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 (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
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
 
2012-10-19 07:50:00 PM
"The 'Smash-for-Cash' program is within the rules as long as players use their own monies, the amounts are not exorbitant, and the payments are not for illegal hits."


and boom goes the dynamite
 
2012-10-19 07:57:47 PM
I remember this now. But no one back then was caught on tape outlining players existing injuries and telling players how to aggravate those injuries to knock them out of games.
 
2012-10-19 08:00:38 PM
I don't think even Animal Planet has used the word "beaver" more times in a day than ESPN has.

/the hardest working animal in the animal kingdom.
 
2012-10-19 08:17:30 PM

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


Eh. Forcing Favre to retire for good was a public service.
 
2012-10-19 08:30:30 PM

Sargun: "The 'Smash-for-Cash' program is within the rules as long as players use their own monies, the amounts are not exorbitant, and the payments are not for illegal hits."


and boom goes the dynamite


You know Gregg Williams said in his affidavit - the one the League is touting as evidence in its favor - states that the payouts were for clean, legal hits and hits that drew penalties actually cost players money? Do you avail yourself of any of the relevant facts before posting in this subject?
 
2012-10-19 08:42:57 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.


I already answered this. They banned headslaps. It was written into the rules. Just like many other things.

But NOT this.

It's pretty obvious how it's different. Well, to MOST people I guess. I'm no Saints fan or apologist, but it's pretty farking stupid, your "argument'.
 
2012-10-19 08:45:07 PM

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


Is the suggestion here that those two are the first time this has ever happened it pro football?

If that is what you are arguing, I'm laughing pretty farking hard.
 
2012-10-19 08:54:28 PM

mediablitz: Is the suggestion here that those two are the first time this has ever happened it pro football?

If that is what you are arguing, I'm laughing pretty farking hard.


Should be mentioned that in neither case is it true, of course. Warner has always shot that idea down if anyone ever brought it up, the buzz about it being his last year was all around that entire season anyway. Favre playing like the 41-year-old quarterback he was with a worse team than 2009 could also explain having a worse season in 2010, but no, let's blame a bruised ankle that had happened eight months earlier. Friggin' Corey Wootton "ended" Favre's career, if you want to call it that. If that Farker ever gets over his case of terminal butthurt from his Minnesota Vikings 2009 NFC Champions shirt being shipped to Somalia instead of the Mall of America, I'll be stunned.
 
2012-10-19 08:56:02 PM

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

Is the suggestion here that those two are the first time this has ever happened it pro football?

If that is what you are arguing, I'm laughing pretty farking hard.


No it's not, but the fact that you can't answer those two questions is pretty humorous indeed. Especially considering how many times it has been repeated in this thread that this is your sole argument.
 
2012-10-19 08:57:16 PM

mediablitz: 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.

I already answered this. They banned headslaps. It was written into the rules. Just like many other things.

But NOT this.

It's pretty obvious how it's different. Well, to MOST people I guess. I'm no Saints fan or apologist, but it's pretty farking stupid, your "argument'.


Bounties have always been against the rules. There was no need to ammend them.

Just because a criminal gets away with murder doesn't make murder ok. An extreme example, but at least it lets you see why your argument is so stupid to begin with.
 
2012-10-19 09:26:11 PM

mjbok: 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.


There is an obvious difference, the labor agreement now forbids other forms of payments.

Rules have been changed, financial rules but still rules that changed.
 
2012-10-19 10:12:01 PM

Nabb1: 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.


Not just that; that could be bad news with regards to that massive class-action lawsuit.
 
2012-10-19 10:21:19 PM

Slow To Return: 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


I dunno, they seemed to be fine with them when the 'Hawks played the Pack.
 
2012-10-19 10:30:43 PM

Rwa2play: Nabb1: 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.

Not just that; that could be bad news with regards to that massive class-action lawsuit.


Yes because the players union is 100% blameless in this as well, the union us supposed to protect the players physically as well as monetarily.
 
2012-10-19 10:56:02 PM

GAT_00: 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.


Who do you think the target is in a sack?
 
2012-10-19 11:49:15 PM

justtray: No it's not, but the fact that you can't answer those two questions is pretty humorous indeed. Especially considering how many times it has been repeated in this thread that this is your sole argument.


