Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

ATLBound · 06-03-2012, 01:50 PM

(06-03-2012 12:25 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: How do you explain the total lack of validity of the supposed ledger?

It didn't correspond to the Buffalo game as originally reported. It doesn't correspond to the Carolina game that was reported after the retraction of the original story.

Please explain that!

Also, this is from the ESPN story on the supposed ledger:

"The NFL has not discussed the ledger in any of its official reports or public comments, but the document's existence appears to support the league's contention that the Saints operated an improper pay-for-performance program. Whether it confirms that actual bounties were placed on targeted opponents is not yet clear, as the document has not been made public."

Note the key phrase "actual bounties ... placed on targeted opponents". That is the crux of the penalties laid down on the players and staff. If it was just the pay for performance part it would never have gotten so big.

How do you conveniently bold the part that "helps" your delusions, but misread the WHOLE statement? It also says beyond the bolded part that the document has not been made public yet or did you forget to read that part?

Focus clearly and make sure you read it twice to understand. I'm not talking about pay for performance right now. I'm talking specifically pay for inuries, cart-offs, etc. Basically anything related to getting PAID because a clean hit causes an injury. THAT's the key thing here.

They are already PAID to do their job and play football, BUT they are PAID EXTRA for cart-offs even if it's a clean hit. THAT IS A BOUNTY.

How hard is this to understand. Drathdon realizes it because he is basically saying the same thing that I'm saying.

Also this is a story that Yahoo leaked, not the NFL, not the Goodell. So if oarts of their story is miscommunicated or false, then that doesn't have any weight on Goodell's case.

Keeping trying Guido. What excuse do you have next?

AsylumGuido · (This post was last modified: 06-03-2012 02:13 PM by AsylumGuido.)

(06-03-2012 01:19 PM)Drathdon Wrote: You quote "as the document has not been made public" in your reply, and then go on to say the Yahoo story mistakes prove that the NFL is lying. You realize Yahoo's story is pieced together from leaked reports, and yet still claim its inconsistencies somehow tarnish Goodell. You really do like having it both ways.

Face facts, man. The ledger shows what bounties were placed. That doesn't mean each one was claimed, so whether players were carted off in games makes no difference. If I place a bet to win, and I lose, does that mean I never made a bet? You're delusional.

And your constant attempts to move the bar do not work. They were not suspended for just targeting individual players, which you claim the lack of proof of clears their names, but for conduct unbecoming the game, which included payments of any kind as well as an organized bounty pool - which I remind you they were warned to stop, and could have stopped, to avoid penalties.

Sorry, but you are completely wrong. The supposed "ledger" does not have anything to do with bounties being placed. It supposedly lists actions that that occurred in specific games and a dollar amount associated with those actions. It is said to include three instances of "cartoffs" in one game.

It was originally leaked that it was the 2009 game against Buffalo, but when Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk wrote that the Bills game that year had four injuries to opposing players and only one was an offensive player, a lineman, Yahoo quickly pulled the story and changed the game to the October 2009 game against Carolina. But, that game had only one injury to an opposing player, linebacker Thomas Davis, and also would make no sense as applied to the supposed ledger.

And are wrong on another count, the players were suspended for participating in and running a bounty system that targeted specific players for injury and those players included Warner, Favre, Rodgers and Newton. THAT is why they were suspended. Had it been the simple pay for performance deal alone they would have received a slap on the wrist. Every player and coach has denied that bounties were ever placed on or collected for injuries to specified players as they are accused.

AsylumGuido · 06-03-2012, 02:12 PM

(06-03-2012 01:50 PM)ATLBound Wrote: How do you conveniently bold the part that "helps" your delusions, but misread the WHOLE statement? It also says beyond the bolded part that the document has not been made public yet or did you forget to read that part?

Focus clearly and make sure you read it twice to understand. I'm not talking about pay for performance right now. I'm talking specifically pay for inuries, cart-offs, etc. Basically anything related to getting PAID because a clean hit causes an injury. THAT's the key thing here.

They are already PAID to do their job and play football, BUT they are PAID EXTRA for cart-offs even if it's a clean hit. THAT IS A BOUNTY.

How hard is this to understand. Drathdon realizes it because he is basically saying the same thing that I'm saying.

