particularly since the Saints had an average amount of personal fouls and the hits were legal. The NFL routinely punishes players and coaches for all manner of douchebaggery, but not like this.
 
2012-10-19 07:13:28 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: What difference does it make what the league was like a generation ago. Hey, they used to allow head-slaps, too. Guess that makes it OK today, because at one time it wasn't banned.

Saints fans continue to reach to justify something that ought never have happened in the NFL circa 2010. It would be amusing we're it not so pathetic. Football tu quoques. What's next, I know you are but what am I?



Don't bring logic to the discussion. They're on a roll!
 
2012-10-19 07:15:40 PM  
Yep, its two things:

Covering up the lie, and making the payouts for illegal hits.

Still surprised Darth Roger recused hisself though, even if for a puppet.
 
2012-10-19 07:23:41 PM  

HellRaisingHoosier: Don't bring logic to the discussion. They're on a roll!


They're not on a roll - they're right. I've mostly stayed out of the recent threads because I'm just tired of the topic but as an unbiased non-combatant in this fight (steeler fan) I'll give it to you straight. The saints misbehaved and should be punished. But the punishment was a horrible knee-jerk reaction way out of scale to the actual crime. If this horrible bounty program was such a reprehensible tragedy it would have borne some fruit. You'd see a larger number of injuries or concussion or cartoffs or personal fouls or SOMETHING definable and measurable vs the rest of the league. But there's nothing there. Goodell is just using the saints as a scapegoat to prevent an affirmative defense against all the lawsuits - something tangible he can point to and say 'see, I'm serious cat and i will not tolerate.... blah, blah, blah.' Fact is the NFL was still selling their 'big hit!' spearing videos until last year and he's gonna get creamed in court. the bounty program was typical (if ill-advised and tasteless) hot air macho locker room bullshiat.
 
2012-10-19 07:24:54 PM  

dickfreckle: Adolf Oliver Nipples: Saints fans continue to reach to justify something that ought never have happened in the NFL circa 2010

As per multiple above posts (including my own), we're not trying to "justify" what happened. We're openly questioning the wildly disproportional punishment.

Everyone, including Saints fans, knows and admits that what happened was wrong by current standards. The question is, does this punishment fit the crime, or are we being made an example of? And you already know the answer to this, particularly since the Saints had an average amount of personal fouls and the hits were legal. The NFL routinely punishes players and coaches for all manner of douchebaggery, but not like this.


Okay, I'll bite.

1. How can you argue the punishment is disproportionate? They ended Warner's career, and efffectively, Favre's.

2. What WOULD be appropriate punishment?
 
2012-10-19 07:29:27 PM  

GAT_00: JerseyTim: Wasn't the issue that the Saints were told to stop and continued anyway? There was an investigation in 2010 that involved a coverup and whatnot?

Hush, the facts are unimportant. The poor Saints are the victims here, remember? Not the scumbags of the NFL.


Who was told? Management and the coaches, or the players? This is the NFLPA we're talking about, emphasis on the P.

AFAIK, the coaches aren't appealing.

Or are these just some more unimportant facts?
 
2012-10-19 07:38:01 PM  

GAT_00: Aww man, you're a Saints fan? Well, you I will excuse since you are the only Saints fan I can think of who has actually condemned this crap.


Treygreen13: The NFL was fine with horse-collar tackles 16 years ago too.


And Michael Irvin-style pushoffs, amirite?

/Cowboys fan
 
Displayed 50 of 92 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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