I see you got owned before I could reply.

slink away while you can...
 
2012-10-20 01:40:49 AM

mediablitz: justtray: No it's not, but the fact that you can't answer those two questions is pretty humorous indeed. Especially considering how many times it has been repeated in this thread that this is your sole argument.

I see you got owned before I could reply.

slink away while you can...


I did? Is there a ghost I can't see? Are you in the same thread as me? I'm not going anywhere princess and no one has owned me or even answered any of my questions.

Good try though, next.
 
2012-10-20 02:09:10 AM

justtray: I did? Is there a ghost I can't see? Are you in the same thread as me? I'm not going anywhere princess and no one has owned me or even answered any of my questions.

Good try though, next.


Tough talk from a pussy who puts anyone who uses facts against his butthurt bullshiat on an ignore list, lol.

/anyone who thinks a player who played another season beyond where their careers were "essentially" ended is "essentially" retarded
//if the starving kid who received this

3.bp.blogspot.com

sends it to you in the mail, will you stop crying?
 
2012-10-20 02:32:18 AM

justtray: 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?


Really? Can you point me to the instance where the Favre and Warner incidents were anything but hard but legal football? You know, the kind everyone wants to see?

Appropriate punishment? Hard to put into numbers. What I would not have done as commish, even to a team I despise, is completely decimate it for the sole reason of making a statement to the rest of the league...particularly if I had a Jekyll/Hyde reputation for discipline that Goodell has. Had Payton been suspended for 6 games, it STILL would have been a huge story. And Vilma, Smith, Fujita, etc? That's just bullsh*t and apparently some people agree via appeals.

There's a reason this is a controversy, with bloodlust and haters on one side and calmer minds (not just Saints fans) second-guessing this joke of a commissioner.

I keep using the word "arbitrary" because that's how Goodell applies his punishments. In this case, the Saints were not "wronged" in that they were innocent (they aren't), but wronged in that in recent years the NFL never enforced such a policy, and does so now that player lawsuits are on the horizon (as mentioned above). This had nothing to do with the sanctity of player safety, especially when you realize that the Saints didn't do anything but play hard ball during the time in question. To hear some explain it, Vilma went out there with a shiv and stabbed everyone for 10K...less than his game check.

Speaking of lawsuits, what about season ticket holders? As one local article put it, it's like paying top dollar for a Broadway play, only to arrive to find all the actors were replaced. Incidentally, there is a class-action suit among ticket-holders alleging that very thing. 5 million. Chump change to the league, but we'll see. Do you know how hard it's been to get season tix since the Saints stopped sucking? Off-topic but I wanted to throw it in there.
 
2012-10-20 02:57:07 AM

dickfreckle: justtray: 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?

Really? Can you point me to the instance where the Favre and Warner incidents were anything but hard but legal football? You know, the kind everyone wants to see?

Appropriate punishment? Hard to put into numbers. What I would not have done as commish, even to a team I despise, is completely decimate it for the sole reason of making a statement to the rest of the league...particularly if I had a Jekyll/Hyde reputation for discipline that Goodell has. Had Payton been suspended for 6 games, it STILL would have been a huge story. And Vilma, Smith, Fujita, etc? That's just bullsh*t and apparently some people agree via appeals.

There's a reason this is a controversy, with bloodlust and haters on one side and calmer minds (not just Saints fans) second-guessing this joke of a commissioner.

I keep using the word "arbitrary" because that's how Goodell applies his punishments. In this case, the Saints were not "wronged" in that they were innocent (they aren't), but wronged in that in recent years the NFL never enforced such a policy, and does so now that player lawsuits are on the horizon (as mentioned above). This had nothing to do with the sanctity of player safety, especially when you realize that the Saints didn't do anything but play hard ball during the time in question. To hear some explain it, Vilma went out there with a shiv and stabbed everyone for 10K...less than his game check.

Speaking of lawsuits, what about season ticket holders? As one local article put it, it's like paying top dollar for a Broadway play, only to arrive to find all the actors were replaced. Incidentally, there is a class-action suit among ticket-holders alleging that very thing. 5 million. Chump change to the league, but we'll see. Do you know how hard it's been to get season tix since the Saints stopped s ...


