+- Atlanta Falcons Talk (http://atlantafalconstalk.com)
+-- Forum: Falcons Fans Message Boards (/Forum-Falcons-Fans-Message-Boards)
+--- Forum: Talk About The Falcons & So Much More (/Forum-Talk-About-The-Falcons-So-Much-More)
+--- Thread: NFL: Tarkenton: Bounties Not Part Of The Game In Any Way (/Thread-NFL-Tarkenton-Bounties-Not-Part-Of-The-Game-In-Any-Way)
RE: Tarkenton: Bounties Not Part Of The Game In Any Way - phocis850 - 03-08-2012 02:11 AM
I'm not worked up over what might happen to the Saints. They will blame Williams and he will take the fall. Since he isn't a coach for them anymore it hurts the Rams more than anyone right now. Least I think he went there. Late.
RE: Tarkenton: Bounties Not Part Of The Game In Any Way - ATLBound - 03-08-2012 11:16 AM
(03-07-2012 11:56 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: I am appalled at the number of people who are appalled at what could have been with what the Saints did, yet ignore the very real INJURIES delivered by the Steelers and James Harrison. Where is the outrage there?
And where is the outrage at the 49ers over the EIGHT RB's that were completely knocked out of games this season alone? Where is the outrage that these were relished by both the team and their fan base?
Nobody is defending what the Saints did. They are asking why are the Saints alone being chastised for a behavior that is well engrained throughout the NFL. They are not pardoning the Saints at all. They are wondering why everyone else has received and continue to receive a bye for far more effectively harmful acts?
Be honest ... how much of your outrage is associated with the principle of what could have happened and how much is associated with the fact that you hate the Saints with all of your heart?
Actually honestly none of it gas ANYTHING to do with how much I hate the Saints. If the Falcons did something of this nature I would feel the same way.
People sound like Limbaugh when he does something wrong. Deflect it on somebody else. We're not talking about James Harrison (altho he hasbbeen discussed before) and we're not talking about the 49ers. The subject is the Saints. I despise unsportsmamlike conduct. Playing I always had the most respect for all of my opponents and when there is an act like a bounty that encourages illegal hits and injuries it sickens. It's wayyyy more about morals than it is about the Saints.
I don't mind LEGAL hits that result in an unfortunate injury. Its the illegal hits that affect me, similar to Harper hitting Steve Smith in the endzone wayyyyyyy after he crossed the line. Those type of blindside, unexpected hits well outside the confines of the rules are my concern whether it resulted in an injury or not.
RE: Tarkenton: Bounties Not Part Of The Game In Any Way - ATLBound - 03-08-2012 11:22 AM
And before you respond with this. The point is not to end all unsportsmanlike hits, but the point is the emcouragement of it. When you hear about older players with concussions killing their families and themselves, them why would their be an encouragement to knock a player out of the game. Those same injuries that the bounty encouraged can affect someone immediately AND longterm.
Yes I understand it happens regularly but WHY would you enhance the chances ofbit happening with an encouragement to injure. Once again if these bounties resulted in an injury then Golic, Wiley, you, etc would be singing a different tune. But because (thank God) nothing came of it seriously that we know of then its not that big of a deal? So yes I am extremely appalled
RE: Tarkenton: Bounties Not Part Of The Game In Any Way - AsylumGuido - 03-08-2012 02:27 PM
(03-08-2012 11:16 AM)ATLBound Wrote: Actually honestly none of it gas ANYTHING to do with how much I hate the Saints. If the Falcons did something of this nature I would feel the same way.
People sound like Limbaugh when he does something wrong. Deflect it on somebody else. We're not talking about James Harrison (altho he hasbbeen discussed before) and we're not talking about the 49ers. The subject is the Saints. I despise unsportsmamlike conduct. Playing I always had the most respect for all of my opponents and when there is an act like a bounty that encourages illegal hits and injuries it sickens. It's wayyyy more about morals than it is about the Saints.
