Saints violate "bounty rule"

[bigbluedefense]

Trying to hurt your opponent is part of football.

When a power back trucks a defender, you think he wasn't trying to hurt the guy? When a safety lights up a WR coming up the middle, you don't think he was trying to hurt him?

When a DE blindside sacks a qb, you don't think he was trying to hurt him?

It's football guys. This is what they do. It's encouraged in every single locker room. If you take a guy out in a clean manner, it's a good football play.

When a Guard pancakes a LB, that's a good play. You don't think he was trying to take him out? Of course he was!

"Keep your head on a swivel." How many times have we heard that saying? Players like dishing out punishment. On both sides. It's what they do. They're football players.

You think when the Steelers play the Ravens, that they're not trying to rip each other's heads off?

If we don't want this to happen, then just put flags on them and get it over with. We're headed towards that path anyway.

[regoob2]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Trying to hurt your opponent is part of football.

When a power back trucks a defender, you think he wasn't trying to hurt the guy? When a safety lights up a WR coming up the middle, you don't think he was trying to hurt him?

When a DE blindside sacks a qb, you don't think he was trying to hurt him?

It's football guys. This is what they do. It's encouraged in every single locker room. If you take a guy out in a clean manner, it's a good football play.

When a Guard pancakes a LB, that's a good play. You don't think he was trying to take him out? Of course he was!

"Keep your head on a swivel." How many times have we heard that saying? Players like dishing out punishment. On both sides. It's what they do. They're football players.

You think when the Steelers play the Ravens, that they're not trying to rip each other's heads off?

If we don't want this to happen, then just put flags on them and get it over with. We're headed towards that path anyway.

This is about intent to injure. They're paying you to injure people. What was the payout for paralyzing someone?

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by regoob2

This is about intent to injure. They're paying you to injure people. What was the payout for paralyzing someone?

Wrong. We're taking one statement and turning it into the whole story. They got paid for fumbles, interceptions, as well as plays that resulted in the player leaving the field. Those are all good football plays as long as they are within the rules.

He rewarded his defense for making good football plays. Taking a player out is part of that equation. It's a part of defense.

If a defender takes out the starting qb on the first play with a good clean hit, you better believe he's getting rewarded for it. Not just in the Saints locker room. In EVERY locker room.

It's not like they had an ACL money jar. They were rewarded for making good football plays and dishing out a physical hit was part of that.

[Ness]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Again. Show me where in this statement does it say that they are rewarded for making illegal hits.

There's nothing wrong with hitting someone clean that results in them leaving the game. That's good physical defense. If you come up the middle, and I light up your rib cage the second you catch the ball and you leave the game as a result, that's not a dirty play. That's a good physical play.

Greg didn't openly reward players for hitting guys late, hitting them in the head, hitting them after the whistle.

He rewarded them for good clean hits that resulted in injuries. There's nothing wrong with that. That's good physical defense.

I think there is something wrong with getting extra compensation to purposely injure someone. Those guys guys weren't getting the big bucks unless the opposing player was carted off the field in some cases. That makes the stakes higher and makes it a priority to not only stop an offensive player, but cause serious injury so the defender will get paid.

[regoob2]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Wrong. We're taking one statement and turning it into the whole story. They got paid for fumbles, interceptions, as well as plays that resulted in the player leaving the field. Those are all good football plays as long as they are within the rules.

He rewarded his defense for making good football plays. Taking a player out is part of that equation. It's a part of defense.

If a defender takes out the starting qb on the first play with a good clean hit, you better believe he's getting rewarded for it. Not just in the Saints locker room. In EVERY locker room.

It's not like they had an ACL money jar. They were rewarded for making good football plays and dishing out a physical hit was part of that.

Im not wrong. What's a cart off?

[bigbluedefense]

Do we have confirmation that they were getting paid more for plays that resulted in players getting carted off the field?

If there was a payment method that encouraged a heavier payment for plays that resulted in worse injuries, then that crosses the line.

But I was under the assumption that they merely got rewarded for making a positive play, and a positive play included plays that resulted in players getting hurt.

[regoob2]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Do we have confirmation that they were getting paid more for plays that resulted in players getting carted off the field?

If there was a payment method that encouraged a heavier payment for plays that resulted in worse injuries, then that crosses the line.

But I was under the assumption that they merely got rewarded for making a positive play, and a positive play included plays that resulted in players getting hurt.

Turn on ESPN. No one would care if this was about paying guys for ints or fumbles.

[Borat]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Do we have confirmation that they were getting paid more for plays that resulted in players getting carted off the field?

If there was a payment method that encouraged a heavier payment for plays that resulted in worse injuries, then that crosses the line.

But I was under the assumption that they merely got rewarded for making a positive play, and a positive play included plays that resulted in players getting hurt.

You've got to be kidding me. Do you not know what is being discussed?

[Ness]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Do we have confirmation that they were getting paid more for plays that resulted in players getting carted off the field?

If there was a payment method that encouraged a heavier payment for plays that resulted in worse injuries, then that crosses the line.