Okay, to begin, you conceded you cannot assign an appropriate punishment. Which really makes the rest of your argument very weak, but I will still address it point by point.

"completely decimate it for the sole reason of making a statement to the rest of the league" - false, they were warned by the NFL that their system was not allowed and to stop, and they chose to ignore that, THAT is why they were punished so harshly, and that is the only thing there is any factual evidence to support. Any other explanation is conjecture based in pure speculation. I hope you can at least admit that with your horrible bias.

Then there's a bunch of hyperbole that doesn't even warrant a rebuttal. Not a single person has yet ruled in favor of any of the players punished. NOT A SINGLE ONE. The only ruling, the one to vacate their suspensions was a 100% procedural ruling, not based on the merits of the evidence against them. But guess what? When Tagliabue sees the appeals, we will see for sure what a neutral arbitrator says, one that has historically been soft on punishing players. But I am absolutely certain you will deflect this with the idea that he's Goodell's lapdog, despite the fact Goodell made the statement that he has not discussed this case with him in any way. (Just more facts you will willfully ignore)

"wronged in that in recent years the NFL never enforced such a policy" - as far as I know, they are the only team that has had any evidence of a bounty program, the only team told to stop running it, and the only team that then continued to run it after being told to stop.

Then you have more hyperbole and speculation based on zero facts, IE "This had nothing to do with the sanctity of player safety, especially when you realize that the Saints didn't do anything but play hard ball during the time in question." - Except that it has been proven they ran an illegal bounty program that offerred inproper incentives

The NFL presented Jonathan Vilma and his attorney with a sworn statement from former Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams saying the linebacker placed a $10,000 bounty on Brett Favre. - But i guess to you this constitutes hard, but legal football? Despite the fact that outside of the CBA, this would be called "conspiracy to commit assault."

And I guess you think he just knowingly purgered himself, risking federal prison time because he's going to one day coach in the NFL again? Good luck with that. The facts stand for themselves, and all you have is a big, fat nothing.
 
2012-10-20 03:44:47 AM

justtray: The facts stand for themselves, and all you have is a big, fat nothing.


Not to insult you, but you need to understand what "hyperbole" means if you're going to throw it around so much.

Now, to your assertions:

That I refused to assign a number to the suspensions doesn't make my argument "weak." I was merely trying to avoid yet another numbers argument that rivals the politics tab. This is - and again with this word - an arbitrary number, subject to debate that I've had too many times already.

As for you noting that that the NFL investigation was totally farked by the Saints staff, you are correct. Saints fans all over Fark have lamented this. Repeatedly. This is why we're OK with some form of punishment, but being Sanduskied over what does not amount to being a diabolical plan stings. As a fan of the sport, I'm wondering if you genuinely think this was fair ( in light of other Goodell rulings) or that you just have a taste of blood for the Saints.

Your comments about the appeals process for the players amuses me. Dude, stop it.

The comment about Goodell being Tag's lapdog doesn't warrant a response. Sorry.

/drunk, and still stand behind every word
 
2012-10-20 04:09:47 AM

dickfreckle: or that you just have a taste of blood for the Saints.


Just Farky the guy as a crybaby Vikings fan and it'll save you a headache. Won't save you the hilarity that comes with said Vikings fan biatching about others' "horrible bias" (obviously I'm a Saints fan as you know, but this dick continually preening himself as some pillar of objectivity in these threads is absurd) and holding up one SWORN STATEMENT!!!11 while disregarding the multitude of SWORN STATEMENTS!!!!11 in the other direction in support of Vilma's account, not to mention the section of GW's SWORN STATEMENT!!!!11 that says they only paid for clean hits and fined players for penalized hits that he refuses to acknowledge via his moronic "conspiracy to commit assault" nonsense OR the section that contradicts the other SWORN STATEMENT!!!!11 that supports the case, but hey.

