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 - AsylumGuido - 06-06-2012 08:44 PM
(06-06-2012 01:45 PM)ATLBound Wrote: You really don't get it. I don't think he is playing folks. Shanle just admitted it. What you are looking for and every other delusional fan is misguided.
No. That isn't the "bounty" or "pay to injure" program the Saints were accused of undergoing. According to the claims, and your local expert Beef, they targeted players with the explicit goal of injuring them for money.
That is what the league and the media first claimed was the crime.
The term "bounty" in the public realm envisions wanted posters from the old West with the face of a prey offered up for a given reward, "Dead Or Alive".
This is the context that was presented by Goodell, the league, and subsequently the media of the whole affair. Can y'all not understand that we know there was a system of sorts going on, but it was no where near what was being presented by Goodell and the league.
You are all falling right into their hands on this. At first the public impression was that in every single game the Saints targeted players to injure. Beef himself declared that was his belief.
It is becoming more and more apparent that it was not quite the "bounty poster" interpretation first presented, but something much, much more subdued.
Now the media, and y'all, are justifying "hard hits" and such as "bounties".
Whose story has changed since this all started? Yes, mine has. I have realized they did have the pay for performance going on.
But, step back a few months and tell me that what is now being presented is nearly as egregious as what you all were at first understanding.
Please. Individually, post in this thread that what is the current state of affairs is as bad as you felt at your peak of negative belief.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 06-06-2012 08:49 PM
(06-06-2012 03:51 PM)Beef Wrote: First of all, there IS evidence of intent to injure. You can't interpret "cart-offs" as meaning anything else.
The only thing the term "cart-offs" implicates is that it may have been written on a supposed ledger. How can you ever imply "attempt to injure" from that term alone?
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 06-06-2012 08:51 PM
(06-06-2012 02:52 PM)TeamPlayer1 Wrote: Gregg Williams knows exactly what transpired in the bounty case and he is the smoking gun. Do any of you think he would not spill his guts for an opportunity to resume his well paid career?
He has nothing to spill other than the fact that he has an over the top way of motivation that does not translate into the literal.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 06-06-2012 08:54 PM
(06-06-2012 04:39 PM)ATLBound Wrote: That's a good point Beef...I never thought of it that way. To reiterate:
Wow! Trying slowing down and hitting the right keys.
Just kidding, ATL.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - JDaveG - 06-06-2012 08:57 PM
(06-06-2012 08:49 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: The only thing the term "cart-offs" implicates is that it may have been written on a supposed ledger. How can you ever imply "attempt to injure" from that term alone?
I know, right? Because I know when we sub out Turner for Quizz due to our personnel package, Turner usually leaves the field on a cart, right?
Am I right?
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - Beef - 06-06-2012 09:31 PM
(06-06-2012 08:49 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: The only thing the term "cart-offs" implicates is that it may have been written on a supposed ledger.That makes absolutely no sense what so ever. I don't think you know what "implicates" means.
And it's not a "supposed ledger". Shanle clearly substantiates the existance of a ledger and the terms used in it.
As for the term "cart-offs", what else in the universe would cause someone to get carted off the football field because of something you did?
And if it were purely about big legal hits, then why in the world would anyone, crazy or sane, call it "cart-offs"?
I can't believe I'm even replying to your retort it's so deliberately prevaricating the truth. This is such a waste of time. No matter what any of us says, you're going to intentionally twist a contradiction, even if it's asinine and defies common sense meanings.
Like "cart-offs". I can't believe you're so off the deep end with this, you can't even acknowledge the actual true meaning of the term that everyone, even a 1st grader, would understand refers to being injured. You're actually trying to tell us it means something else and you don't even realize how galacticly fucking retarded that is.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - ATLBound - 06-06-2012 09:31 PM
(06-06-2012 08:54 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: Wow! Trying slowing down and hitting the right keys.Haha I was using my phone but to answer your questions...
You are assuming what Goodell meant. All Goodell ever said was pay for performance and pay for injure. I don't ecer recall him saying bounty.
Bounty is a word used from the media and furthermore ALWAYS had quotations around it indicating it is similar to a bounty but not exactly like it. How you interpreted his words and the media response to it is of your own doing.
But strictly looking at Goodell's words he always said pay for performance and pay for injury.
You can't deny that this has proven if not by the ledger, but by a New Orleans Saints player himself. Not one that used to be on the team or has an axe to grind, but one that is currently on the team and fighting for a starting position.
In that article...the same one that you posted he agreed that there were payments offered for many things including cart-offs and on that some article it said if the player was injured from a legal hit, then they were paid for it.
If you want to diminish it bc you feel Goodell misrepresented how bad it was, then that's fine but it doesn't make the Saints any less guilty.
AND I really don't know how else you can interpret "cart-offs" or "players being helped off the field." That's an injury man. There's no way to deny it.
Based on the ledger AND Shanle's comments immediately after the ledger came out (how ironic) they are guilty. Shanle never denied that thru his comments, he only mentioned that it wasn't as bad as Goodell made it to be. That seems to be where you are headed and I will say it again. The person who decides how bad it is is Goodell. Sorry that's just how it is.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - Drathdon - 06-06-2012 10:35 PM
So, all is well in Aint's land, huh? This fight suggests otherwise.
Fight at Saints camp could lead to more OTA sanctions
Fights during offseason workouts used to simply provide a break in the shorts-and-T-shirts monotony. Now, they could be providing evidence of potential violations of the offseason rules against live contact.