Also this is a story that Yahoo leaked, not the NFL, not the Goodell. So if oarts of their story is miscommunicated or false, then that doesn't have any weight on Goodell's case.

Keeping trying Guido. What excuse do you have next?

Of course it hasn't been made public yet. When and if it does and it is exactly as claimed, then it still wouldn't prove bounties placed on specific players.

As for your definition of bounty, you are correct. Getting paid for a fumble recovery and an interception or a sack would ALSO be being PAID EXTRA and would be a bounty. But, that is NOT the context that Goodell used when he accused the players. His meaning of a bounty was a specific amount placed upon a specific player in a specific game with intent to injure as the basis for payment. That, sir, is a far different shade of bounty.

As for the story, no, Yahoo did not leak the story. Yahoo published the story. It was leaked to Yahoo and if you don't think it was the NFL office that leaked it then you may be the naive one.

ATLBound · 06-03-2012, 02:22 PM

(06-03-2012 02:03 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: Sorry, but you are completely wrong. The supposed "ledger" does not have anything to do with bounties being placed. It supposedly lists actions that that occurred in specific games and a dollar amount associated with those actions. It is said to include three instances of "cartoffs" in one game.

It was originally leaked that it was the 2009 game against Buffalo, but when Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk wrote that the Bills game that year had four injuries to opposing players and only one was an offensive player, a lineman, Yahoo quickly pulled the story and changed the game to the October 2009 game against Carolina. But, that game had only one injury to an opposing player, linebacker Thomas Davis, and also would make no sense as applied to the supposed ledger.

And are wrong on another count, the players were suspended for participating in and running a bounty system that targeted specific players for injury and those players included Warner, Favre, Rodgers and Newton. THAT is why they were suspended. Had it been the simple pay for performance deal alone they would have received a slap on the wrist. Every player and coach has denied that bounties were never placed on or collected for injuries to specified players as they are accused.

Sigh....

Obviously Yahoo made a mistake, but how does that call into question the ledger itself?

I'm sorry I have to reiterate this multiple times, but you just aren't getting it.

Any ATTEMPT or INTENT or PAYMENTS made/contirbuted towards performance, injuries, cart-offs, etc. that are outside the contractual agreement is under this umbrella.

This ledger shows intent or attempt regardless of what took place on the field and regardless of the mistake made by Yahoo. They were suspended for the actual program, not the players.

juraitwaluzka · 06-03-2012, 02:23 PM

(06-03-2012 02:39 AM)Drathdon Wrote: "This ledger says 'cart offs' with a payment beside it, proof you had a bounty pool."
"No it doesn't."

ATLBound · 06-03-2012, 02:34 PM

(06-03-2012 02:12 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: Of course it hasn't been made public yet. When and if it does and it is exactly as claimed, then it still wouldn't prove bounties placed on specific players.

As for your definition of bounty, you are correct. Getting paid for a fumble recovery and an interception or a sack would ALSO be being PAID EXTRA and would be a bounty. But, that is NOT the context that Goodell used when he accused the players. His meaning of a bounty was a specific amount placed upon a specific player in a specific game with intent to injure as the basis for payment. That, sir, is a far different shade of bounty.

As for the story, no, Yahoo did not leak the story. Yahoo published the story. It was leaked to Yahoo and if you don't think it was the NFL office that leaked it then you may be the naive one.

I think your reading comprehension is off. We have gone thru this before though so I am not surprised. I will make this simple.

What is a cart-off? A Player whi has been injured is either walked off or "carted-off" the field

Did the ledger show $1000 being paid for cart-offs? YES

If both of our answers are the same to these 2 questions, then there goes your bounty for pay for injure.

Plain and simple.

Now if somehow your answers to any of these questions are different than mine, then please give me your answer and explain. Thanks!

And obviously I understand that the story was leaked by an anonymous source and Yahoo wrote the article. Who that source is? I couldn't tell you. It's easy to assume that someone in the NFL is the source and it probably is, but that doesn't mean Goodell ordered that peson to do that and it doesn't mean that the person is actually from the NFL.

They did say that at one point the owners were shown this ledger at the meeting so it could have been one of them. I may have read that part wrong in passing though so I apologize if I am incorrect.

But please do not ignore the top part of this post

Beef · (This post was last modified: 06-03-2012 03:26 PM by Radical.)

