NFL: Saints Bounty Thread - Printable Version
+- 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: Saints Bounty Thread (/Thread-NFL-Saints-Bounty-Thread)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - ATLBound - 10-23-2012 12:18 AM
(10-23-2012 12:06 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote: Okay, let's go back to the whole basis of the suspensions. The Saints were accused of a three year long ongoing program of placing bounties on opposing players for intentional injury.
Sigh...I dont think you understand what assuming means because you continue to do it. It's extremely annoying.
Once again if one of them is telling the truth then it doesn't matter. Does it lose credibility? Sure it does but being credible and being truthful are two totally different things.
Who cares about the 3 year investigation? It doesn't matter at this point. When the judges ruled in favor of the players it gave the opportunity to the league to reissue the penallties in a manner that fits the evidence the NFL has. Yes, I will say it for you so you wont focus on this one thing that I post....we all understand that you don't think the NFL has evidence...blah blah blah.
Who cares that they were initially punished from the intentional injure angle? Once again it has changed. Does the NFL lose some credibility for changing the initial offense? Sure it does but once again it does not mean the bounty program didn't exist. Which is what Radical was eluding to.
There were payments made for cart-offs, cart-offs indicate a player being injured, therefore the Saints were paid for injuries that theu caused opposing players.
Stop talking about things that don't matter anymore to prove the NFL has holes. We know some of the evidence has holes, but it doesn't mean there weren't any bounties. You're just assuming.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - ATLUGA87 - 10-23-2012 12:23 AM
Regardless this is has been a MAJOR distraction to the taints this year. But let's pretend this bounty scandal or what ever you wanna call it never happened, the falcons would still be undefeated. That's all that matters. I rather beat them at full strength rather them have some lame ass excuse as to why they lost.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 10-23-2012 12:38 AM
(10-23-2012 12:18 AM)ATLBound Wrote: Sigh...I dont think you understand what assuming means because you continue to do it. It's extremely annoying.
And you are assuming that there were bounties. Have you ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? The assumption is there were bounties because Cerullo said there was. But, Cerullo wasn't even part of the team for 2/3rds of the period in question. But, there are assumptions. Let's see the proof of bounties.
And yes, there were payments offered for what was called cart-offs. A cart-off indicated a player had to leave the game for one or more plays. If a penalty occurred on the play there was no payment. If the play was deemed an illegal hit there was no payment. If the game was a loss there was no payment.
None of this equates to bounties. Yes, I keep bringing up the point of targeting opposing players for intentional injury because that was the crime for which they were accused.
The league had already approved of collecting player pool monies for players being knocked out of games on legal hits. That is part of public record. That wasn't what all of this was about.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - ATLBound - 10-23-2012 01:07 AM
(10-23-2012 12:38 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote: And you are assuming that there were bounties. Have you ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? The assumption is there were bounties because Cerullo said there was. But, Cerullo wasn't even part of the team for 2/3rds of the period in question. But, there are assumptions. Let's see the proof of bounties.
I'm not assuming anything. They were initially charged with a bounty program and then suspended for it. The appeals process in the NFL is for the players and coaches to prove themselves innocent.
Yes I have heard of innocent until proven guilty in the laws of the United States but this is the NFL and they have to prove themselves innocent, which is why they had players and coaches testifying on the stand just to appeal.
They were accused with intent to injure initially but the accusations have changed so it doesn't matter what they were initially accused of. Stop bringing it up as a way to show the NFL is lying because it has no bearing on whats going on now. Does it look bad? Yep but doesnt make the accusations false.
And please stop with the "if there were illegal hits or a penalty then they werent paid" stuff. That portion doesn't matter. The point is on a legal hit with no penalties the players got paid for cart-offs. A cart-off caused a player to miss plays or a game due to being injured. Dont try to sugercoat it with the illegal and penalty thing. It doesn't matter. Let's try to stick with what matters because all the extra stuff is moot.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - Beef - 10-23-2012 08:25 AM
(10-23-2012 12:38 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote: And yes, there were payments offered for what was called cart-offs. A cart-off indicated a player had to leave the game for one or more plays.
Dude just ADMITTED that there was a pay for injury program for fuck sakes.
There is absolutely NO reason for a player to have to leave the field for one or more plays unless he's injured.
Finally. Now every time this nutbag claims there was no pay for injury shit, we can all quote his post where he admitted there was.
There's no way to spin out of this one. Saints players were paid for hits that caused opposing players to leave the field for one or more plays. Done.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - Radical - 10-23-2012 08:38 AM
This topic has more or less ceased to even be entertaining and once again turns back to name calling and nonsense. There's nothing new on the subject, and the arguments have gone beyond redundancy at this point, so I'm locking it and "banning" all further debate on the subject until further notice. Beef, you know the rules. See you Sunday if your choose to return.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - Radical - 10-24-2012 01:37 PM
I'm opening this back up, and I will be keeping a close eye on this thread. There will be no warnings or slap on the wrists from this point on for breaking the rules. Post away!
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - RFlagg - 10-24-2012 01:55 PM
(10-24-2012 01:37 PM)Radical Wrote: I'm opening this back up, and I will be keeping a close eye on this thread. There will be no warnings or slap on the wrists from this point on for breaking the rules. Post away!
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - RFlagg - 10-24-2012 01:57 PM
Perfect timing, BTW, NFLPA has now asked Tagliabue to recluse himself as well.
Quote:The NFL Players Association just sent out a news release saying it will make a motion for former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue to recuse himself from hearing the appeals of the four players that are facing suspensions in the New Orleans bounty drama.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - pauliwood - 10-24-2012 02:12 PM
still confused why beef is banned.