New Orleans Saints Scandal Thread - Page 39

Giantsfan1080 · 08-14-2012, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Complex

Again he agreed to was written because he wants to coach in the NFL again. I never said there was nothing going and the players even said they were getting paid for performance not bounties.It is against the rules for coaches to pay players for performance.

So you don't think it was a bounty program but rather Williams paying players who performed well?

Complex · 08-14-2012, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giantsfan1080

So you don't think it was a bounty program but rather Williams paying players who performed well?

Peter King even said that the evidence they showed to the selected media members looked more like pay for performance than bounty.

Cudders · 08-15-2012, 03:25 AM

In hindsight, the NFL shouldn’t have labeled them as bounties if their evidence in that department was lacking because it requires a higher burden of proof. (For the record, again, claiming the NFL has no evidence is a dangerous assumption to make. Absence of evidence available doesn’t indicate absence of evidence existence. That’s an important distinction here. Let’s wait until the court proceedings conclude before making concrete determinations.)

As I said, placing bounties on someone implies that there is active head-hunting with intent to injure going on. That’s a tough motive to prove because it is in a defender’s code to want to dominate and rough his opponent up, so it’s difficult to characterize the difference between seeking to hurt and seeking to injure. No one can argue the other aspects of the case though. The Saints fostered a program that circumvented the cap and paid people for their on-field performances and ignored the NFL when asked to shelve it. The ugliest rewards coming from lighting an opponent up and removing him from the game. Thus, the platform for the discussion of bounties was raised.

This is the source of some people’s irritation toward the Saints. New Orleans knew what was happening was wrong, but never made an honest attempt to discontinue it. Now, the people who participated in the purported misconduct are acting like the victims. Like the NFL is marshalling all of their strength for some kind of irrational crusade against them for who knows what reason. And that’s not what is happening here. The Saints broke the rules. Rule-breakers get punished. It’s the natural order of things. So no one wants to hear Drew Brees whine to the media about how unfair it is. No one wants to hear Jonathan Vilma claim he’s the target of a character assassination. No one wants to hear fans defend the indefensible. No one wants to hear it.

Was the punishment on the harsh side? It sure was. But Goodell is committed to at least maintaining the public appearance that long-term health is his chief concern. He couldn’t slap the Saints on the wrist when the media ran wild with the narrative of borderline reckless hits that were designed to injure and even incentivized carting people off. It makes him look weak where he’s made an effort to look strong. He needed to reinforce his point, so he made an example out of the first offender he could.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saintsfan912

If it was so cut and dry wouldn't this be over? Why would a judge rule against the nfl if the evidence was so damning against the players?

Because this isn’t a black-and-white issue. For Goodell, or for the Saints, for that matter.

I think it’s worth pointing out that the suspended plaintiffs haven’t won their legal battles either. Their court date was the 10th and no ruling has been made. Just look at the tweet attributed to the presiding judge: “If I can find a way to legally do it, I will rule in Vilma’s favor.”

Quote:

Originally Posted by saintsfan912

Still trying to figure out where the referees were when all these illegal death hits took place.

Doesn’t matter where the referees were. The hits never had to be flagged as personal fouls or recognized as extra vicious to be deemed illegal and in violation of the CBA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saintsfan912

And if it's so illegal to get paid to play well, why do running backs and QBs get to take their offensive lineman out/buy them expensive watches?

You’re talking about teammates showing appreciation for other teammates. Not defenders accepting side cash from teammates after injuring an opponent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saintsfan912

On a side note. What is the NFL doing about all these DUIs from the offseason? I'm much more concerned with players risking innocent peoples lives driving drunk than I am about players playing football.

The NFL can handle both. It’s not a this-or-that proposition. And this scandal has a direct correlation to their on-field product.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Complex

Dan Patrick and someone else (Jay Glazer I think) said that Greg Williams wrote down what he was going to say to the media but the NFL said No this what you are going to say. Dan Patrick also said the reason Williams agreed to w/e the NFL wrote so Greg Williams would have a chance to coach again in the NFL.

If the NFL didn’t have a shred of evidence, as has been suggested in this thread, for what reason would Williams cave? Seems like he should’ve fought harder if that were the case. Knowing he’s buried in all likelihood regardless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJSchneider

Then share with us all what the other "issue" was.

I don’t want to put words in njx’s mouth, but I believe he’s stating even the existence of the “bounties” is the reason this is such a hot issue. Intent to injure might not be present or provable, but according to the NFL, Saint defenders were still paid for dealing out punishing hits to the opposing team that resulted in “knockouts” or “cart-offs”. The other issue being if this was a simpler structure that just paid defenders for their on-field performances, such as interceptions or tackles for a loss. Which, of course, would still be against the rules.

tjsunstein · 09-07-2012, 03:26 PM

Vilma, Smith, and Hargrove win appeals and eligible to play week 1.

