NFL Saints Found Guilty of in NFL Investigation

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way

Really? Paying somebody to injure another person is a felony, whether on the field, in the stands, on the street, or in your neighborhood.

And it now seems that since these bounties were not reported as income the IRS is also going to look into the list of players that were involved.

[BurnTHalO]

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way

Really? Paying somebody to injure another person is a felony, whether on the field, in the stands, on the street, or in your neighborhood.

Then why is every LB in the league not in jail? Once again, if anything comes out that says it was to injure with dirty or cheap shots, fine. But I have yet to see anything claim that.

[the_narrow_way]

How else are you going to remove a player from a game, ask them to just stay on the bench? Removing a player from the game = injuring them.

[Hoek]

Originally Posted by WaiverWire

And it now seems that since these bounties were not reported as income the IRS is also going to look into the list of players that were involved.

Too funny.

[BurnTHalO]

Originally Posted by the_narrow_way

How else are you going to remove a player from a game, ask them to just stay on the bench? Removing a player from the game = injuring them.

Yes, but injuring does not mean dirty hits. Drew Brees had his shoulder destroyed in San Diego. The hit wasn't dirty. Brady's knee was torn through a normal legal hit. If that is all they were putting bounties for doing (as I have heard suggested), why is that so much worse that what Bellicheck did?

[Flycoon]

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO

why is that so much worse that what Bellicheck did?

From a pure standpoint of competition, the Pats situation was worse. BUT, there is tremendous potential for litigation against the NFL in the Saints situation should they not put the hammer down on such activities. And the league doesn't want to give the NFLPA any sort of ammunition regarding their concern for player safety.

[NoSpin]

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO

Yes, but injuring does not mean dirty hits. Drew Brees had his shoulder destroyed in San Diego. The hit wasn't dirty. Brady's knee was torn through a normal legal hit. If that is all they were putting bounties for doing (as I have heard suggested), why is that so much worse that what Bellicheck did?

Let's say as a coach I put a bounty on you before a game. A DE sees you with the ball in the backfield, but instead of "I have to tackle that guy" or "I have to strip that ball" he thinks "I have to kill this guy". The hit may be just as legal as any other but changing the goal of the player is a dangerous road to go down. Instead of wrapping you up and throwing you down he charges and just bleeping drills you. Your head snaps back as you hit the ground and you are effectively paralyzed from the neck down.

Could that have happened with no malice on an absolutely normal play? Absolutely. But under what situation is it more likely?

I'm understanding this bounty thing correctly right?

[BurnTHalO]

Originally Posted by NoSpin

Let's say as a coach I put a bounty on you before a game. A DE sees you with the ball in the backfield, but instead of "I have to tackle that guy" or "I have to strip that ball" he thinks "I have to kill this guy". The hit may be just as legal as any other but changing the goal of the player is a dangerous road to go down. Instead of wrapping you up and throwing you down he charges and just bleeping drills you. Your head snaps back as you hit the ground and you are effectively paralyzed from the neck down.

Could that have happened with no malice on an absolutely normal play? Absolutely. But under what situation is it more likely?

I'm understanding this bounty thing correctly right?

See and to me if you think a guy is going for more of a kill shot because of the equivalent of like $20, I think you are crazy. Most guys have said the money was second nature to the recognition they got by winning it. I mean, you really think a LB is hitting a hole and going "Alright, lets tackle this guy calmly with a wrap up. Oh wait, this is the bounty guy, lets take his head off." What is the number one complaint by older football players? It's that these guys don't know how to tackle anymore, all they do is go for the big hits. And that is all players, not just the Saints.

From a pure standpoint of competition, the Pats situation was worse. BUT, there is tremendous potential for litigation against the NFL in the Saints situation should they not put the hammer down on such activities. And the league doesn't want to give the NFLPA any sort of ammunition regarding their concern for player safety.

I can kind of buy that. Here is where I have the problem with that though. As I said before, Suggs hinted at bounties on Mendenhall and Ward, and nothing. Also, if they were THAT concerned with safety, why did it take Harrisson taking like 5 or 6 guys out before he got his single game suspension. I may not remember correctly, but I don't remember the Saints seriously injuring anyone over the past couple years. I get the legal aspect they could be going for, but at the same time, to make it that much more harsh than the Pats seems ridiculous to me.

[Maverick9911]

Goodell was forced into this position. If he goes light on the Saints and Co., he gets the inevitable "why did Belichick get hammered just for taping/why did Vick get hammered just for dog fights" arguments? All three of those cases go beyond the simple talking points; in this case, the lies are what made the punishment so severe. When you have guys ready to blow off the deterrent effects of NFL punishment/fines because they know they have an in-house bounty cushion in place, that's a problem.

Duemig's show was giving me high blood pressure on the bridge yesterday because so many people are latching onto this controversy as some example of how the game is being wussified, how players are being unfairly punished for doing their jobs, etc. Bullshit. If Patrick Willis sees Ahmad Bradshaw running into his lane, lines up for a legal hit and ends up breaking Bradshaw's leg, that's one thing. If he's purposely diving at the knees, whether during the play or as an aside (say, for example, Ahmad Brooks has Bradshaw dead to rights but Willis decides to go for the kill shot, solely to collect the bounty), that's dangerous. Duemig was correct in that players won't come forth and sue in tort but to say that any such claims are without merit is absolute bullshit. You consent to being tackled and assume the risk of injury on the field but a gang of defenders with the sole requisite intent to injure exceeds the scope of said risk and the initial consent of the other parties involved.

[Donnie D]

It wasn't the money. As you pointed out, that was minimal. It was the attitude that management was encouraging their players to injure someone.

Since this is a hockey board, it wasn't encouraging the player to finish the check, it wasn't to clear out the crease, it wasn't to fight a player that was taking liberties with your best player, it was to injure a player.

I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.