(12-13-2012 12:36 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  I am sure Vitt said things, too. But it is all locker room rhetoric. Golic and Mark Schlereth were saying that there was nothing on that tape that wasn't said in every locker room in the league to some degree. But, Williams is well known for his use of over the top rhetoric and the players have all said they never took that stuff literally.

(12-13-2012 12:25 PM)ATLBound Wrote:  You can't control everybody. You have to let it go as much as you want a lot of us to let it go. Although it is difficult to let go of what Good ell stated initially, you have to take into account his secondary opinion as well. He is stubborn so I understand, but he seems to be equally disgusted with the pool performance as he is with a bounty. Its probably all because of the lawsuits but he's not going to change and I assure you that people here who still disagree are not disagreeing because of Good ell.

(12-13-2012 12:41 PM)ATLBound Wrote:  I understand that. I was just responding to how Peyton (fellow AFT member) perceived Williams as opposed to Vitt.

(12-13-2012 11:40 AM)ATLBound Wrote:  I can't bold because Im on my phone but I think you basically stated what I have been trying to explain to you since the reduced suspensions came about and for why Goodell is staying true to his SECONDARY, not initial reaction. You said in the above statement:

" They had a pool funded by the players that awarded big plays including hard hit that potentially knocked opposing players out of games."

I think what is being missed here is the very basic definition that Goodell is putting on the word injure. I will agree that it is very broad, but all in the same very true....no matter how "cheap" it may seem. Although minor, it is considered on the field of play and INJURY when a player is knocked out of a game or even just a few plays. It doesn't matter whether its a legal hit or not. It doesn't matter if it was a play, quarter, or just a game. It is still logged as an injury that the players potentially got paid for. This is why Goodell is sticking to his guns.

Lets get this straight. The only thing this Tag situation cleared up was the Vilma situation and nothing else. By that statement above thats a bounty. It ain't a 10k worth bounty and its very small by the nature of the injury but technically and cheaply speaking....its a bounty.

I would also like to say that since the new info with Tags came out I have been leaning your way Guido. So this isnt about the Saints. This is about me seeing where Goodell is coming from, although cheap.

Quote:Goodell said that he did not regret appointing Tagliabue to rule on the appeal and was adamant that the league does not owe the Saints an apology.

"No. Again, I don't have the report in front of me, but Commissioner Tagliabue said there is no one here that should feel good about their role in this with respect to the Saints," Goodell said. "People made judgments and none of them should be feeling very good about those judgments. To have a bounty program where you're targeting players for injury is completely unacceptable in the NFL, and it is clear that occurred for three years despite all of the denials.

(12-13-2012 01:29 PM)ATLBound Wrote:  He took out the word "specific." We are talking about small changes but significant in regards to the statement. I still think he is talking about those big hits that were legal and injured (his definition) players for a play up to a game.

When I say he removed "specific"......I am talking about this phrase

" To have a bounty program where you're targeting "SPECIFIC" players for injury is completely unacceptable in the NFL, and it is clear that occurred for three years despite all of the denials."

It changes the statement just enough to fulfill the conclusion I have for the situation.

(12-13-2012 01:53 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  Even using your interpretation it is close enough to allow enough people that do not know the facts to still believe that the Saints were still doing what they were incorrectly accused of doing from the beginning.

(12-13-2012 12:17 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  I know where you were coming from, but the severity of the punishment laid on the Saints, the staff and the players was always based upon the initial interpretation by Goodell and not his redefinition later on. Tagliabue even pointed this out when he said that the Packers in 2007 and the Patriots in 2008 were each fined $25,000 for the same violations and the players that took part received no sanctions.

My beef in this whole matter has been how the Saints have been portrayed by Goodell from the beginning and how it has been perceived by the public. I know most of you around here have been able to see the light, but there are even a few here with all of the information available in this thread that still believe the fantastic story that Goodell first threw out to the media last March.

(12-13-2012 02:14 PM)ATLBound Wrote:  If that's your goal, then you will never be satisfied. You should just let it go at this point.