NFL: Saints Bounty Thread

[JDaveG]

(06-06-2012 08:48 AM)RFlagg (quoting the article)' Wrote:  "I never saw any money for injuring somebody exchange hands," Shanle told the Times-Picayune. ...

[Beef]

Claiming that "cart-offs" was simply GW's "crazy" language for "big legal hits" ONLY is just stupid.

Did they reward players for "big legal hits" that didn't result in an injury and log them under the "cart-offs" section? I would bet they absolutely did.

But if an injury would have occurred and the player actually carted off the field or taken out of the game due to a legal or illegal hit, would they have still rewarded that and logged it under "cart-offs"? Hell yes they would have and they certainly did. And I'm sure they were just as proud, if not more proud, about it than otherwise.

"Cart-off" has only ONE possible meaning. Them choosing to reward players for almost causing a real cart-off doesn't change the meaning of the term. If your ONLY intent is to reward for ONLY "big legal hits" and never actually ever hope to hurt someone to the point they have to leave the game, then you don't fucking name the reward category "CART-OFFS", no matter how flippin crazy you are.

As for Guido's theory that some jaded ex-coach fabricated the ledger and it never really existed, Shanle just shot yet another of his dumbass spin defenses down. GW clearly DID use the language "cart-offs" and the Saints had the most organized reward system in the league. Whether payment for injuries ever actually occurred is irrelevant. The bounty program clearly did exist and "cart-offs" clearly says what a possible goal was.

Guido you lose.

[AsylumGuido]

(06-06-2012 08:48 AM)RFlagg Wrote:  And now Shanle has admitted the program was real, but claims it has been blown out of proportion:


Yep, so much for the "There was no bounty program" argument, as well as the "It was pay for performance, not knockouts and cart-offs."

Here is the rest of that story, not just the short bit you clipped out.

New Orleans outside linebacker Scott Shanle helps bring perspective to Saints' bounty scandal

Saints linebacker Scott Shanle offered the most thorough explanation yet Tuesday about the Saints' pay-for-performance pool, which the NFL has labeled as a "bounty program."

Shanle admitted some wrongdoing on the Saints' part, including the existence of rewards for legal hits that led to injuries and terms such as "cart-offs" and "knockouts." But he stressed that the league blew things way out of proportion to make an example of the Saints and discourage similar practices around the NFL.

And in doing so, Shanle helped crystallize why the NFL needs to be more forthcoming with all of the evidence it has on the Saints.

Because even though this investigation has been public for months, there is still a lot of gray area between what the Saints actually did wrong and what they've been accused of doing.

It's not that the Saints are innocent, but it sure does seem like the NFL has painted their actions to be much worse than they really were. And if that's not true, then the NFL should do a better job of proving its point.

What Shanle described Tuesday fits with the narrative we've pieced together over the past few months through various sources, both on and off the record.

The Saints did have a pay-for-performance program, which included payouts in the range of $500 to $1,000 for a variety of big plays, including big hits. And those hits were sometimes referred to as "cart-offs" or "knockouts" when players were injured. But Shanle said that didn't mean the intent or purpose of the incentive pool was to target players for injuries.

Shanle said those terms were used "in Gregg's language," referring to fiery defensive coordinator Gregg Williams, whose over-the-top motivational tactics have been well-documented. But Shanle insisted that players didn't take Williams literally, and he believes Williams was the best motivator he has had in 10 years in the NFL.

"Gregg said crazy stuff," Shanle said. "If you take him literally, you're going to be locked up. But he was the best motivator I've ever been around."

Shanle said it would be a shame if Williams' role in helping lead the Saints to their first Super Bowl is tarnished because of the bounty scandal.

"If we have a Super Bowl reunion in 10 years or 20 years, I want him to be there celebrating with us," Shanle said.

Shanle said the practice of side bets between players is common throughout the NFL, although the program the Saints had in place under Williams may have been more organized than most. Shanle said Williams introduced it as a "fun part of our defense."

But that doesn't mean it was a bonanza. He said players would lose money just as easily as gain, thanks to fines for penalties and mental errors. So penalties or illegal hits were discouraged.

"There's been this picture painted that (Jonathan) Vilma was standing in front of the defense before every game picking out players to go after and offering money," Shanle said. "It was blown up to be something more than it is."

Shanle did not specifically confirm or deny the accusation that Vilma offered $10,000 bounties on Kurt Warner or Brett Favre in the 2009 and 2010 playoffs, which some sources have confirmed while claiming it was used as more of a prop or motivational ploy.

Shanle did say firmly, "I never saw any money for injuring somebody exchange hands."

Shanle said it's especially disappointing that a handful of players -- Vilma, Anthony Hargrove, Will Smith and Scott Fujita -- have paid such a heavy price, with the league singling them out to make a statement.

"If you put Vilma's picture on the cover of Sports Illustrated with a headline that says, 'Performance-based pool,' it wouldn't have the same effect," Shanle said.

He's right. The way things have been worded in this debate have made all the difference.