I don't mind LEGAL hits that result in an unfortunate injury. Its the illegal hits that affect me, similar to Harper hitting Steve Smith in the endzone wayyyyyyy after he crossed the line. Those type of blindside, unexpected hits well outside the confines of the rules are my concern whether it resulted in an injury or not.
I'll have to dig up the first seven RB's that were injured by the 49ers, but number eight was Pierre Thomas. All week long prior to the playoff game 49ers fans kept bragging about the seven RB's that their defense had injured and the Saints could expect the same.
RE: Tarkenton: Bounties Not Part Of The Game In Any Way - Radical - 03-08-2012 03:08 PM
Were they injured because the 49ers defense specifically set out to cause injury to those RBs, or were they just injured because the 49ers defense is aggressive. It's all about intent. There's a difference between going out there looking to literally injure someone versus saying you're going to hit them as hard as you can.
RE: Tarkenton: Bounties Not Part Of The Game In Any Way - V Chip - 03-08-2012 04:51 PM
(03-08-2012 03:08 PM)Radical Wrote: Were they injured because the 49ers defense specifically set out to cause injury to those RBs, or were they just injured because the 49ers defense is aggressive. It's all about intent. There's a difference between going out there looking to literally injure someone versus saying you're going to hit them as hard as you can.True, it is about intent. But how do you prove intent? Even if there is payment for a result, how do you know the result was specifically intended? For example: if one is rewarded for a forced fumble, sometimes a fumble just results from a big hit or a well-placed arm/helmet/shoulder and other times it is a specified intention like ripping the ball out or swatting/punching the ball. Sometimes you can tell the result is intentional, but it is is a "helmet on the ball" hit, was it planned & targeted that way or just the result of the play?
The other side of the coin is that most defensive players DO intent to hurt the other team. They don't do it maliciously but many many defensive players have said they want to inflict pain and knock other players out of the game -- it IS their intention. For those cases, it becomes it is a malicious intent or is it the intent as a course of legal, aggressive play?
I know it won't be accepted here, but the mere existence of a "bonus for knocked out of the game" is not proof of malicious intent. It's bad -- very bad, and the Saints will get what is coming to them -- but it isn't proof of being dirty.
RE: Tarkenton: Bounties Not Part Of The Game In Any Way - ATLBound - 03-08-2012 04:53 PM
(03-08-2012 02:27 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: I'll have to dig up the first seven RB's that were injured by the 49ers, but number eight was Pierre Thomas. All week long prior to the playoff game 49ers fans kept bragging about the seven RB's that their defense had injured and the Saints could expect the same.
Still deflecting...lol. I appreciate the attempt to look up those 7 RB's but I think many are missing the point and Radical hit it. Once again legal hits are fine. The Pierre Thomas hit was a legal hit that unfortunately injured him for that game.
The idea is that the bounty encourages people to hurt others intentionally. Understand that you will find fans who are hypocritical and some who are consistent, but it doesn't deter from how serious this bounty could have been. Those NFL players are just lucky nothing extra came of it.
NFL players understand the risk that is taken when they play, but there is no reason to enhance that risk by encouraging injuries.
RE: Tarkenton: Bounties Not Part Of The Game In Any Way - ATLBound - 03-08-2012 05:05 PM
(03-08-2012 04:51 PM)V Chip Wrote: True, it is about intent. But how do you prove intent? Even if there is payment for a result, how do you know the result was specifically intended? For example: if one is rewarded for a forced fumble, sometimes a fumble just results from a big hit or a well-placed arm/helmet/shoulder and other times it is a specified intention like ripping the ball out or swatting/punching the ball. Sometimes you can tell the result is intentional, but it is is a "helmet on the ball" hit, was it planned & targeted that way or just the result of the play?
The other side of the coin is that most defensive players DO intent to hurt the other team. They don't do it maliciously but many many defensive players have said they want to inflict pain and knock other players out of the game -- it IS their intention. For those cases, it becomes it is a malicious intent or is it the intent as a course of legal, aggressive play?
I know it won't be accepted here, but the mere existence of a "bonus for knocked out of the game" is not proof of malicious intent. It's bad -- very bad, and the Saints will get what is coming to them -- but it isn't proof of being dirty.
