Saints Defense maintained a Bounty Program

[jaxjaggywires]

And, not for nothing, but this whole bounty shit, if it's so widespread and now is going to get all this attention...this could be football's version of baseball's steroid issue. You think Congress wouldn't love to get the big bad NFL on the hill and berate them over something like this?

[DSpydr84]

Wow...just wow.

In one example, your defense is just trying to win the game.
In the next example, your defense is just trying to hurt a specific player.

How's that for a difference?

Exactly.

It basically changes from "we're paying you to stop this team from getting first downs" to "we're paying you to injure this teams players".

Why would any league support the injury of it's players?

So the Saints didn't care about anything on defense other than injuring people?

It's not that black and white.

[EmpireWF]

You're a fucking moron homey. I want proof that the bounty program actually increases the chances of injuries or penalties.

There is none. Zero. Zilch. Nada. I'm not denying that they broke rules or that there was a bounty program in place. I'm saying it doesn't increase the chances of injury.

They didn't injure more players than teams without a bounty program, so there is no proof that a bounty program makes guys want to go out and injure players.

Until you can prove this, stop wasting my time.

What you're talking about is not relevant.

It doesn't matter if a bounty system results in more or less injured players. The fact it existed at all is ridiculous.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Because they are saying that removing the bounty programs isn't going to change anything.

What is so hard to understand? I'm not saying they should be allowed or that they are right. Removing them isn't going to change a damn thing. That's what the players are saying. That is what I'm saying. You can argue with me about this to the grave but you'll never be right because you can't prove me wrong.

Dummy.

Removing them changes the fact that weirdos like Gregg Williams are running around the league offering cash for injury.

Removing them will ensure that people don't receive cash for injuring people, which is sick & twisted in this context.

Funny you only bring up players like Bart Scott and nutjobs like Buddy Ryan (both of whom lack credibility for various reasons and are recognized as nutjobs), yet ignore the comments from dozens of players, like Matt Bowen (who actually played for Willliams and is not a blowhard whose opinion means nothing like Bart Scott) and others, who say this is low class, dangerous, and has no place in the game.

[Warner2BruceTD]

So the Saints didn't care about anything on defense other than injuring people?

It's not that black and white.

Well, according to Tailback, football is about hurting people, so apparently yes.

[Warner2BruceTD]

And, not for nothing, but this whole bounty shit, if it's so widespread and now is going to get all this attention...this could be football's version of baseball's steroid issue. You think Congress wouldn't love to get the big bad NFL on the hill and berate them over something like this?

I'm sure the IRS would like a chat with the fella who collected Vilma's $10k.

[bucky]

no confusion here

the difference is irrelevant

all that matters is bounties were offered

The difference IS relevant because "bounties over hard hits" doesn't make any sense. I'm OK with incentive programs for impact plays. How does that equate to Bounty's?

[Tailback U]

What you're talking about is not relevant.

It doesn't matter if a bounty system results in more or less injured players. The fact it existed at all is ridiculous.

You're starting to get it.

How is it ridiculous that it existed? Are you actually surprised by this? It's been going on since the sport was invented.

I was watching the NFL Network yesterday and they had an episode on the top power backs of all time, some big black dude that played for the Browns was just about tar and feathered on the football field for fun.

That was decades ago that it happened. How can you be so shocked by it when it's happened for decades?

[Tailback U]

Removing them changes the fact that weirdos like Gregg Williams are running around the league offering cash for injury.

Removing them will ensure that people don't receive cash for injuring people, which is sick & twisted in this context.

Funny you only bring up players like Bart Scott and nutjobs like Buddy Ryan (both of whom lack credibility for various reasons and are recognized as nutjobs), yet ignore the comments from dozens of players, like Matt Bowen (who actually played for Willliams and is not a blowhard whose opinion means nothing like Bart Scott) and others, who say this is low class, dangerous, and has no place in the game.

LOL @ Matt Bowen saying this is low class and dangerous when he took part of it and said he has no regrets about it. The guy wants to see himself on TV. That's all he is doing.

I also love how you think your opinion means more than Bart Scott's. Who do you think are you buddy? Do you think I give two shits about what you think? If I want gambling advice, I'll come to you, until then I really don't care about what you think because you're a nobody.

[Warner2BruceTD]

The difference IS relevant because "bounties over hard hits" doesn't make any sense. I'm OK with incentive programs for impact plays. How does that equate to Bounty's?

Yes it does, because cash for injuries and bounties are something we should be beyond as a society in 2012, that's why.

Romanticize the NFL and hard hitting all you like, there is no place for bounties and to argue otherwise is ridiculous. The league agrees, the Saints are going to get whacked pretty good for this, and Williams is in big trouble. Now Cory Wire is saying Williams was offering bounties on players when he was with the Bills, too. The man is a cretin.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Tailback, bucky, dspyder, answer this for me.

