Saints Defense maintained a Bounty Program

[bucky]

Williams (and Vilma) were paying players TO INJURE other players.

Do you seriously think this is OK?!?!!?

We've established that TailbackU is nuts. How about you?

Whether they were paying to injure or not, if the hits were good, clean, hard hits, then the paying doesn't seem relevant. The hits are still clean. If the hits aren't good, clean, legal hits, then the officials and the NFL should dole out the punishments.

If a hit is dirty but somehow still legal, then change the rules and make that hit illegal. Get rid of chop blocks. Get rid of any blocking at the knees for O-lineman. Protect the players health.

[Warner2BruceTD]

I honestly think some of you would shit your pants and start crying if you heard some of the shit that is said on an NFL football field.

These guys are out to hurt one another. This is nothing new. Just because a "bounty" has been put up doesn't change anything, these guys are fucking animals and they got to this level because of that.

Actually, I think you would be surprised to find out that 99% of NFL players are not actively seeking to injure one another.

Your bolded statement is macho bullshit talk that simply isn't true.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Whether they were paying to injure or not, if the hits were good, clean, hard hits, then the paying doesn't seem relevant. The hits are still clean. If the hits are good, clean, legal hits, then the officials and the NFL should dole out the punishments.

If a hit is dirty but somehow still legal, then change the rules and make that hit illegal. Get rid of chop blocks. Get rid of any blocking at the knees for O-lineman. Protect the players health.

Stop dodging the question.

Are you ok with coaches paying players TO INJURE opposing players?

Because that is what was happening here. Williams was not paying these guys to lay "good, clean hits" on the opponent. That didn't earn you cash. Injuring somebody earned you cash.

Are you unable to draw this simple distinction?

[Tailback U]

Actually, I think you would be surprised to find out that 99% of NFL players are not actively seeking to injure one another.

Your bolded statement is macho bullshit talk that simply isn't true.

I didn't say injure. I said hurt. There is a huge difference.

If I hit somebody as hard as I can and they happen to get injured because I dislocate their shoulder, that really isn't my fault.

If I take out somebody's legs from behind them, like a chop block, then that is dirty and cheap and definitely illegal and all of my fault.

[nwfisch]

Actually, I think you would be surprised to find out that 99% of NFL players are not actively seeking to injure one another.

Your bolded statement is macho bullshit talk that simply isn't true.

"The payments here are particularly troubling because they involved not just payments for 'performance,' but also for injuring opposing players,"

I wouldn't care if they were doing this for performance, that happens everywhere. What's disturbing is that players make money at the expense of another person's health.

[bucky]

So do you have an issue with putting out mafia style injury hits on players, or not?

I mean, ffs, forget the god damn rule book and answer that question. What is with you? Between this and the Braun thread, I question your ability to formulate any sort of critical thought or use of common sense.

I had plenty of common sense in the Braun thread. Arbitrator rules that protocol wasn't adhered to. If that's true then the evidence can't be used, until someone legally shows that policy was adhered to and that the arbitrator was initially wrong in his ruling. Sorry, this is common sense.

As far as coaches paying players to injury other players. I'm against it, but I don't think it's nearly as big a deal as you do. Unethical, I think so. But really, if the hits are clean/legal hits, the outcome is the same as if there were no bounty. Any illegal hits should be handled by the officials and the NFL. And I don't mind harsher punishment for illegal hits. More than fines, do suspensions. I'm just not going over the top ape shit like you are over the bounty stuff. I'm more concerned about the hits being legal, and if there are "diry legal" hits, change the rules to make them illegal.

[Warner2BruceTD]

I didn't say injure. I said hurt. There is a huge difference.

If I hit somebody as hard as I can and they happen to get injured because I dislocate their shoulder, that really isn't my fault.

If I take out somebody's legs from behind them, like a chop block, then that is dirty and cheap and definitely illegal and all of my fault.

This thread is about a coach encouraging players to injure people, through the incentive of cash, so nobody cares about your high school exploits or how many shoulders you dislocated.

But you've already established, that like Gregg Williams, you are a creep who has no issue with putting out Tony Soprano hits on people's health, so again, my bad for even engaging you in this.

[bucky]

Are you unable to draw this simple distinction?

I can draw the simple distinction, I just think if the NFL has the right rules in place, then functionally, the distinction becomes irrelevant. There is some moral/ethical relevance, but not functional...If the right rules are in place. If there are dirty legal hits, change the rules.

[Warner2BruceTD]

I can draw the simple distinction, I just think if the NFL has the right rules in place, then functionally, the distinction becomes irrelevant. There is some moral/ethical relevance, but not functional...If the right rules are in place. If there are dirty legal hits, change the rules.

What the hell are you rambling about?

Who cares whether the hits are legal or not? Williams is offering money to players to injure people, which makes him a mental case. And by doing so, the mindset of the players willing to take him up on this changes, and they are far more likely to do something dirty to meet the incentive. Whether the hits meet some rulebook standard of legality shouldn't, and doesn't, matter. The fact you are unable to connect these dots is baffling to me.

Here, and in the Braun thread, you have this odd habit of making everything black or white. It's either a broken law/rule, or not. Well, technically, you didn't break a rule, so it's ok! I mean, do you conduct your life in this manner? Do you commonly disregard ethics and morals in deference of shitty technicalities?