No offense but based on this logic this is just plain stupid on the part of the Saints. Here's why:
A.) I could pay you nothing extra and still get a "malicious" hit
B.) I could pay you extra than what you already get and get a "malicious" hit
What is the draw of the bounty? What is the point of it? Some NFL players have mentioned that almost every team in the NFL does something like this. If so, then why do all these teams make the decision to have a system like this if they can get the same result by doing nothing extra?
There's two things that come of this bounty:
1.) Player A may play to the whistle without a bounty, but same player A with a little extra incentive will play past the whistle. This may not cause further injury but the risk of it is greater because the hit would be unexpected
2.) Player B may play past the whistle without a bounty and still plays past the whistle after a bounty.
So yes Player B is not affected but Player A is. There were 22 - 27 playersinvolved. I would say not all of those players play with the intent to injure but their minds may have been changed because of the bounty. That's the dangerous part.
RE: Tarkenton: Bounties Not Part Of The Game In Any Way - V Chip - 03-08-2012 08:49 PM
(03-08-2012 05:05 PM)ATLBound Wrote: No offense but based on this logic this is just plain stupid on the part of the Saints. Here's why:Well first those aren't the only two options -- there are also non-malicious hits -- this implies it's only about malicious hits.
A.) I could pay you nothing extra and still get a "malicious" hit
B.) I could pay you extra than what you already get and get a "malicious" hit
But that's the same for any system like this -- and this is a widespread system, not something invented by the Saints, so apparently it has its draw in the locker room.
(03-08-2012 05:05 PM)ATLBound Wrote: What is the draw of the bounty? What is the point of it? Some NFL players have mentioned that almost every team in the NFL does something like this. If so, then why do all these teams make the decision to have a system like this if they can get the same result by doing nothing extra?Yes, you can. It's just the extra recognition. Guys who took part in the systems say it wasn't about the money, it was just about getting the recognition in front of everyone else on your team that you made a big play. The 9ers certainly celebrated when Whitner knocked out Pierre Thomas, and that's an extra motivation for many people. Heck, getting your hit shown on "ESPN Big Hits of the Week" is motivation.
(03-08-2012 05:05 PM)ATLBound Wrote: There's two things that come of this bounty:Again, you're giving only two options when there are many more -- nothing has to do with "playing past the whistle." The biggest hits and plays all come during the normal play, not after the whistle. After the whistle gets you flagged and likely fined. That's not going to get you positive recognition.
1.) Player A may play to the whistle without a bounty, but same player A with a little extra incentive will play past the whistle. This may not cause further injury but the risk of it is greater because the hit would be unexpected
2.) Player B may play past the whistle without a bounty and still plays past the whistle after a bounty.
(03-08-2012 05:05 PM)ATLBound Wrote: So yes Player B is not affected but Player A is. There were 22 - 27 playersinvolved. I would say not all of those players play with the intent to injure but their minds may have been changed because of the bounty. That's the dangerous part.Could their minds be changed because of a bounty? Possibly. IMO there is no way an extra $1000 or $1500 would cause guys who mostly make at least $50K per game and some of whom make $100-200K a game play with malicious (illegal or cheap) intent any more than that person would already be likely to do without the extra possible bonus -- the biggest reason being the likelihood of fines vastly exceeding the little bonus they get. I mean, Dunta Robinson got fined $90K total (reduced to $50K) for his illegal hits on Eagles receivers yet has said he will continue to play exactly the same regardless and that's a lot more of a penalty than the bonus change the Saints are alleged to receive for "cart offs" or "knock out" hits.
RE: Tarkenton: Bounties Not Part Of The Game In Any Way - Radical - 03-08-2012 09:02 PM
(03-08-2012 04:51 PM)V Chip Wrote: I know it won't be accepted here, but the mere existence of a "bonus for knocked out of the game" is not proof of malicious intent.
Umm... yes it does. It proves the coaches encouraged it, and the players actively participated in it. What other kind of proof could possibly be needed?