/guess all those players "purgered" themselves and risked federal prison time because of The Bro Code
//do hope he shows up for the GW reinstatement thread, but he won't
 
2012-10-20 04:57:44 AM

robsul82: but this dick continually preening himself as some pillar of objectivity in these threads is absurd) and holding up one SWORN STATEMENT!!!11


You forgot BBQ. Just sayin'
 
2012-10-20 05:00:25 AM

dickfreckle: robsul82: but this dick continually preening himself as some pillar of objectivity in these threads is absurd) and holding up one SWORN STATEMENT!!!11

You forgot BBQ. Just sayin'


Well, there's no OMG or WTF either, but I figured I'd leave them for him when GW's finally able to get his parking pass with the Rams, lol.
 
2012-10-20 05:15:22 AM

dickfreckle: justtray: The facts stand for themselves, and all you have is a big, fat nothing.

Not to insult you, but you need to understand what "hyperbole" means if you're going to throw it around so much.

Now, to your assertions:

That I refused to assign a number to the suspensions doesn't make my argument "weak." I was merely trying to avoid yet another numbers argument that rivals the politics tab. This is - and again with this word - an arbitrary number, subject to debate that I've had too many times already.

As for you noting that that the NFL investigation was totally farked by the Saints staff, you are correct. Saints fans all over Fark have lamented this. Repeatedly. This is why we're OK with some form of punishment, but being Sanduskied over what does not amount to being a diabolical plan stings. As a fan of the sport, I'm wondering if you genuinely think this was fair ( in light of other Goodell rulings) or that you just have a taste of blood for the Saints.

Your comments about the appeals process for the players amuses me. Dude, stop it.

The comment about Goodell being Tag's lapdog doesn't warrant a response. Sorry.

/drunk, and still stand behind every word


So basically you got more hyperbole, and... nothing?

Got it. Check and mate.
 
2012-10-20 05:24:18 AM

justtray: Got it. Check and mate.


Don't get stuck on stupid, son.
 
2012-10-20 06:20:38 AM
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

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

THIS THIS AND THIS replace "players" with cops, judges, wall street, whatever nothing to see here move on sheeple.
This country is pathetic. Oh, look over there at what not to distract you. Visited my Mom last summer. Almost puked being
force fed FOX NEWS (? righhht) and rush for 4 days...
 
2012-10-20 06:23:07 AM
yeah i think we all know reality in the NFL was not pretty for well... ever, and that for every team caught cheating or doing morally wrong things 31 other teams simply weren't caught - not that the league was pure

but we also all know that the reality is there's no turning back if the league is to survive lawsuit hell, and that even if you replaced goodell you'd probably still get the same results and direction
 
2012-10-20 10:49:20 AM

GAT_00: 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.


The Saints being wrong does not make Goodell's side right.
 
2012-10-20 11:35:05 AM

Nabb1: Sargun: "The 'Smash-for-Cash' program is within the rules as long as players use their own monies, the amounts are not exorbitant, and the payments are not for illegal hits."


and boom goes the dynamite

You know Gregg Williams said in his affidavit - the one the League is touting as evidence in its favor - states that the payouts were for clean, legal hits and hits that drew penalties actually cost players money? Do you avail yourself of any of the relevant facts before posting in this subject?


Why are you insulting me for agreeing with you, jackass?
 
2012-10-20 01:58:02 PM

justtray: 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?


Soooo....what you're saying is Favre shouldn't have retired the two times before??? Dumb.
And Warner was a spring chicken???

If you're gonna bite, use some teeth.
 
2012-10-20 02:12:47 PM
Took me a while to post my response bc I had to do more important things like eat some Southern Classic Fried Chicken. But, after reading the responses before mine, I now understand why justtray is on so many people's ignore list. Consider me another subscriber to that notion.

And I have never ignored anyone up to this point.
 
2012-10-20 03:36:22 PM

mbillodeaux: Took me a while to post my response bc I had to do more important things like eat some Southern Classic Fried Chicken. But, after reading the responses before mine, I now understand why justtray is on so many people's ignore list. Consider me another subscriber to that notion.

And I have never ignored anyone up to this point.


Because you can't refute any of my statements? Good work, you should really be proud of your continued ignorance and refusal of acknowledgement of the facts.
 
2012-10-20 03:41:30 PM

justtray: Because you can't refute any of my statements? Good work, you should really be proud of your continued ignorance and refusal of acknowledgement of the facts.