[bucky]

Who cares whether the hits are legal or not?

Everybody should care what hits are legal or illegal. If a hit is dirty and legal the rules should be changed to make the hit illegal.

Williams is offering money to players to injure people, which makes him a mental case. And by doing so, the mindset of the players willing to take him up on this changes, and they are far more likely to do something dirty to meet the incentive. Whether the hits meet some rulebook standard of legality shouldn't, and doesn't, matter. The fact you are unable to connect these dots is baffling to me.

The players do something dirty/illegal FINE AND SUSPEND THEM. If it's dirty and legal THEN CHANGE THE RULES.

Whether the hits meet some rulebook standard does matter. Either the hit was legal, ethical and clean then there's nothing to get excited about. If the hit is dirty and legal, then change the rules. That's why "whether meets some rulebook standard" does matter. If a dirty hit is legal, we need to know, and need to have the rules changed. Enforce clean football through the rules governing how football is played.

I do connect the dots. If rulebooks eliminate dirty hits as being legal, then functionally bounties don't matter. Things would be cleaned up through fines and suspensions.

"There is some moral/ethical relevance, but not functional". That's your distinction.

Here, and in the Braun thread, you have this odd habit of making everything black or white. It's either a broken law/rule, or not. Well, technically, you didn't break a rule, so it's ok! I mean, do you conduct your life in this manner? Do you commonly disregard ethics and morals in deference of shitty technicalities?

When it comes to evidence handling protocol, it has to be black or white to protect the integrity of the evidence and to especially protect the innocent from being wrongly convicted. It's essential to the process.

I don't disregard morals or ethics at all. If that's what you got out of my stance on the Braun thread, then you're not nearly as smart as you think you are. Protecting the innocent from possible wrongful conviction IS the moral/ethical stance to take.

And I already said I think the bounty's are unethical.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Everybody should care what hits are legal or illegal. If a hit is dirty and legal the rules should be changed to make the hit illegal.



The players do something dirty/illegal FINE AND SUSPEND THEM. If it's dirty and legal THEN CHANGE THE RULES.

Whether the hits meet some rulebook standard does matter. Either the hit was legal, ethical and clean then there's nothing to get excited about. If the hit is dirty and legal, then change the rules. That's why "whether meets some rulebook standard" does matter. If a dirty hit is legal, we need to know, and need to have the rules changed. Enforce clean football through the rules governing how football is played.

I do connect the dots. If rulebooks eliminate dirty hits as being legal, then functionally bounties don't matter. Things would be cleaned up through fines and suspensions.

"There is some moral/ethical relevance, but not functional". That's your distinction.




When it comes to evidence handling protocol, it has to be black or white to protect the integrity of the evidence and to especially protect the innocent from being wrongly convicted. It's essential to the process.

I don't disregard morals or ethics at all. If that's what you got out of my stance on the Braun thread, then you're not nearly as smart as you think you are. Protecting the innocent from possible wrongful conviction IS the moral/ethical stance to take.

And I already said I think the bounty's are unethical.

To the first bold, again, let me tell you why you are wrong.

Even if nobody committed an illegal hit while attempting to collect Willams' bounty, that does not mean that somebody won't at some point. It also does not mean that illegal hits or cheap shots (sorry, but people with a fucking brain can accept that cheap shots exist, even if said cheap shot falls under the category of a "clean" hit, and your assertion otherwise is like that of a petulant child who has yet to develop critical thinking skills) didn't occur that simply were not called.

To the second bold, I must ask, then why the fuck are you arguing about this? If it's unethical to offer a bounty, and it's against the rules to offer a bounty (and you are an admitted rules hugger under any and all circumstances, because golly gee, rules can never be wrong!), then why does it matter if the hits were clean or not? It doesn't!

[Chrispy]

@ trying to defend this

[Warner2BruceTD]

So bucky, if Williams offered cash to his players to kill the opposing QB, am I to assume that it would be a-ok, so long as the hit that accomplished the murder was a good, clean, and legal?

[Bear Pand]

If a hit is dirty but somehow still legal, then change the rules and make that hit illegal. Get rid of chop blocks. Get rid of any blocking at the knees for O-lineman. Protect the players health.

Yeah that's exactly what the league is trying to do, by punishing (I'm assuming they'll punish) the Saints for giving incentive to injure other players and deliberately damage their health. So what's your issue? That the hits were technically legal? There's no reason to make a rule that explicitly says don't go out and intentionally injure other players, and don't reward players for doing so...it's obvious.

I'm not a fan of all the new rules that make the game safer and overly protect positions like QB, but flagrant shit like this makes it all seem justified.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Yeah that's exactly what the league is trying to do, by punishing (I'm assuming they'll punish) the Saints for giving incentive to injure other players and deliberately damage their health. So what's your issue? That the hits were technically legal? There's no reason to make a rule that explicitly says don't go out and intentionally injure other players, and don't reward players for doing so...it's obvious.

I'm not a fan of all the new rules that make the game safer and overly protect positions like QB, but flagrant shit like this makes it all seem justified.

Welcome to dealing with bucky. Nothing can be obvious with this guy.

Anyway, any personal foul flag on the Saints defense the last three years has to come into question. bucky is acting like they've never been flagged.