If there was sign in an NFL locker room that read:

Injure the opposing RB - $10,000
Injure the opposing QB - $50,000
Knock any other player out of the game - $2000

Do you think that is something acceptable that the NFL should allow if the team so chooses? Forget the salary cap implications for a moment. No qualifiers like "if it was good, clean, hits...". None of that. Just, would you have a problem with it on a face value level?

Do you not see how this is mental?

[Tailback U]

Tailback, bucky, dspyder, answer this for me.

If there was sign in an NFL locker room that read:



Do you think that is something acceptable that the NFL should allow if the team so chooses? Forget the salary cap implications for a moment. No qualifiers like "if it was good, clean, hits...". None of that. Just, would you have a problem with it on a face value level?

Do you not see how this is mental?

Man are you serious right now? For the millionth friggin time nobody is condoning bounties or saying they are right or that they should be allowed.

If I'm a defender, I'm going to knock the QB out and then I'm going to try to to knock the RB out because that's my mentality on the football field. I'm not a nice person on the football field. I am violent. I am aggressive. I am trying to hurt people. If you want to pay me for something that I was already going to do then go ahead, if you don't want to pay me then don't I will go ahead and do it anyway. This is why this whole bounty program thing is being so overblown to me.

[DSpydr84]

Tailback, bucky, dspyder, answer this for me.

If there was sign in an NFL locker room that read:



Do you think that is something acceptable that the NFL should allow if the team so chooses? Forget the salary cap implications for a moment. No qualifiers like "if it was good, clean, hits...". None of that. Just, would you have a problem with it on a face value level?

Do you not see how this is mental?

It is absolutely unacceptable in every single way, and a tremendously awful PR and ethical decision by the NFL to allow that to happen.

Listen, I'm not naive enough to say that the macho-attitude of the NFL is a good thing for player safety or helps the league in terms of its perception.

What I'm saying is, the way the game is played, I can see how these things would happen. If I pay a guy $50,000 to blitz off the edge and hit the QB in the back as hard as he can to knock the ball out (which is what players essentially get paid for in their contract), is that any less or more acceptable? If I teach my smaller defensive backs to dive at the knees to tackle a bigger running back, or if my teach my huge offensive lineman to throw their bodies at the knees of a linebacker to stop backside pursuit and cut them, is that any less or more acceptable? If my wide receiver is taught to come down inside and blind-side a safety who's chasing the run and crack him, is that any less or more acceptable?

I posted this video earlier, but notice all the cut blocks and bodies on the ground after this carnage. What makes this acceptable? Because nobody had "intent to injure"?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUPrI8sI63A"]Alabama's Mark Barron levels Vanderbilt's Jordan Rodgers 10/8/2011 - YouTube[/ame]

Where is the line? The issue here is that they threw the word "injure" around. But all of the acts mentioned above happen on a regular basis, and in each case, players are at risk for injury.

When does a "good technique" or a good "football play" (the worst phrase in sports) turn into a malicious attempt to hurt someone? Is it because they said it, or is it because it happened?

I think in both cases, the players on the field respond the same.

[bucky]

Yes it does, because cash for injuries and bounties are something we should be beyond as a society in 2012, that's why.

Romanticize the NFL and hard hitting all you like, there is no place for bounties and to argue otherwise is ridiculous. The league agrees, the Saints are going to get whacked pretty good for this, and Williams is in big trouble. Now Cory Wire is saying Williams was offering bounties on players when he was with the Bills, too. The man is a cretin.

I don't get what your end game is here? What you're trying to accomplish that has any substance? Your stance seems all style as far as what happens on the football field. Is your whole point just ranting about the ethics? Is it that and the NFL's image? All that is just style, image that doesn't really accomplish anything. So you rant about G. Williams and he's suspended for so many games or a season and fined. What have you accomplished? It doesn't change anything that happens on the field.

I'm OK with being against it for ethical reasons, everybody should be. But why so hung up on just the style issue. Why are you not even considering the substance part of this issue, you know, the players safety? Why have you been giving me shit for concentrating on what really makes a difference. Like making bounty's useless through rules enforcements, penalty's, ejections, fines and suspensions? At least I'm looking at something of substance to the game.

If you have no end game of any substance, then your rants seem like empty rants.

[bucky]

Tailback, bucky, dspyder, answer this for me.

If there was sign in an NFL locker room that read:



Do you think that is something acceptable that the NFL should allow if the team so chooses? Forget the salary cap implications for a moment. No qualifiers like "if it was good, clean, hits...". None of that. Just, would you have a problem with it on a face value level?

Do you not see how this is mental?

First, why in the world would I even give you the respect to answer your question when you continually skirted my questions to you?

No I wouldn't be OK with it. But what does your question have to do with me focusing on the functional part of the issue. How to make those signs go away. Like I've said many times, through penalty's, ejections, fines and suspensions. Why do you keep poo-pooing that and just go on with rants that accomplish nothing except some style issues?