NFL: Saints Bounty Thread

[ATLBound]

(09-01-2012 04:26 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  In other words, a payment from a pool for recovering a fumble is now in his words a BOUNTY and justifies all totally unparalleled punishments.

I disagree. This is not what he is saying. He is saying exactly what I broke it down to.

It has nothing to do with fumbles. He is using a conclusion theory at this point. I will agree that it is "loose" but will hold up because however loose it is. It's technically true.

He is saying that the Saints got paid for big hits. If those big hits lead to an injury or cart-off, then ESSENTIALLY the Saints players got paid for a hit that cause an injury or cart-off.

This is what he is calling a bounty. It's clear from the email I received and from the part you quoted.

"The bounty prohibition forbids offering or accepting any reward - cash or otherwise - for on-field misconduct, plays that incentivize or result in injury to opposing players, or for performance against an opposing player, group of players, or team."

[JDaveG]

(09-01-2012 04:14 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  First of all, I don't think that Goodell planned this. It dropped into his lap back in 2010 when Mike Cerullo came to him with the claim that the Saints had a bounty. The same Mike Cerullo that had just been fired for taking TWO emergency "vacations" during the 2009 season that were discovered to have been bogus. The league investigated his claims and found nothing.

Two full years later, with no interim investigations, the league came to the Saints again with claims of bounties. It turns out that they somehow now had a handwritten ledger. The same ledger that did not match up to any actual events in the games in had been claimed to represent. Rumors are that Cerullo also supplied this ledger, which also had erroneously indicated that Joe Vitt had contributed $5000 which Goodell admitted later was a mistake.

This was about the same time as the lawsuits started up against the league. It was January 2012. Goodell obviously saw an opportunity to show the league's commitment to safety by making an example of the Saints who just happened to be in the right place at the wrong time due to a disgruntled former employee. Individual that were interviewed during the investigation have reported that all questioning was based upon predetermined results. Fact that negated the claims were ignored. The whole investigation was a farce.

That is why Tom Benson hired the Freeh Agency to investigate all of the claims. I can't wait to see those results.

You see, the Saints were not "targeted" in this. They just happened to have a man with a vendetta and another with an agenda that converged upon them.

There is no conspiracy. This wasn't all planned. It just happened and it was totally misguided.

So if they weren't targeted, how are they a "sacrificial lamb?"

That's what you said -- that "the sacrificial lamb was CHOSEN -- the Saints" (emphasis mine). Why were they chosen?

[phocis850]

(09-01-2012 07:48 PM)JDaveG Wrote:  So if they weren't targeted, how are they a "sacrificial lamb?"

That's what you said -- that "the sacrificial lamb was CHOSEN -- the Saints" (emphasis mine). Why were they chosen?

He feels it in his heart. Does that need an explanation?

[Drathdon]

Still doesn't explain the SF pre-game speech, and calling out injuries to target, without any players reacting in any way other than that being standard operations for them.

[papachaz]

is there any word on what happened in court friday? all the cut news has taken precedence apparently because I can't find anything about court proceedings anywhere.

[hitwriter]

If there was any news the troll would be dancing a jig on here... He's toast the same as his team!! Why is anyone still arguing with this Goofduio?

If I were an admin his ass would have been kicked from here a long time ago!

Here anyway...

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000...to-dismiss

[phocis850]

A judge siding with someone before the case is presented. Lol. Yea, like that isn't going to be repealed.

[AsylumGuido]

(09-01-2012 07:48 PM)JDaveG Wrote:  So if they weren't targeted, how are they a "sacrificial lamb?"

That's what you said -- that "the sacrificial lamb was CHOSEN -- the Saints" (emphasis mine). Why were they chosen?

They were "chosen" because Goodell thought he would be able to make an example of them given his trustworthy informant, Mike Cerullo. It could have just as easily been any one of the other many teams in the NFL with exactly the same sort of program going on. But, the Saints just happened to have an ex-defensive quality control coach who was fired for lying to management on multiple occasions and had repeatedly blamed Loomis and Payton for having him black-balled from the NFL. In fact, he never did get a job within the NFL since.

They were "chosen" because Cerullo laid them out on the alter.

As I have pointed out countless times before, I don't feel Goodell lied about the whole thing. I truly think he felt justified due to what he was told by Cerullo and by what he interpreted by interviewing Williams, Vitt and Hargrove. I also feel that he was predisposed to the end findings and ignored many important facts and made many faulty conclusions.

As you pointed out:

"The bounty prohibition forbids offering or accepting any reward - cash or otherwise - for on-field misconduct, plays that incentivize or result in injury to opposing players, or for performance against an opposing player, group of players, or team."

But, this had never been called a "bounty prohibition" before and this was not why they were all so severely punished. From the beginning the Saints were accused of placing bounties on the heads of specific players who were to be targeted for intentional injury. Seven Saints players and coaches swore under oath in court before Judge Ginger Berrigan that no bounties were ever in place as Goodell had claimed.

If there had been the punishments may have been justified, but there should have NEVER been year long suspension and such for the breaking of a rule while playing the game as it is played every week by every player on every team. And Judge Berrigan said as much in her statement that she would likely grant Vilma the restraining order because she found the NFL's disciplinary process in the bounty matter unfair and the punishment excessive.

[AsylumGuido]

(09-01-2012 09:33 PM)phocis850 Wrote:  He feels it in his heart. Does that need an explanation?

Nope. I can looks at the facts.

[AsylumGuido]

(09-01-2012 11:37 PM)Drathdon Wrote:  Still doesn't explain the SF pre-game speech, and calling out injuries to target, without any players reacting in any way other than that being standard operations for them.

Yes, let's go over that "speech" and the reactions of the players. Several defensive players, not only Saints players, have said that this type of talk is status quo with many defensive coaches across the league. It is filled with bravado and hyperbole and seldom taken literally. One of the inflammatory statements dealt with "killing the head". This does not literally mean killing the head of a player. It comes from the saying, "Kill the head and the body will die," which means stopping the key to the offense and the team can't score.

Williams told the team that Gore was the "head" and he needed to be turned to the "side", meaning they needed to keep him from turning up-field. They needed to turn him to the side, to "turn the head to the side, to hit the head and keep hitting the head."

He then pointed out that Crabtree had "an outside ACL". That, of course made no sense, but probably meant to be aware that he probably couldn't cut a certain direction as efficiently and they could take advantage of that. He also mentioned another player had an ankle.

These type of things do not imply intent to injure or have anything to do with bounties. Can they seem harsh to someone who hasn't herd something like that every week for years? Sure, but that doesn't mean it had anything to do with bounties.

The tape also had attempted awards for $100 "whacks" for two players who turned them down. A "whack" has been defined by some players and Vitt as a clean hit or block by a defensive back that knocks them off their feet. It has nothing to do with any injury whatsoever.