Saints Defense maintained a Bounty Program

[Warner2BruceTD]

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.



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 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?




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.

PAYMENT FOR HITS WITH THE INTENT TO INJURE ARE UNETHICAL, WHETHER THE HITS ARE "LEGAL" OR NOT.

God, you really are the worst. Stop arguing the semantics of "lights out", "knock out", etc. Payment for causing injury is wrong, end of story.

[bucky]

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

A $100 dollar side bet on who has the biggest impact play. Ok, that may be technically against some financial ruling in the CBA. But you're going to site that as a silly little side bet like this as some major CBA infraction? You don't see this as an over-reaction. Don't pull a Warner and totally ignore the question. Do you really see this hear as some significant CBA infraction?

[Warner2BruceTD]

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.

Once again, the linked article is WORTHLESS in this discussion, because Bucky f'n Brooks knows about as much about the Saints locker room and bounty practices as you do. He doesn't have the first clue what went on.

I mean, who the fuck cares what Bucky Brooks thinks?

[bucky]

PAYMENT FOR HITS WITH THE INTENT TO INJURE ARE UNETHICAL, WHETHER THE HITS ARE "LEGAL" OR NOT.

God, you really are the worst. Stop arguing the semantics of "lights out", "knock out", etc. Payment for causing injury is wrong, end of story.

And where have I said that payments for injuring players is OK? And you were the one arguing the semantics over "lights out" hits. Now you don't want to. LOL.

Stop trying to skirt questions you just don't like the answers to. Answer the question.

[nwfisch]

A $100 dollar side bet on who has the biggest impact play. Ok, that may be technically against some financial ruling in the CBA. But you're going to site that as a silly little side bet like this as some major CBA infraction? You don't see this as an over-reaction. Don't pull a Warner and totally ignore the question. Do you really see this hear as some significant CBA infraction?

NEW YORK -- New Orleans Saints players and at least one assistant coach maintained a bounty pool of up to $50,000 the last three seasons to reward game-ending injuries inflicted on opposing players, including Brett Favre and Kurt Warner, the NFL said Friday. "Knockouts" were worth $1,500 and "cart-offs" $1,000, with payments doubled or tripled for the playoffs.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7638603/new-orleans-saints-defense-had-bounty-program-nfl-says

[nwfisch]

Once again, the linked article is WORTHLESS in this discussion, because Bucky f'n Brooks knows about as much about the Saints locker room and bounty practices as you do. He doesn't have the first clue what went on.

I mean, who the fuck cares what Bucky Brooks thinks?

Because Bucky Brooks is our Bucky ;)

[bucky]

Once again, the linked article is WORTHLESS in this discussion, because Bucky f'n Brooks knows about as much about the Saints locker room and bounty practices as you do. He doesn't have the first clue what went on.

I mean, who the fuck cares what Bucky Brooks thinks?

Has no bearing on the Saints. But it does have a bearing on explaining to the difference between bounty's and incentive programs for impact plays. A distinction you don't seem to understand.

[bucky]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/76...ogram-nfl-says

I had in bold the part my question was addressing. No where in the bold does it say anything about the Saints. Your URL had nothing to do with my question. So do you really see a significant CBA infraction over a player run $100 bet on who has the biggest impact play? Or even a $1000 bet.

[nwfisch]

Has no bearing on the Saints. But it does have a bearing on explaining to the difference between bounty's and incentive programs for impact plays. A distinction you don't seem to understand.

Did you think the Saints bounty program was OK?

[Warner2BruceTD]

Has no bearing on the Saints. But it does have a bearing on explaining to the difference between bounty's and incentive programs for impact plays. A distinction you don't seem to understand.

I dont care about that distinction.

The Saints were paying people to injure opponents. Idgaf about what happened in Bucky Brooks locker room 15 years ago.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Did you think the Saints bounty program was OK?

According to his first post in the thread, he said he was fine with the bounty program, provided they were "good, clean, hits".

And yes, that is just about the dumbest, most ignorant statement in this thread, if you eliminate the Tailback U macho man stuff.

[nwfisch]

I had in bold the part my question was addressing. No where in the bold does it say anything about the Saints. Your URL had nothing to do with my question. So do you really see a significant CBA infraction over a player run $100 bet on who has the biggest impact play? Or even a $1000 bet.

I do. If a team offers incentives for even impact plays, it provides other teams a disadvantage in what they're able to offer.

Especially a $1000 wager, to knockout someone is terrible.

[bucky]

Did you think the Saints bounty program was OK?

That embedded article had that Williams himself admitted to a bounty program for injuring players. I already commented on that. I could go back and repost it. If you like, go back a page and read it. To answer your question directly, and I've answered it a couple of times already, NO.

But later in that same article, it had a player saying that the program in place never encouraged injuring other players. If that's true then I don't have a problem with an incentive program for impact plays.

[EmpireWF]

I had in bold the part my question was addressing. No where in the bold does it say anything about the Saints. Your URL had nothing to do with my question. So do you really see a significant CBA infraction over a player run $100 bet on who has the biggest impact play? Or even a $1000 bet.

Bounties are not allowed by the cba.

[bucky]

According to his first post in the thread, he said he was fine with the bounty program, provided they were "good, clean, hits".

And yes, that is just about the dumbest, most ignorant statement in this thread, if you eliminate the Tailback U macho man stuff.

Use some critical thinking and read between the lines. You say your so good at it. I don't have a problem with good/clean/legal hard hits. The refs and the league are there to penalize the other hits. If a hit is a good/clean/legal hard hit, then functionally, on the field, their isn't anything unethical about the hit. League fines, and suspensions on illegal hits should help combat unethical bounty programs.

Stop PMSing.