And the next team to find that out the hard way could be the hard-luck Saints.
The Seahawks lost a pair of OTA days on Tuesday, based presumably on rough play that preceded a series of skirmishes last month during a voluntary practice. Receiver Doug Baldwin reportedly was hit hard by safety DeShawn Shead. KJR’s Curtis Crabtree said during Wednesday’s PFT Live that a hit on receiver Ben Obamanu also triggered a fracas that same day.
On Wednesday, tempers ran high at Saints minicamp, according to Ian Rapoport of NFL Network. It happened after linebacker Curtis Lofton landed on quarterback Chase Daniel after an interception. Daniel threw the ball down, it hit Lofton, other players got involved (as the photo Rapoport posted on Twitter shows), and Daniel shouted, “Don’t hit the quarterback!“
Daniel later explained the reaction. “We really only have three quarterbacks there, so we don’t like to get hit at all,” Daniel said. “Because the slightest of hits can cause a serious injury as we’ve seen. It wasn’t necessary in frustration, I was just mad that he literally just ran into it. We cleared it up, we’re good. Everything’s good to go. It’s hot, we’re in the middle of practice, emotions flying everywhere and that’s what happened.”
Lofton offered up his version of the events. “I thought [Daniel] was going to throw it, I jumped up, I kinda grazed him and quarterbacks are a little touchy when it comes to stuff like that,” Lofton said. “And then I was walking away and he gave me the look like . . . I was like, ‘He better not do that.’ And so he threw the ball, it bounced and then it hit me. I had to have words after that.”
It was more than words. It was action. And the action came after, as Daniel admitted, “emotions [were] flying.”
So why, if there’s no live contact, are emotions flying?
Interim coach Joe Vitt tried to laugh it all off. “I think we’ll probably take ‘em to a petting zoo tomorrow,” Vitt said. “Maybe do something like that. But yeah, it was great.”
Fine, but there will be nothing funny about an effort by the NFL and the NFLPA to explore whether and to what extent the fight and the events preceding it constituted live contact. Since the NFL won’t tell anyone exactly what got the Seahawks in trouble, it’s impossible to use anything from that situation as guidance when determining whether the Saints crossed the line.
But “no live contact” apparently now means “no live contact,” and contact during plays that result in contact after plays fits within the normal, common-sense definition of contact. And so it looks like there was something like live contact happening in New Orleans today.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - Drathdon - 06-06-2012 10:36 PM
And more from another source....
Reactions to a rumble: Saints players explain why they all tried to fight each other
At a sweltering, dragging Saints mini-camp this morning, things got heated. I mean, it was already heated at over 100 degrees. But tempers flared.
As you read on Twitter and right here, the Saints got into a little fracas, donnybrook, or brouhaha. A skirmish, perhaps. One might say rumble.
After he had just been picked off twice during nickel day, QB Chase Daniel was pissed off that LB Curtis Lofton landed on him after trying to deflect a pass. Lofton came in unblocked, and touched Daniel. Uh oh. And it was on.
Daniel threw the ball into the ground, it hit Lofton, and players came from all over to push, shove, and yell. “Don’t hit the quarterback!” Daniel screamed. Players ended up on the ground, but it only lasted a minute.
When it ended, there was comedy.
“I think we’ll probably take ‘em to a petting zoo tomorrow,” interim coach Joe Vitt said. “Maybe do something like that. But yeah, it was great.”
So, Drew Brees isn’t here, as he’s staying away in a contract dispute. He’s actually shooting a Vick’s commercial in New Orleans, so Daniel is the best option. And he wanted to be treated like it.
“We really only have three quarterbacks there, so we don’t like to get hit at all,” Daniel said. “Because the slightest of hits can cause a serious injury as we’ve seen. It wasn’t necessary in frustration, I was just mad that he literally just ran into it. We cleared it up, we’re good. Everything’s good to go. It’s hot, we’re in the middle of practice, emotions flying everyewhere and that’s what happened.“
Daniel provided some levity. He was impressed his offensive guys took charge… but when it got real, he exited. Smart QB.
“Out of the whole scrum and scuffle, that was one of the best parts that I saw,” said Daniel, about his offensive players protecting him. “It was just guys sticking up and Jimmy Graham was in there and Jahri Evans and sooner or later, it was like 30 people. I just said, “Hey.’ I’m outta here. I’m going back to the huddle to get ready for the next play.’ But it was nice to see that.”
Everyone downplayed it, saying it’s no big deal. Maybe. But given the bounty investigation, all eyes are on them. Still, as S Malcolm Jenkins told me, “We don’t really care what anyone thinks.”
“I thought he was going to throw it, I jumped up, I kinda grazed him and quarterbacks are a little touchy when it comes to stuff like that,” Lofton said. “And then I was walking away and he gave me the look like… I was like, ‘He better not do that.’ And so he threw the ball, it bounced and then it hit me. I had to have words after that.“
Lofton thought his guys got the better of the offense in the episode.
“Defense definitely won this one,” Lofton said. “It wasn’t even close. Offense had a couple guys on the ground, couple helmets off…“
Within a minute, Daniel was back running a play and it was over. But with the intensity here, it may not be the last one…
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - Drathdon - 06-06-2012 10:38 PM
Seems the Offense and Defense might have a beef with each other. Wonder why?
If they lost practice time due to this fight being unauthorized contact, as per the rules, that would just be too fucking funny!