Says the jerkoff who blocks anyone who does refute his statements and is proudly ignorant of facts like the actual content of GW's SWORN STATEMENT!!!!11, lol.
 
2012-10-20 03:44:21 PM
And I just have to say the continuous straw grasping by the players and their equally disgusting fans would be sad if it wasn't so damn comical at this point.

I love how anyone who doesn't agree with them must be some bias Aints hater. And if you don't believe their entirely unsupported assertions that it's all a conspiracy, then you need to "study it out."

Facts be damned I guess. I'll let the comments in here speak for themselves. See you in the Tagliabue suspension upheld thread to see where the goalposts move to.
 
2012-10-20 04:02:21 PM

justtray: I love how anyone who doesn't agree with them must be some bias Aints hater.


I love how Fark's preeminent crybaby Vikings fan doesn't enjoy having his team loyalty known to anyone.

justtray: I'll let the comments in here speak for themselves.


Yeah, you should let the comments you constantly ignore due to not fitting in your butthurt narrative speak for themselves, lol.
 
2012-10-20 05:33:45 PM

steamingpile: There is an obvious difference, the labor agreement now forbids other forms of payments.

Rules have been changed, financial rules but still rules that changed.


Which labor agreement? The one that was signed last summer (right before the start of last season). If that's the case the rule change is irrelevant, because it happened after the events in question. If it happened before then you may very well be right, and I am not aware of that change. I could be wrong.

However, the statements by the NFL regarding Reggie White's payments (excluding any rule changes) set a precedent that the league condones it. Anybody bringing up other rule changes (horse collar, slapping of the head - which is a pussy rule anyway), it's all about when the financial changes happened. Until that is known I can't say for sure.
 
2012-10-20 06:52:03 PM

mjbok: However, the statements by the NFL regarding Reggie White's payments (excluding any rule changes) set a precedent that the league condones it. Anybody bringing up other rule changes (horse collar, slapping of the head - which is a pussy rule anyway), it's all about when the financial changes happened. Until that is known I can't say for sure.


I do know that I've read that the NFL has sent out letters at the beginning of every season to all 32 teams explicitly forbidding the pay-for-play practice for the past few seasons. How many seasons they've been doing this, I can't say.

That said, the fact that a pay-for-play system was in place in New Orleans has never been disputed, just the severity of the penalties doled out, particularly the player penalties. Some have also disputed that it was a pay-for-injure system, as well, though I'm not sure that part of it really matters, except to the "OMG football is violent??" crowd.

When it comes to the players, what those on the "they were told to stop but didn't" side conveniently ignore, is the fact that, in all likelihood, Saints' ownership, management and coaches were the ones told to stop, not the players. This is the reason the organization, the coaches and the GM were hit so hard. Even if the players were told to stop, and it's hard to tell if they actually were, the coaches certainly continued to allow it, and bred an atmosphere in which it was acceptable, especially if it were just pay-for-play. Hell, the entire NFL breeds an atmosphere where pay-for-play is acceptable - we all know about QB gifts to linemen and the like.

So, yes, the NFL did inform the Saints (and other teams) that pay-for-play schemes were no longer tolerated, so I'm not so sure why the NFLPA lawyers are even bringing Reggie White up, except that every week this drags on brings Vilma and the lawyers another paycheck.

Also, regarding justray - I don't know why that guy doesn't just delete his account and start over from scratch. He has zero credibility, and I don't think I've ever seen him have a decent, civilized conversation with any other Farker in all the time I've been coming here.
 
2012-10-20 08:52:21 PM

Slow To Return: mjbok: However, the statements by the NFL regarding Reggie White's payments (excluding any rule changes) set a precedent that the league condones it. Anybody bringing up other rule changes (horse collar, slapping of the head - which is a pussy rule anyway), it's all about when the financial changes happened. Until that is known I can't say for sure.

I do know that I've read that the NFL has sent out letters at the beginning of every season to all 32 teams explicitly forbidding the pay-for-play practice for the past few seasons. How many seasons they've been doing this, I can't say.