A lot of what we're talking about is semantics. Degrees of guilt. Shades of gray.

We already know the NFL is willing to embellish its evidence to make its case. Last month, the NFL got busted for misrepresenting what Hargrove said in his signed declaration to the league, claiming he confirmed the existence of a bounty program and his participation in it when he actually did no such thing. He admitted only that he was instructed by coaches to deny the existence of such programs.

Again, that may be semantics. But Hargrove was suspended a whopping eight games, mostly because he was accused of lying to the NFL during its investigation. So what punishment does the NFL get for lying about what Hargrove said?

The point is that the NFL shouldn't leave so much room for doubt and skepticism in this case. It's understandable why the NFL is taking this issue so seriously, and it's understandable why they've come down so hard on the Saints for crossing the line in the area of player safety.

But the league and Commissioner Roger Goodell chose to paint the Saints' actions as the worst offenses against player safety in NFL history. So what would be the crime in giving the public enough specific detail to let us decide for ourselves?

[AsylumGuido]

Once again, there is no evidence of intent to injure. Yes, there was intent to knock the snot out of your opponent, but on every single snap of every single game there is that intent.

What Goodell painted the Saints as doing was far more egregious than anything that has been shown to have happened. Every bit of evidence that has been shared or leaked has pointed to nothing more than a reward and penalty program that is common place in sports. Wrong? Yes. But nothing to the extent that Goodell has indicated from the beginning.

[Dale4Saul2Red0]

[AsylumGuido]

(06-06-2012 10:10 AM)Beef Wrote:  Claiming that "cart-offs" was simply GW's "crazy" language for "big legal hits" ONLY is just stupid.

Did they reward players for "big legal hits" that didn't result in an injury and log them under the "cart-offs" section? I would bet they absolutely did.

But if an injury would have occurred and the player actually carted off the field or taken out of the game due to a legal or illegal hit, would they have still rewarded that and logged it under "cart-offs"? Hell yes they would have and they certainly did. And I'm sure they were just as proud, if not more proud, about it than otherwise.

"Cart-off" has only ONE possible meaning. Them choosing to reward players for almost causing a real cart-off doesn't change the meaning of the term. If your ONLY intent is to reward for ONLY "big legal hits" and never actually ever hope to hurt someone to the point they have to leave the game, then you don't fucking name the reward category "CART-OFFS", no matter how flippin crazy you are.

As for Guido's theory that some jaded ex-coach fabricated the ledger and it never really existed, Shanle just shot yet another of his dumbass spin defenses down. GW clearly DID use the language "cart-offs" and the Saints had the most organized reward system in the league. Whether payment for injuries ever actually occurred is irrelevant. The bounty program clearly did exist and "cart-offs" clearly says what a possible goal was.

Guido you lose.

No. The pay for performance system existed. Bounties on specific players, which you yourself stated as happening on a regular basis in your belief, is still being denied and has had absolutely no evidence as having happened.

[JDaveG]

(06-06-2012 11:13 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  Once again, there is no evidence of intent to injure. Yes, there was intent to knock the snot out of your opponent, but on every single snap of every single game there is that intent.

What Goodell painted the Saints as doing was far more egregious than anything that has been shown to have happened. Every bit of evidence that has been shared or leaked has pointed to nothing more than a reward and penalty program that is common place in sports. Wrong? Yes. But nothing to the extent that Goodell has indicated from the beginning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

[RFlagg]

(06-06-2012 11:14 AM)Dale4Saul2Red0 Wrote:  

Pretty much what I picture is being said every time I see the mini bar showing Guido has posted, yet I don't have to read it.

[ATLBound]

(06-06-2012 11:13 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  Once again, there is no evidence of intent to injure. Yes, there was intent to knock the snot out of your opponent, but on every single snap of every single game there is that intent.

What Goodell painted the Saints as doing was far more egregious than anything that has been shown to have happened. Every bit of evidence that has been shared or leaked has pointed to nothing more than a reward and penalty program that is common place in sports. Wrong? Yes. But nothing to the extent that Goodell has indicated from the beginning.

You really don't get it. I don't think he is playing folks. Shanle just admitted it. What you are looking for and every other delusional fan is misguided.

In this post you argued that the intent to knock the snot out of every player is there, which is true.

BUT

These idiots got paid extra beyond their contracts to knock the snot out. Shanle also admitted in your previous post, the article, that they got paid for legal hits that lead to INJURIES AND CART-OFFS.

As Herm Edwards would say "HELLOOOOO." That's a bounty or pay to injure program. The intent tp injure doesn't matter. When they made a legal hit and it injured someone or caused them to get carted off, then they got paid extra for it.

Is that hard to see? I swear he does it everytime. He disappears when he doesn't have a comeback and then appears again when he feels he has a leg to stand on.

P.S. This is your cue to disappear again

P.S.S Dammit I am on my phone again. Phocis or somebody may I please have my 'rolleyes' smiley face again

[ATLBound]

(06-06-2012 11:32 AM)JDaveG Wrote:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

Bwahahah I called him Bill Clinton in an earlier post