Hargrove was released by the Packers earlier this preseason.

BeerBaron · 09-07-2012, 03:28 PM

Hopefully that **** can finally just go. the ****. AWAY. I don't want to hear about it ever again. I got sick of the squabbling. Saints fans can go circle jerk somewhere about getting their mediocre middle linebacker back.

descendency · 09-07-2012, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Complex

Peter King even said that the evidence they showed to the selected media members looked more like pay for performance than bounty.

Even if it is, it's still illegal by the same rules.

Bert Macklin · 09-07-2012, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by descendency

Even if it is, it's still illegal by the same rules.

Rush for 1000 yards get an extra 20k = pay for performance

I get what you're saying just there's a grey area.

Bert Macklin · 09-07-2012, 04:37 PM

Suck it goodell

Trogdor · 09-07-2012, 04:55 PM

Keep in mind the ruling just states that Goodell doesn't have the authority to suspend on this issue. It'll go to Burbank whom will just reinstate the suspensions.

They didn't even analyze the evidence. To be quite frank the NFL could just drop the floor out from under the players and release the nitty gritty and force public outcry again.

So tired of hearing about this issue. The pay-for-performance is proven and already been released. They will be getting suspended again you'll just hear it from a different mouth. The pay-for-injury is a secondary offense despite the media covering it intensely.

descendency · 09-07-2012, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bert Macklin

Rush for 1000 yards get an extra 20k = pay for performance

I get what you're saying just there's a grey area.

I've always wondering how they justify it. But the rules say there is a difference between paying for tackling the Vikings players and paying for get 20 tackles in a season.

descendency · 09-07-2012, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trogdor

Keep in mind the ruling just states that Goodell doesn't have the authority to suspend on this issue. It'll go to Burbank whom will just reinstate the suspensions.

They didn't even analyze the evidence. To be quite frank the NFL could just drop the floor out from under the players and release the nitty gritty and force public outcry again.

So tired of hearing about this issue. The pay-for-performance is proven and already been released. They will be getting suspended again you'll just hear it from a different mouth. The pay-for-injury is a secondary offense despite the media covering it intensely.

I don't think they'll get that type of reaction this time. I can't see ESPN having months of airing it (especially now that it's Tebow-time). They'd have to have footage of them exchanging money and talking about how they celebrated when they felt the bones pop/shatter as they hit the guy.

Bert Macklin · 09-07-2012, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by descendency

I've always wondering how they justify it. But the rules say there is a difference between paying for tackling the Vikings players and paying for get 20 tackles in a season.

The judge said there was evidence for pay for performance but no substantial evidence of pay for injury, which is why the suspensions were handed out to begin with.

WCH · 09-07-2012, 07:59 PM

Off-the-books pay-for-performance is still against the rules and frowned upon by the NFL. A few years ago, they almost suspended Charles Woodson and Al Harris for a lesser version of the same offense.

saintsfan912 · 09-07-2012, 08:22 PM

Pay for performance does not equal "Bounty". While illegal, not as horrifically bad as the NFL made this out to be. If getting some extra money for playing well gets you suspended for an entire season and have your name thrown through the mud, can't wait to see what a DUI/assault with a deadly weapon/wife beating/drug possession/ect can get you.

Bert Macklin · 09-07-2012, 08:44 PM

Killing a guy = same bounty punishment

Mufasa · 09-07-2012, 08:47 PM

Suck my dick Bert

saintsfan912 · 09-07-2012, 09:07 PM

Stomping on someone during a game on national TV gets you a hell of alot less.

Bert Macklin · 09-07-2012, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mufasa

Suck my dick Bert

b316 · 09-07-2012, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saintsfan912

Pay for performance does not equal "Bounty". While illegal, not as horrifically bad as the NFL made this out to be. If getting some extra money for playing well gets you suspended for an entire season and have your name thrown through the mud, can't wait to see what a DUI/assault with a deadly weapon/wife beating/drug possession/ect can get you.

But you agree it breaking the rules right? Yeah entire season suspension is dumb, but punishment should be handed down.

Also picking extreme examples not the best thing to compare pay for performance. but if its a first time offense probably nothing. if all those thing over a course of 2-3 years probably season long ban? Jail time as well. If they just had stopped it and not lied wouldn't all this have been put to bed a long time ago?