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

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

2708 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 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 42 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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report