NFL: Saints Bounty Thread

[pauliwood]

(06-02-2012 12:32 AM)phocis850 Wrote:  Isn't Brees a rep for player safety for the NFLPA?

That would be a yes.

[RFlagg]

(06-02-2012 12:32 AM)phocis850 Wrote:  Isn't Brees a rep for player safety for the NFLPA?

I believe so, yes.

Here's a wild thought: What if Brees' holdout is because he thought this might come to light? What if he's decided he wants to distance himself from the Saints and not play for them anymore? If he holds out this season, the Saints can at best put the non-exclusive rights tag, meaning he can talk to other teams. What if this is Brees' way of disassociating himself from the bounty program?

Wishful thinking?

[juraitwaluzka]

(06-02-2012 08:47 AM)RFlagg Wrote:  I believe so, yes.

Here's a wild thought: What if Brees' holdout is because he thought this might come to light? What if he's decided he wants to distance himself from the Saints and not play for them anymore? If he holds out this season, the Saints can at best put the non-exclusive rights tag, meaning he can talk to other teams. What if this is Brees' way of disassociating himself from the bounty program?

Wishful thinking?

Probably, but don't let that get in the way, especially not in a thread that is stocked full of wishful thinking.

[mdrake34]

(06-02-2012 08:47 AM)RFlagg Wrote:  I believe so, yes.

Here's a wild thought: What if Brees' holdout is because he thought this might come to light? What if he's decided he wants to distance himself from the Saints and not play for them anymore? If he holds out this season, the Saints can at best put the non-exclusive rights tag, meaning he can talk to other teams. What if this is Brees' way of disassociating himself from the bounty program?

Wishful thinking?

The much more interesting sub-plot would be if that fucked up spot on Drew Brees' face was actually the mastermind of the entire bounty scheme.

[Falconidae]

(06-02-2012 08:47 AM)RFlagg Wrote:  I believe so, yes.

Here's a wild thought: What if Brees' holdout is because he thought this might come to light? What if he's decided he wants to distance himself from the Saints and not play for them anymore? If he holds out this season, the Saints can at best put the non-exclusive rights tag, meaning he can talk to other teams. What if this is Brees' way of disassociating himself from the bounty program?

Wishful thinking?

Brees first message after the bounty scandal broke claimed that he had never participated in any bounty program and had no knowledge of any "real existence" of a bounty program.

What I think "real existence" means is that, if it can be proven that Brees heard about the bounty program, he'll claim he thought it was a joke.

[AsylumGuido]

(06-02-2012 12:53 AM)pauliwood Wrote:  That would be a yes.

That would be no. Scott Fujita is on that committee, not Brees. Brees is a member of the executive committee.

[Drathdon]

It still amazes me how anyone can think they are not guilty.

To a man, every one has said "show us what proof you have." Someone innocent would know there IS NO PROOF to have, and never mention it. These kids got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and are only concerned with what proof you have, just so they can know just how much you know they did. It's like they have much more to hide, and want to know what, exactly, they were caught doing, so they can cover up the rest of it.

"You can't prove it" is the song of the guilty, not the innocent.

[ATLBound]

(06-02-2012 01:27 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  That would be no. Scott Fujita is on that committee, not Brees. Brees is a member of the executive committee.

This is your first response to the newly found out information??? No delusional in regards to the validity of this or the article or the anonymous source? Have we switched to the next stage of grief? There has been plenty of denial, there has probably been some anger but you probably won't express it here for us to see. We may have reached the bargaining stage folks

[AsylumGuido]

(06-02-2012 03:32 PM)ATLBound Wrote:  This is your first response to the newly found out information??? No delusional in regards to the validity of this or the article or the anonymous source? Have we switched to the next stage of grief? There has been plenty of denial, there has probably been some anger but you probably won't express it here for us to see. We may have reached the bargaining stage folks

Nope. The "ledger" evidence leaked to Jason Cole of Yahoo only confirms the existence of a pay-for-performance program. On top of that, Yahoo was forced to retract their first report when the supposed ledger didn't even match up to the game it was claimed (by the NFL most likely) to have referenced. They pulled the story and video accompanying it. You would think that with all of the "investigation" that the league had put into this that they would have at least gotten what is claimed to be their most damning evidence of bounties correct, right?

Beyond the legitimacy of the document, which is no more solid than the previous attempts at "proof", it once again in no way gives one iota of evidence to the claim that Saints players donated funds and/or collected funds for the intentional injury of an opposing player. This is what they were accused of doing. All that has been shown is that they had the run of the mill NFL locker room performance pool going on.

That has never been denied. What has been denied by all accused is the intentional targeted injury that Goodell based his entire over the top punishment upon.

[AsylumGuido]

Here was part of the "leaker's" screw-up.

In the ledger, payments of $1,000 for cart-offs (a hit that resulted in a player being helped off the field), $400 for whacks (hard hits) and $100 deductions for mental errors were kept track of for each player.

Two specific entries for the 2009 season were shown during one meeting. In a game at Buffalo on Sept. 27, 2009, there were three $1,000 awards. In a game against the New York Giants on Oct. 18, there was a $1,000 bounty awarded for one cart-off. [Ed note: In that Giants game, tackle Kareem McKenzie was taken off on a cart with a strained groin, which hardly seems like it should qualify.]

Their were four players in the Buffalo game referenced that were "carted off". Three of them were defensive players. How could a defensive player be rewarded for the "cart off" of another defensive player?

And the single supposed "cart off" award in the Giants games was for a strained groin?

Sounds like more of Goodell's grasping for straws to cover his ass in the concussion litigations to me. If this is all he has then he is up shit creek.