Saints Defense maintained a Bounty Program

[killgod]

Can't wait for the NFLPA to say "THE LEAGUE DOESNT CARE ABOUT OUR HEALTH."


Fucking brutal.

[bucky]

If he's admitted to a bounty program for inflicting injuries, then he should be fined, suspended and the league could even penalize the team in some capacity.

This is very different than incentives for impact plays.

EDIT: I read the rest of it and the article isn't completely clear. First it says that Williams admits to Bounty's to injure, but gives no direct quote, and states that "Former Bills linebacker Eddie Robinson disputed that Williams encouraged injuring players, but he confirmed that there were cash bonuses."

So it's the article doesn't really clear things up.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Yeah for some unknown reason he'll think that. No idea where he's getting it from.


It's just a spin article to make this situation look cleaner for the NFL. It's a fucking NFL.com release for christ's sake.

lol

Reminds me of somebody posting a quote from THE BREWERS PLAYERS UNION REP in the Braun thread.

Totally impartial and credible, that guy must be.

[bucky]

Yeah for some unknown reason he'll think that. No idea where he's getting it from.


It's just a spin article to make this situation look cleaner for the NFL. It's a fucking NFL.com release for christ's sake.

According to Warner, from earlier in this thread, there is a huge difference and distinction between "lights out hits" or knock out hits, and hits to injure. According to Warner the "lights out hits" are OK.

So Warner, are "lights out hits" OK or not? Incentives for impact plays including "lights out hits" doesn't seem to be an ethical question there. Bounty's for injuries is a different story.

So Warner, you gonna contradict yourself?

[Warner2BruceTD]

According to Warner, from earlier in this thread, there is a huge difference and distinction between "lights out hits" or knock out hits, and hits to injure. According to Warner the "lights out hits" are OK.

So Warner, are "lights out hits" OK or not? Incentives for impact plays including "lights out hits" doesn't seem to be an ethical question there. Bounty's for injuries is a different story.

So Warner, you gonna contradict yourself?

Are you really trying to convince me that the Saints were not paying guys with the incentive to injure? You really don't think that was happening? Now who's being naive?

Vilma put $10k on the table to take out Favre, not to "give him a good, clean tackle!".

Get your head out of the sand, you goofball.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Forget it. Warner's not going to be able to understand this. He'll read that and somehow, for some reason, read "bounty to injure".

And by the way, did you even read the article?

It's an opinion puff piece by a former player, Bucky Brooks, who i'd be willing to bet has never seen the inside of the Saints lockerroom and who never played for Gregg Williams.

It addresses nothing on the Saints story. Nothing.

[bucky]

Are you really trying to convince me that the Saints were not paying guys with the incentive to injure? You really don't think that was happening? Now who's being naive?

Vilma put $10k on the table to take out Favre, not to "give him a good, clean tackle!".

Get your head out of the sand, you goofball.

You didn't answer my question, are "lights out hits" OK or not? Cause I said I was OK with incentives for good, clean, legal, hard hits, and you kept on equating what I said to "bounty to injure" and that I was unfit to live for being so unethical. So is there a distinction between "lights out hits" and illegal hits to injure or not? Really, stop PMSing and answer the Fng question.

For one, he didn't say how to take Favre out. So you don't know if his intent was "by illegal hits with the intent to injure". But I wouldn't be surprised by it.

[bucky]

And by the way, did you even read the article?

It's an opinion puff piece by a former player, Bucky Brooks, who i'd be willing to bet has never seen the inside of the Saints lockerroom and who never played for Gregg Williams.

It addresses nothing on the Saints story. Nothing.

But it addresses the distinction between incentives for impact plays, including good, clean, legal, hard hits and illegal hits with the purpose to injure. Something you refuse to acknowledge exists. So is this OK or not. Has what I've been saying from the beginning, that I'm OK with incentives for good, clean, legal, hard hits OK or not. Or are you still somehow gonna read, unethical, unfit to be human out of this.

Really, just once, actually answer the actual Fng question asked.

[Warner2BruceTD]

You didn't answer my question, are "lights out hits" OK or not? Cause I said I was OK with incentives for good, clean, legal, hard hits, and you kept on equating what I said to "bounty to injure" and that I was unfit to live for being so unethical. So is there a distinction between "lights out hits" and illegal hits to injure or not? Really, stop PMSing and answer the Fng question.

For one, he didn't say how to take Favre out. So you don't know if his intent was "by illegal hits with the intent to injure". But I wouldn't be surprised by it.

lol

Are you trolling? Can a person be this stupid?

THE ONLY WAY TO TAKE FAVRE OUT IS TO INJURE HIM, DUMMY

This is your first post in the thread:

Not sure why anybody is so worked up over this bounty stuff. Like a couple others have said, if the hits are legal, then who cares.

