+- 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 - 05-10-2012 08:27 PM
Here's the thing Guido. These lawyers are going to try and bully the NFL to make them look bad during this whole process. Even afterwards because they know that the NFL doesn't want the evidence released, these lawyers may still proclaim that the evidence wasn't enough.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 05-10-2012 08:38 PM
(05-10-2012 07:53 PM)phocis850 Wrote: You can not demand private documents.
Doesn't make the holder of the documents guilty.
You are caught up in the hype that the longer the documents are sealed the more guilty goodell looks.
You will learn the hard way when you hear a large "I told you so" from all if us.
They already supplied private documents. What about Hargrove's "declaration"? Don't forget that Goodell invited the NFLPA to review their evidence in New York over a month ago. The NFLPA said that nothing in what they were shown, which was supposedly solid evidence, proved that any Saints player contributed money toward a pay to injure scheme and/or collected from the same.
I believe we have already seen the documents. That's all they have.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 05-10-2012 08:40 PM
(05-10-2012 08:27 PM)ATLBound Wrote: Here's the thing Guido. These lawyers are going to try and bully the NFL to make them look bad during this whole process. Even afterwards because they know that the NFL doesn't want the evidence released, these lawyers may still proclaim that the evidence wasn't enough.
The NFL can get them off of their backs if they produce one single piece of absolute proof on each player punished. They don't even have to produce it all. Just one tiny piece ... if they have it.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - Beef - 05-10-2012 09:01 PM
I love how he's just ignoring my posts. I obviously said something that he doesn't know how to dispute without looking even more delusional.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - Falconidae - 05-10-2012 09:32 PM
(05-10-2012 07:42 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: That's what I want to know. That's what Vilma wants to know. That's what his lawyer wants to know. It seems to me that if Vilma isn't concerned with all of the truth coming out that it might be Goodell in trouble. What if one or more of his sources recanted?So, Goodell is engaged in a scheme that he knows can't work?
If they have that proof, share it. I honestly believe that they do not have that proof and this is going to get uglier for the league.
OK, you know that Vilma can get the documents revealed by going to court, I know that Vilma can get the documents revealed, but Goodell doesn't? If he goes into court without proof, he'll get destroyed and his safety crusade takes a huge hit. For him to try this without proof is guaranteed to fail.
So, for him to do that would mean that you're claiming Goodell is insane and the NFL attorneys are incompetent. Neither is true.
Here's what I think is much more likely. Goodell has 20 statements from players and a couple of coaches that Vilma et al are guilty. He told the PA: " we've got these statements, we won't let you see them to protect the players, ourselves and to keep the public from knowing how extensive the problem was. If you want to see them, sue us, we'll see you in court. Of course, when we present these statements, it'll be obvious you're protecting the ones guilty of bounties over those targeted."
If I'm right, this never gets to court.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - ATLBound - 05-10-2012 10:11 PM
(05-10-2012 08:38 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: They already supplied private documents. What about Hargrove's "declaration"? Don't forget that Goodell invited the NFLPA to review their evidence in New York over a month ago. The NFLPA said that nothing in what they were shown, which was supposedly solid evidence, proved that any Saints player contributed money toward a pay to injure scheme and/or collected from the same.Of course the NFLPA would say that...they represent the players. If you can give me one SOLID reason why the NFLPA would not defend the players then I will concede.
I believe we have already seen the documents. That's all they have.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - juraitwaluzka - 05-10-2012 10:12 PM
Whatever evidence the NFL has, regardless of its merit will only be shown when it has to be shown and not a second earlier. So to answer the question "well why hasn't the NFL shown it's evidence"? Because they don't have to. You may not like it but it's as simple as that.
Quote:Here's what I think is much more likely. Goodell has 20 statements from players and a couple of coaches that Vilma et al are guilty. He told the PA: " we've got these statements, we won't let you see them to protect the players, ourselves and to keep the public from knowing how extensive the problem was. If you want to see them, sue us, we'll see you in court. Of course, when we present these statements, it'll be obvious you're protecting the ones guilty of bounties over those targeted."
This is completely plausible, no conspiracy required. Sounds to me like something some very high paid NFL lawyers would do.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - ATLBound - 05-10-2012 10:17 PM
(05-10-2012 08:40 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: The NFL can get them off of their backs if they produce one single piece of absolute proof on each player punished. They don't even have to produce it all. Just one tiny piece ... if they have it.You didn't catch all of my posts I'm assuming. John Clayton has already advised this process will take about a month or so because of everything involved.I apologize it isn't as fast as you would like it to be Guido but this is a part of the appeal process. Understand that this is still an appeal process.
Secondly, I guarantee that even if the evidence is provided the lawyers as did the NFLPA will still proclaim it isn't enough and I already know that you will continue to believe the NFLPA and/or lawyers of Vilma and such regardless of any outcome. There will just be more excuses, more unbiased articles, and more conspiracies
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - TeamPlayer1 - 05-10-2012 10:19 PM
"This will all blow over in a couple of weeks."
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - juraitwaluzka - 05-10-2012 10:25 PM
Quote:Just stop for a second and use some real HONEST logic. There is NO RATIONAL REASON to make that declaration if there wasn't a bounty program. It's that simple.
Think about it. I mean really really think about it. If there really were no bounty program, then there's NO reason to even say someone directed you to "deny" it's existance, "play dumb", and "stay on the same page".
Why would you ever need to deny something that doesn't exist?
Why would you ever need to play dumb to something that doesn't exist?
Why would you ever need to stay on the same page of a story if there's only one side of the story?
Answer to all 3: You wouldn't. You never would. It's irrational. It's illogical. It's overwhelmingly futile.
So the ONLY ONLY ONLY rational, reasonable, and logical explaination is that there WAS something to deny. There WAS something to play dumb about and cover-up. And there WAS 2 sides to the story ("lie" vs. "truth").
Yes I would love to hear an answer on this too.
"Play dumb" means "Act like you don't know anything".
Therefore the conversation could only be:
A) "Hey, when the NFL asks, just act like you don't know anything".
"Sure coach, I won't tell what I know"
or
B) "Hey, when the NFL asks, just act like you don't know anything".
"Anything about what?"
"Well we're being accused of having a bounty system, obviously we didn't you were here, but nevertheless when they ask, you act like you don't know anything?"
"Coach, we didn't have a bounty system so why do I have to act like I don't anything when I really don't know anything?!??!"
"Just play dumb, that's all that matters here, don't worry about the specifics, just PLAY DUMB FOR GOD'S SAKE MAN. Now wait here while the next coach comes in and asks you to act like you don't know anything."