But I was under the assumption that they merely got rewarded for making a positive play, and a positive play included plays that resulted in players getting hurt.

The program runs in violation of league rules, and the investigation showed that Saints players received $1,500 for a “knockout” hit and $1,000 for a “cart-off” hit with payouts doubling or tripling during the team's three playoff appearances. The program also entailed payments for interceptions and fumble recoveries, which also violates league rules against non-contract bonuses. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell will determine the appropriate discipline based on the investigation, the league said in a statement.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d..._breaking_news

Bottom line is that you shouldn't be getting any extra kind of compensation for any of it. I can already envision a scenario where a pile of defenders is on an offensive player and one defender in the pile is trying to break the guy's ankle just so he can get an extra $1,000.

[Complex]

According to ESPN's Adam Schefter, the NFL has determined that MLB Jonathan Vilma was one of the primary culprits in the Saints' "pay for performance" bounty program that will result in NFL discipline.
"In the week of the NFC Championship Game," Schefter said on NFL Live Friday, "Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma put $10,000 in cash on a table and said 'this goes to the guy that knocks out Brett Favre.'" Those weren't Vilma's exact words, but they were similar, according to Schefter, and he's sure to be atop the league's target list for impending discipline.

Sounds like a scene from a movie

[Ness]

The funny thing is that their defense still isn't that great. Try getting good players so this thing doesn't have to happen.

[Taber21]

Makes you wonder if guys were more willing to try and injure a player for the $ then actually uphold their responsibilities within the defense.

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by Borat

You've got to be kidding me. Do you not know what is being discussed?

What is being reported is not the entire story. It's typical media, they're taking 1 part of what actually happened, and they are emphasizing that one point.

Yes, they got paid for dishing out hits that resulted in injuries. But they weren't only paid for that. They were paid for other positive plays as well.

The investigation by the league's security department determined that an improper "pay for performance" program included "bounty" payments to players for inflicting injuries on opposing players that would result in them being removed from a game.

Key word: INCLUDING. It wasn't like they were ONLY getting paid to hurt people. It was part of a pay for performance program. It was just one aspect of the program. But way to take a headline and go zomg over it.

In some cases, the amounts pledged were both significant and directed against a specific opposing player, according to the league's investigation.

Again, broad statement. Some cases. What does that even mean? You can't just assume ****. Of course the money will be more if the play was more significant and geared towards a more significant player. No ****. If you take out Brady, that's a lot more rewarding than taking out Chad Ocho Cinco. NO WHERE does it state that they were being rewarded for making illegal hits Injuring a guy is not a problem, as long as it's clean.

The investigation showed that the total amount of funds in the pool may have reached $50,000 or more at its height during the 2009 playoffs. The program paid players $1,500 for a "knockout" and $1,000 for a "cart-off," with payouts doubling or tripling during the playoffs.

This shows that they actually got rewarded MORE for NOT getting the guy carted off. If you make a great play that's clean that results in injury, yeah you will get paid, but the EXTENT of the injury did NOT result in a higher payment.


So yeah, read clearly next time.

[A Perfect Score]

Wow, I go to lunch and this is what I miss. Obviously if the Saints were intentionally trying to injure players, they should and will be penalized. I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing, however, to offer incentive for big hits, so long as those hits aren't done with the specific intention of injuring people. As someone who played football are a somewhat decent level (Canada, damn) for a long time, I can tell you fairly confidently that there's a really big (and cognizant) difference between aiming to intimidate and aiming to injure. Football is a physical game and there's an injury risk every time you step on the field, but there's no reason to step beyond that and try and make it intentional. That kind of behaviour underscores the physical nature of the game. Im not watching to see people hurt, I dunno about you guys.

[Brodeur]

Originally Posted by BeerBaron

I'm just surprised it wasn't the Lions getting caught.

You see, this would constitute an actual dirty team.

[bigbluedefense]

Again, I have no problem with defenders trying to injure players. As long as it's clean.

NO WHERE in this investigation is there ANY evidence that they were encouraged to injure players ILLEGALLY.

They were not encouraged to hit late, they were not encouraged to hit outside the strike zone, they were simply encouraged to hit em hard, and if it resulted in an injury, then good job.

Newsflash: EVERY NFL DEFENSE DOES THIS. Every single one of them. They might not have a payment plan in place for it, but it's encouraged in every locker room.

This is getting blown way out of proportion and people are taking half truths and twisting it into something it's not.

Vilma giving a teammate 10gs for dishing out a hit that takes out Favre does not translate to "I'll give you 10 grand for cheap shotting him"

But that's what's being interpreted, and it's not true.

[falloutboy14]

Schefter also said the NFL warned the Saint's GM to end the program earlier in the year and they didn't end/change anything.

[Taber21]

If a player gets a bonus for each sack he gets, for example, and the result of a sack he gets is a QB dislocates his shoulder and misses significant amount of time, that player would evidently get paid for a hit that injured another player. There should be no problem with that, and if that is the sort of arrangement NO had, then it should not be a big deal. The problem seems to be they got rewarded just for injuring a player, not for specific plays made on the field, just injuries inflicted, which is inexcusable.

