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 - Peyton - 10-27-2012 08:49 AM
(10-26-2012 07:07 PM)ATLBound Wrote: 7. Cerullo and Williams submitted the SAME 10K pledge story from Vilma without even knowing what the other person said. Yes, there stories of how the 10K was handed over differed, but they both connected Vilma with the 10K. Please explain how the story of two people who never spoke about the issue matched in an amount as high as that and also the person pledging the amount. AND under oath.
Williams just signed his statement last month. You really don't think he knew what the NFL wanted him to say at that point?
And your point about them being under oath is important, because it is obvious that at least one of them is lying in their statement.
So...apparently being under oath isn't as big a deal as people make it out to be in a civil case.
Actually, having been in a civil case, I already know that to be true.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - Peyton - 10-27-2012 09:11 AM
Well I'll give you my opinions. I think you were looking for Guido's, but I have something to say about these.
(10-26-2012 07:07 PM)ATLBound Wrote: There are a few things that I find difficult to explain for the ones claiming innocence and also some things that need to be cleared up. This may be long so I apologize ahead of time.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - ATLBound - 10-27-2012 12:06 PM
1. I agree. Not really a fan of all the suspensions or even the length. The whole point of this was to show that not all players were suspended for the specific intent to injury.
2. I agree. Thats why they gave him his injuries as part of his suspension, essentially reducing the suspensions. Same thing I said about Fujita. Not all players were suspended for the specific intent to injure.
3. It's really convenient for the Saints to change the meaning off a word that even my wife knows what its about. Like JDave said and what Goodell said as well. The difference between the "original" meaning of cart-offs and what the players said "cart-off" means is so far off that its difficult to believe and Goodell being judge and jury punished because of that. Also why would a player need smelling salts if he only got the wind knocked out of him?
6. I mentioned in the same post it is implied, but I only say this because Guido uses that excuse ALL the time. But its not a valid excuse to use because it's never mentioned or offered as a reason for the suspension. Well at least not in the reestablishment of the suspensions. He should really get over that argument.
7. The stories matched prior to him signing that paper. He only signed what was already advised in the initial investigation with Williams and Cerullo when this whole thing started.
8. I stated this was a minor detail. I'm just questioning why when its convenient to his side that Guido doesn't recognize the different stories between the very people claiming innocence. It's not as significant as the difference of who handled the 10K, but it is significant enough to point out.
10. I agree that Goodell is very arrogant and stubborn but he knows when to make a change. When the call was made in the GB vs. SEA game, he made a change. When he realized some of the suspensions weren't warranted he reduced him. He isn't AS arrogant and stubborn as some make him out to be. He has gone against his initial point before. Even in the CBA situation. He understands crunch time and when a change is necessary. I'm not saying he is this great guy but he is cognizant of when his job is possibly on the line. I think he wouldn't go thru this if he didn't have a strong leg to stand on.
I did make a mistake about the under oath thing. I contradicted myself, because I have been a part of the party who recognizes that people lie under oath. So to throw that out there in favor of my argument was contradictory. So that reason for truth is null and void.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - JDaveG - 10-27-2012 02:52 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.
Not necessarily. One can incentivize something without having necessarily an increase in what is incentivized. It's not easy to hurt someone so bad they leave the game. The human body is pretty resilient. That doesn't mean they weren't planning to pay if someone managed to overcome those odds. And the best evidence of that is the use of the term itself -- it defies all common sense to use the term "cart off" if what you really mean is "they had to leave the game for at least one play."
Quote: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.
I don't think it's anywhere near that simple, as others have demonstrated. And I think Goodell has made clear that just having such a program is reason enough for punishment, and severe punishment at that. Particularly since they were told to stop and didn't.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 10-27-2012 02:56 PM
(10-27-2012 08:49 AM)Peyton Wrote: Williams just signed his statement last month. You really don't think he knew what the NFL wanted him to say at that point?
Thanks, Peyton. That was the same point I was going to make. And there have been rumors out there that The NFL's lawyers actually penned the declaration and had Williams sign it. Not saying that is what happened, but many other rumors have been proven to be true.
By the way, I have been out with my wife all day. I just made it back in.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 10-27-2012 03:11 PM
(10-27-2012 09:11 AM)Peyton Wrote: Well I'll give you my opinions. I think you were looking for Guido's, but I have something to say about these.
Once again, Peyton, I think you have taken the words right out of my mouth. Although, I would like to add that the accusations have been a continually moving target as this has progressed. Yes, when the punishment were reassessed a broader and less constricted reason for the penalties was given, but even if the new accusations could be proven did they warrant the punishments. It was as if he wanted to penalize then regardless of what did or did not happen.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - ATLBound - 10-27-2012 03:22 PM
(10-27-2012 02:56 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: By the way, I have been out with my wife all day. I just made it back in.
I just say those things to mess with you. We all got lives to deal with instead of being on a messageboard.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 10-27-2012 03:23 PM
(10-27-2012 02:52 PM)JDaveG Wrote: Not necessarily. One can incentivize something without having necessarily an increase in what is incentivized. It's not easy to hurt someone so bad they leave the game. The human body is pretty resilient. That doesn't mean they weren't planning to pay if someone managed to overcome those odds. And the best evidence of that is the use of the term itself -- it defies all common sense to use the term "cart off" if what you really mean is "they had to leave the game for at least one play."
Once again, Gregg Williams is well known for his over the top rhetoric and hyperbole. Why wasn't there a category called "missed a play" or something like that since that would have been infinitely more common than a cartoff? Could it have been that it was Williams covering all bases (ie. missing one or more plays) with a more fearsome title?
And, supposedly, at the time, Goodell believed that they were targeting specific players for intentional injury. IF he went to Loomis and Payton and told them that if this was going on it needed to be stopped then what could Loomis and Payton do? IF they went to Williams and were told that there were no bounties (as defined) and they just had your run of the mill pool going on wouldn't you think that would be enough?
Performance pools have been a part of the league for many years and was endorsed by the league itself. How could the Saints have stopped something they weren't doing as defined at the time by Goodell?
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 10-27-2012 03:25 PM
(10-27-2012 03:22 PM)ATLBound Wrote: I just say those things to mess with you. We all got lives to deal with instead of being on a messageboard.
I know. She just walked in and said are you arguing with those Atlanta fans again? You have things to do.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 10-27-2012 03:43 PM
Oh, I would like to address #9 from above:
9. Why would a player say " Give me my money" in response to Vitt inadvertently advising the players that Favre's leg was broken???
I suppose that it could have been a reference to the rumored motivational stunt orchestrated by Gregg Williams. For those of you not aware, there has been a rumor for many months that as part of one of Williams' over the top meetings that the night before the Vikings game he gave Vilma cash and told him to offer it up if Favre was knocked out of the game or something of the sort. IF it did happen the players could have taken it as yet another Williams ploy.
This would explain how both Cerullo and Williams came up with the same amount. It would also explain why someone on the sideline said "Give me my money." It doesn't, however, IF it did happen, mean that the players took it as a serious offer.