That said, the fact that a pay-for-play system was in place in New Orleans has never been disputed, just the severity of the penalties doled out, particularly the player penalties. Some have also disputed that it was a pay-for-injure system, as well, though I'm not sure that part of it really matters, except to the "OMG football is violent??" crowd.

When it comes to the players, what those on the "they were told to stop but didn't" side conveniently ignore, is the fact that, in all likelihood, Saints' ownership, management and coaches were the ones told to stop, not the players. This is the reason the organization, the coaches and the GM were hit so hard. Even if the players were told to stop, and it's hard to tell if they actually were, the coaches certainly continued to allow it, and bred an atmosphere in which it was acceptable, especially if it were just pay-for-play. Hell, the entire NFL breeds an atmosphere where pay-for-play is acceptable - we all know about QB gifts to linemen and the like.

So, yes, the NFL did inform the Saints (and other teams) that pay-for-play schemes were no longer tolerated, so I'm not so sure why the NFLPA lawyers are even bringing Reggie White up, except that every week this drags on brings Vilma and the lawyers another paycheck.

Also, regarding justray - I don't know why that guy doesn't just delete his account and start over from scratch. He h ...


No need to be butthurt buddy. You can just admit you were wrong instead. In fact, still not one of my points is even contested with merit in this thread. But you keep on farking that chicken, while I'm on the right side of history.

I don't lose any sleep over a bunch of retarded homers with nothing but baseless assertions putting me on ignore because I provide undisputed facts. But at least some of you do, as you attempt, and on occasion, succcessfully get my posts removed by moderaters over your own butthurt. I'm sure it's Robsul, in fact, who has been on my ignore list for a very long time because of his own complete lack of common sense and logic, which has been pointed out numerous times in these bounty threads by other farkers.

Like I said, keep farking that chicken, and continue to be wrong, time and time again as you move the goalposts repeatedly. Maybe at the end of this I'll gather up all the posts from you guys and put them together in a hilarious montage of indignant, ignorant rage.
 
2012-10-20 09:55:29 PM

justtray: In fact, still not one of my points is even contested with merit in this thread


"If I don't see it, IT DOESN'T EXIST! I WIN, HAHAHAHA!"

justtray: I don't lose any sleep over a bunch of retarded homers


You calling anyone else a "retarded homer" is like Jeffrey Dahmer calling someone else batshiat crazy.

justtray: I'm sure it's Robsul, in fact, who has been on my ignore list for a very long time because of his own complete lack of common sense and logic


"Complete lack of common sense and logic" is a weird way of pronouncing "for repeatedly proving me wrong over and over again."

justtray: keep farking that chicken


Keep throwing that bitter crybaby tantrum.
 
2012-10-20 09:57:04 PM

justtray: But at least some of you do, as you attempt, and on occasion, succcessfully get my posts removed by moderaters over your own butthurt. I'm sure it's Robsul


Oh, and I should say, of course, I have never done that to the above "retarded homer" or anyone else. You know, since you're in the business of "undisputed facts" and not "throwing baseless allegations around."
 
2012-10-20 11:25:27 PM

justtray: No need to be butthurt buddy. You can just admit you were wrong instead. In fact, still not one of my points is even contested with merit in this thread. But you keep on farking that chicken, while I'm on the right side of history.

I don't lose any sleep over a bunch of retarded homers with nothing but baseless assertions putting me on ignore because I provide undisputed facts. But at least some of you do, as you attempt, and on occasion, succcessfully get my posts removed by moderaters over your own butthurt. I'm sure it's Robsul, in fact, who has been on my ignore list for a very long time because of his own complete lack of common sense and logic, which has been pointed out numerous times in these bounty threads by other farkers.

Like I said, keep farking that chicken, and continue to be wrong, time and time again as you move the goalposts repeatedly. Maybe at the end of this I'll gather up all the posts from you guys and put them together in a hilarious montage of indignant, ignorant rage.


Way to gain back some of that credibility.

If you actually read my post, I'm kind of agreeing with you...... in the decade and a half since the Reggie White incident, the NFL has, at least informally, changed their policy, and made all the teams aware of it, in the form of letters sent to every team at the beginning of every season, stating that pay-for-play programs are not permitted.
 
Displayed 92 of 92 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report