[Ness]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

What is being reported is not the entire story. It's typical media, they're taking 1 part of what actually happened, and they are emphasizing that one point.

Yes, they got paid for dishing out hits that resulted in injuries. But they weren't only paid for that. They were paid for other positive plays as well.

The investigation by the league's security department determined that an improper "pay for performance" program included "bounty" payments to players for inflicting injuries on opposing players that would result in them being removed from a game.

Key word: INCLUDING. It wasn't like they were ONLY getting paid to hurt people. It was part of a pay for performance program. It was just one aspect of the program. But way to take a headline and go zomg over it.

In some cases, the amounts pledged were both significant and directed against a specific opposing player, according to the league's investigation.

Again, broad statement. Some cases. What does that even mean? You can't just assume ****. Of course the money will be more if the play was more significant and geared towards a more significant player. No ****. If you take out Brady, that's a lot more rewarding than taking out Chad Ocho Cinco. NO WHERE does it state that they were being rewarded for making illegal hits Injuring a guy is not a problem, as long as it's clean.

The investigation showed that the total amount of funds in the pool may have reached $50,000 or more at its height during the 2009 playoffs. The program paid players $1,500 for a "knockout" and $1,000 for a "cart-off," with payouts doubling or tripling during the playoffs.

This shows that they actually got rewarded MORE for NOT getting the guy carted off. If you make a great play that's clean that results in injury, yeah you will get paid, but the EXTENT of the injury did NOT result in a higher payment.


So yeah, read clearly next time.

BBD, I think you are missing the big picture, and the more important concern. The intent to injure for extra compensation looks bad, but even beyond that, it was a violation of league rules for rewarding non-contract bonuses/bribes to NFL players for making plays on defense that were deemed as "rewards". Other teams might do this very thing, but New Orleans got caught. So they should pay the price.

You are right we don't know the entire context of the situation. That being said, it could also have been a lot worse than what is even being reported.

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by Taber21

If a player gets a bonus for each sack he gets, for example, and the result of a sack he gets is a QB dislocates his shoulder and misses significant amount of time, that player would evidently get paid for a hit that injured another player. There should be no problem with that, and if that is the sort of arrangement NO had, then it should not be a big deal. The problem seems to be they got rewarded just for injuring a player, not for specific plays made on the field, just injuries inflicted, which is inexcusable.

Again, this was NOT the case. They got rewarded for positive plays. They didn't just get paid for plays that resulted in injuries.

And another assumption that is being thrown out there is that they got paid more if the injury was more significant.

Again, NOT TRUE. They actually got paid LESS for a cart off.

So again, we're making assumptions and making accusations against them that are simply not true.

Of course the media is going to emphasize certain points over the others, and we're going to overreact to it, but the direct statements issued by the NFL clearly state that this was part of a pay for performance plan, and in their own statement they clearly show that there wasn't a higher reward for the extent of the injury.

We need to stop overreacting and pay attention to the issue in it's entirety before we make false accusations against the team.

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by Ness

BBD, I think you are missing the big picture, and the more important concern. The intent to injure for extra compensation looks bad, but even beyond that, it was a violation of league rules for rewarding non-contract bonuses/bribes to NFL players for making plays on defense that were deemed as "rewards". Other teams might do this very thing, but New Orleans got caught. So they should pay the price.

You are right we don't know the entire context of the situation. That being said, it could also have been a lot worse than what is even being reported.

This is a big deal and will result in strict discipline for 2 reasons:

1. It goes against the player safety politics that the league is enforcing in an attempt to justify an 18 game season in the future, as well as protect themselves against lawsuits by ex players.

2. It is in direct violation of the league rules, which states you can't pay players off the table for anything outside of the realms of their contracts.


That's why the punishment will be significant. The morality of this issue is being way overblown however. We act like this is some kind of inhumane occurrence that no one else would do. And that's so inaccurate it's not even funny. This is something that goes on in every locker room, and is encouraged in every locker room.

This is not some immoral violation of the Saints. It's a legal violation, but not an immoral one. Every team does it. Every team is aware of it. It's part of football culture.

[Complex]

Originally Posted by falloutboy14

Schefter also said the NFL warned the Saint's GM to end the program earlier in the year and they didn't end/change anything.

So Roger Goodell knew about it about and didn't stop it?

[asdf1223]

Originally Posted by Complex

So Roger Goodell knew about it about and didn't stop it?

It wasn't the NFL. It was the Saints owner Tom Benson. The NFL had been on the case from 2010 but had no evidence. But someone spilled the beans this year apparently.

[asdf1223]

Greg Williams has basically came out and said its my fault . The Jets special teams coach got canned for tripping a player. I wonder if the league puts the ban hammer on him.

[Taber21]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Again, NOT TRUE. They actually got paid LESS for a cart off.

I read this, but my problem with this is why are they getting paid for other players getting carted off at all? So if a guy gets hit and breaks his neck, never walks again, that is a good thing, and is rewarded by the Saints with $?