+- 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 - JDaveG - 10-26-2012 02:48 PM
(10-26-2012 02:42 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: But the Saints player did reward each other for a play that forced a player to leave a game for one play, be it having the wind knocked out of them or having their bell rung as long as the play did not result in a flag or was deemed an illegal hit by the league AND the Saints won the game ... and they called it a cartoff. No pool rewards were given for anything if the Saints lost.
And, no, it was never "if you injure another player, you will get paid." It was in addition to forced fumbles, sacks, etc., "if you deliver a good clean legal hit that results in the player missing a play or more you can receive a reward out of our player funded pool." This has been repeated by the Saints players and coaches over and over again. In fact, according to transcripts of his meeting with Goodell, Vilma said that if a player suffered a serious injury such as a blown out knee no reward would be given regardless of the legality of the hit.
Which explains why they called them "cart offs."
Oh wait, it totally doesn't.......
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - Radical - 10-26-2012 03:06 PM
I thought they had another word that implied injury along with cart-offs. What was it?
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 10-26-2012 03:11 PM
(10-26-2012 03:06 PM)Radical Wrote: I thought they had another word that implied injury along with cart-offs. What was it?
Knock-out.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 10-26-2012 03:13 PM
(10-26-2012 02:48 PM)JDaveG Wrote: Which explains why they called them "cart offs."
Oh wait, it totally doesn't.......
Don't forget the master of the hyperbole, Gregg Williams, was handling the pool for the players. I would imagine he came up with the terms. Don't forget "kill the head and the body will die."
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - JDaveG - 10-26-2012 03:17 PM
(10-26-2012 03:13 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: Don't forget the master of the hyperbole, Gregg Williams, was handling the pool for the players. I would imagine he came up with the terms. Don't forget "kill the head and the body will die."
The point is the explanation provided doesn't square with the use of the term. It's too convenient by half.
Even if it was intended by Williams (or, alternatively, understood by the players) to be hyperbole, there's a half a world of hyperbole between "leaves the game for 1 play" (which, BTW, is still an "injury," unless they also paid for having their helmet come off or whatever) and "cart off."
It's like someone busting into your office and pointing a pistol at you and saying "I'm going to kill you," and then when the cops show up saying "what I really meant was I'm really disappointed in his take on the Saints bounty scandal." It's so far from what they actually said and did that no one would believe it. Rightly so.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 10-26-2012 03:28 PM
(10-26-2012 03:17 PM)JDaveG Wrote: The point is the explanation provided doesn't square with the use of the term. It's too convenient by half.
Even if it was intended by Williams (or, alternatively, understood by the players) to be hyperbole, there's a half a world of hyperbole between "leaves the game for 1 play" (which, BTW, is still an "injury," unless they also paid for having their helmet come off or whatever) and "cart off."
It's like someone busting into your office and pointing a pistol at you and saying "I'm going to kill you," and then when the cops show up saying "what I really meant was I'm really disappointed in his take on the Saints bounty scandal." It's so far from what they actually said and did that no one would believe it. Rightly so.
If it was meant to be literal one would think that there would have been more injuries in Saints games than others, wouldn't you? Numbers have been shown that this is not the case. In fact, someone said that the only two players carted off from a Saints game between 2009 and 2011 were both Saints players.
But, the fact is that the Saints were punished for supposedly having a bounty program that targeted specific players for intentional injury. The fact that they had a pool that paid for big plays including big hits that could have resulted in incidental injury does not meet that definition. While you, or others, may have a problem with it, what they had going on was not what they were punished for nor was it what they were even accused of doing.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - ATLBound - 10-26-2012 06:22 PM
(10-26-2012 03:28 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: If it was meant to be literal one would think that there would have been more injuries in Saints games than others, wouldn't you? Numbers have been shown that this is not the case. In fact, someone said that the only two players carted off from a Saints game between 2009 and 2011 were both Saints players.
But, the fact is that the Saints were punished for supposedly having a bounty program that targeted specific players for intentional injury. The fact that they had a pool that paid for big plays including big hits that could have resulted in incidental injury does not meet that definition. While you, or others, may have a problem with it, what they had going on was not what they were punished for nor was it what they were even accused of doing.
When Goodell reassesed the penalties in early October this argument for being punished for the specific intent to target opposing players was thrown out. You can stop using that as the excuse because it currently has no bearing on the suspensions.
I am about to post the statements from Goodell sent to each player pointing out what each player was punished for and no where in those statements does he mention the specific intent to injure a player. This should squash this argument overall because the reasons for the suspensions were done over when the 3 judge panel appealed. I want you show me otherwise once I have posted
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - ATLBound - 10-26-2012 06:28 PM
In his letter to Fujita, who say his suspension reduced from three games to one,
Goodell wrote:
"While I have not found that you directly contributed to the bounty pool, there is no serious question that you were aware of the pool and its elements, including that it provided rewards for cart-offs. Indeed, Mr. [Jonathan] Vilma testified that Coach [Gregg] Williams brought the program to the team's defensive leaders before the 2009 season and that you supported and endorsed it. Your own comments confirm that players were encouraged to ‘crank up the John Deere tractor and cart those guys off' the playing field.
"I am surprised and disappointed by the fact that you, a former defensive captain and a passionate advocate for player safety, ignored such a program and permitted it to continue. You made clear to me that participation in the program was voluntary and that other players could have refused to participate, as you claim to have done. If you had spoken up, perhaps other players would have refused to participate and the consequences with which we are now dealing could have been avoided."
Link: http://www.thephinsider.com/2012/10/9/3480614/roger-goodell-reaffirms-player-suspensions-in-bountygate-case-scott-fujita-jonathan-vilma
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - ATLBound - 10-26-2012 06:30 PM
Hargrove, meanwhile, remains suspended for seven games. The league will credit him with five games served during his time as a free agent, and, whenever he signs with a franchise, he will serve the remaining two games. In suspending Hargrove, Goodell wrote:
"I find that you engaged in conduct detrimental by falsely denying, when questioned by an NFL Security representative, both the existence of the Saints' program and the pledge of a substantial payment to any member of the Saints' defensive unit who knocked Brett Favre out of the 2009 NFC Championship Game.
"My finding that you misled the NFL Security representative and obstructed the League's investigation is corroborated by your own Declaration and by numerous statements made by you in our meeting of September 18 that were themselves not credible."
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - ATLBound - 10-26-2012 06:33 PM
Like Hargrove, Smith's suspension did not change. Smith will have to serve a four game suspension. Goodell's letter to Smith read:
"[b]At our meeting in September, you confirmed that you expressed approval of the program when it was first presented to you by Coach Williams. You also confirmed that you provided money to the program pool both at the beginning of the season and again during the playoffs[/b]. I understand that you deny that anyone intended to inflict injury on any opposing player. Even in the face of repeated appeals to ‘crank up the John Deere tractor and cart the guy off,' you and others now claim that the objective was instead merely to ‘knock the wind out' of your opponents, requiring them to leave the game for only a play or two. From the standpoint of player safety, fair competition, and the integrity of the game, the issues with which I am concerned today, this kind of after-the-fact explanation is little more than wordplay that, in my judgment as Commissioner, offers no basis on which to excuse conduct that does not belong in professional football. Such behavior is conduct detrimental without regard to the precise extent or duration of the disability intended."