(06-03-2012 02:03 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: It supposedly lists actions that that occurred in specific games and a dollar amount associated with those actions.

no fucking shit. That's called a damn bounty. (EDITED)

MOD EDIT: You know the rules. Warned.

AsylumGuido · 06-03-2012, 02:53 PM

(06-03-2012 02:22 PM)ATLBound Wrote: Sigh....

Obviously Yahoo made a mistake, but how does that call into question the ledger itself?

I'm sorry I have to reiterate this multiple times, but you just aren't getting it.

Any ATTEMPT or INTENT or PAYMENTS made/contirbuted towards performance, injuries, cart-offs, etc. that are outside the contractual agreement is under this umbrella.

This ledger shows intent or attempt regardless of what took place on the field and regardless of the mistake made by Yahoo. They were suspended for the actual program, not the players.

The ledger's validity is called into question because it fails to correspond to either game stated as being the game it pertained to. Who is to say that it wasn't just filled out by someone with an ax to grind with the Saints. Perhaps the assistant coach fired by the Saints following the 2010 Super Bowl win? Some feel he is one of the two or more "multiple unnamed sources". The supposed ledger was allegedly kept by an assistant coach on the defensive staff according to the Yahoo story. What if this coach faked a ledger to pay back the Saints?

If Goodell would have simply said they were being punished for taking part in a pay for performance program that is against league rules then I would have no problem with that. But, he specifically said they were accused of targeting specific players in specific games and donated and collected funds for those targeted hit.

That is what caused the huge backlash. Many players, current and former, have come out saying they have participated in pay for performance programs including things like hard hits and bell ringers, but what they chastised the Saints about were the claims of targeted premeditated attempts to injure specific players for payment.

That is what has Saints fans so pissed off. Everyone involved has claimed that nothing like that had ever occurred and I believe them. That is what we are all wanting to see proof of. Not some two-bit locker room pool. We want to see proof of that over the top claim that Goodell threw out there as basis for his suspension of the staff and players.

Sure, the whole deal with the pool deserved punishment, but not a full year for the head coach, eight games for the GM, six games for the asst head coach or any of the suspensions of the players.

As I said, the supposed ledger proves nothing first, unless proved valid. And then, if proved valid, proves nothing more than a pay for performance program that has never been denied.

AsylumGuido · 06-03-2012, 03:00 PM

(06-03-2012 02:34 PM)ATLBound Wrote: I think your reading comprehension is off. We have gone thru this before though so I am not surprised. I will make this simple.

What is a cart-off? A Player whi has been injured is either walked off or "carted-off" the field

Did the ledger show $1000 being paid for cart-offs? YES

If both of our answers are the same to these 2 questions, then there goes your bounty for pay for injure.

Plain and simple.

Now if somehow your answers to any of these questions are different than mine, then please give me your answer and explain. Thanks!

And obviously I understand that the story was leaked by an anonymous source and Yahoo wrote the article. Who that source is? I couldn't tell you. It's easy to assume that someone in the NFL is the source and it probably is, but that doesn't mean Goodell ordered that peson to do that and it doesn't mean that the person is actually from the NFL.

They did say that at one point the owners were shown this ledger at the meeting so it could have been one of them. I may have read that part wrong in passing though so I apologize if I am incorrect.

But please do not ignore the top part of this post

Once again, Goodell's use of the word bounty was in reference to targeted players in specific games. He also said they were involved in a pay for performance program that included such things as cartoffs and knockouts. Of course, the ledger called them whacks, instead.

It is that aforementioned use of the term "bounty" which has caused the stir.

AsylumGuido · (This post was last modified: 06-03-2012 03:26 PM by Radical.)

(06-03-2012 02:47 PM)Beef Wrote: no fucking shit. That's called a damn bounty. (EDITED)

So is payment for a sack, (EDITED), but that isn't the issue. It is the claim that Saints players targeted specific players for injury. Hell, if that was true the fact that money traded hands doesn't mean anything, even if it would have happened.

The whole issue is that Goodell made his claim and punished the Saints based upon that claim and to date, zero evidence of targeting player for injury for pay has not been presented.

MOD EDIT: Warned. Name calling is name calling, regardless of who did it first.