Illegal hits should be taken care of by the officials and the league.

If they are good, hard, LEGAL hits, what's the big deal?

You think bounties are ok, so long as the hits are clean. You sir, are a nut, and you constantly contradict yourself, because two posts up you say this:

Bounty's for injuries is a different story.

Paying a bounty for taking out players/injuring/hurting/knocking out, whatever vernacular you want to use, its all the same thing, and it's clearly wrong.

[Warner2BruceTD]

But it addresses the distinction between incentives for impact plays, including good, clean, legal, hard hits and illegal hits with the purpose to injure. Something you refuse to acknowledge exists. So is this OK or not. Has what I've been saying from the beginning, that I'm OK with incentives for good, clean, legal, hard hits OK or not. Or are you still somehow gonna read, unethical, unfit to be human out of this.

Really, just once, actually answer the actual Fng question asked.

The article addresses nothing of relevance, because Bucky Brooks knows nothing about the Saints, the Saints locker room, or Gregg Williams. It's not investigative, it's an opinion piece by a former player with zero insight or knowledge of the story. I could write the same article about the 'atta boys' Tailback U received in high school, and it would barely be any less relevant to the Saints mess.

[nwfisch]

Did you even read the thing. It said incentives for impact plays, including good, clean, hard hits. According to the article, the programs had no intent to injure through dirty, illegal hits.

But I guess when you have no valid comeback, all you have left is to through out a smart ass comment.

Comment on the actual article.

Again, its like stealing.

Bounties are prevalent in the NFL, just like stealing is prevalent in society. Both are illegal, but just because its prevalent doesn't make it right.

Making $1000 for a player hauled off on a cart.

Not dirty at all. :olhoss:

[bucky]

THE ONLY WAY TO TAKE FAVRE OUT IS TO INJURE HIM, DUMMY

If a hit is a good/clean/legal hard hit, then how is that hit unethical? And how is it an incentive to do something unethical if the hit is a good/clean/legal hard hit? That's just a generic statement, not specific to the Favre/Saints thing which could have been a "by any means" bounty.

This is your first post in the thread:
You think bounties are ok, so long as the hits are clean.

If it's an incentive program run by the players for rewarding impact plays that include good/clean/legal hard hits, that's not a bounty to injure. No where in that quote did I say I thought bounty's to injure are OK.

You sir, are a nut, and you constantly contradict yourself, because two posts up you say this:

You are an over-reacting, over-emotional, PMSing teenage girl. Again you didn't answer the question, you just over-reacted and made some incorrect insinuations.

You included it in the quote, but you seem to just ignore "the officials and league should be taking care of illegal hits.

Again, how is a legal hit unethical?

Paying a bounty for taking out players/injuring/hurting/knocking out, whatever vernacular you want to use, its all the same thing, and it's clearly wrong.

Talk about contradiction.

Yes or no? Earlier you posted that there was a clear distinction between "lights out hits" and "unethical hits to injure - or it was something like that". You said that players want to hit "lights out" but don't want to injure. So is there a difference or isn't there. Take your PMS meds and answer the actual question. In essence you already did cause I'm getting this from one of your earlier posts. So is there a difference or isn't there? You gonna contradict yourself or not?

Then above you say "Knocking out" hits is clearly wrong. So are "lights out hits" OK but "knock out" hits wrong? What is the difference?

And are incentives run by players for impact plays, including "lights out" hits OK or not? Ethical or not?

Stop skirting the questions and answer them.

[nwfisch]

If a hit is a good/clean/legal hard hit, then how is that hit unethical? .

Again, how is a legal hit unethical?

When players are getting paid outside the salary cap for those ethical hits.

[bucky]

Again, its like stealing.

Bounties are prevalent in the NFL, just like stealing is prevalent in society. Both are illegal, but just because its prevalent doesn't make it right.

Making $1000 for a player hauled off on a cart.

Not dirty at all. :olhoss:

OK, but you still didn't address anything about the article. Are player run incentive programs for impact plays OK or not? Is there really any harm in them?

Where in the article does it say "intent to injure"? Am I addressing the wrong thing, cause there was a post with an link to an article and then there was another with an imbedded article. I think we are talking about the one with the link.

[nwfisch]

OK, but you still didn't address anything about the article. Are player run incentive programs for impact plays OK or not? Is there really any harm in them?

Where in the article does it say "intent to injure"? Am I addressing the wrong thing, cause there was a post with an link to an article and then there was another with an imbedded article. I think we are talking about the one with the link.

No they are not OK, especially when these plays are made with an intent to injure.