Saints Defense maintained a Bounty Program

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • FedEx227
    Delivers
    • Mar 2009
    • 10454

    The Real Outrage of the Saints Bounty Scandal
    This is an offseason edition of the NFL roundtable, a partnership between Slate and Deadspin. For more roundtable goodness, go back and read every...

    Nate Jackson - Slate

    Great article talking about the money involved and reward system in football (all levels).

    Lost in all the outrage over the New Orleans Saints’ bounty program is a conversation about money and what it means to professional athletes. The sums that we’ve been hearing about—anywhere in the range of $1,000 to $10,000 to knock out opposing players—sound substantial to the typical American. But the average NFL player makes just short of $2 million, while the median salary is around $800,000. Players are paid only during the season, which means they earn 1/17th of their salary every week. For a player making the average salary that’s around $120,000 a week. For someone making the median, it’s close to $50,000.

    Roman Harper, the Saints safety who’s been known to dish out kill shots, was in the last year of his rookie deal in 2009. That was a four-year, $2.5 million contract, well under the average NFL salary. But after the 2010 season, Harper signed a new four-year deal for $16 million guaranteed. This is money to NFL players. And it’s this kind of cash that will motivate a defensive player to decapitate a quarterback, not a few grand under the table.

    Non-contract bonuses are common in the locker room. Not every reward is based on aggression. Some have to do with composure. If you get cheap-shotted and you don’t retaliate, you get a handful of cash. If you cause a fumble in practice, you get paid. (And if you’re the fumbler, you pay up.) If you make a tackle inside the 20-yard line on a kickoff, you get paid. If you’re the first one on the kickoff coverage team to cross the opposite goal line, you get paid. The money breaks up the monotony of a drab work week by rewarding a player for making a play he was trying to make anyway, because it’s his job.

    This is life inside the NFL bubble, a world where extreme violence is rewarded with a paycheck. Before you got money to play the game, this violence was rewarded with pats on the back, special treatment, undeserved grades, scholarships, women, and status. There has always been a reward system in place for playing the game viciously. In the NFL, above all else, that reward is keeping your job.

    Did Gregg Williams, by allegedly offering up cash for violent hits, make the game more dangerous? Not any more than the Pop Warner coach who grabs a kid by his facemask and tells him he hits like a sissy. Not any more than an ESPN correspondent who speculates about Michael Vick’s readiness to return to action following a concussion. And certainly not any more than Roger Goodell, who regularly implies that he can make the game safe by changing the rules.

    Still, it is a coach’s league. A player only steps on the field if his coach allows it. And there are certainly plenty of tough-guy coaches like Gregg Williams who beat their chests and think of little mind games to get their players foaming at the mouth to go hit someone. But once you step on the field, everything else fades away, including the pre-game speech of your overzealous coach. When you make the choice to put on your helmet, there’s going to be a bounty of one kind or another on your head. No locker room speech can change that.

    I find it unlikely that a player would focus on injuring an opponent in defiance of the referees on the field, the league office that reviews every hit, and his peers to whom he must answer every day and who don’t take kindly to cheap shots. No matter what cash they dispensed, the Saints didn’t play the game differently than any other team once they hit the field. These peripheral reward systems are pebbles around a boulder, and that boulder is rolling downhill.

    Besides, in a game where 100 percent of the players get injured, why does it matter to us how they’re injured? The real outrage here isn't the bounties and the cart-off hits and knockout blows; it's the league office's need to sanctify all the bloodshed and ugliness with well-drawn rules and regulations. But bounties or no bounties, the game maims the men who play it. Yet the NFL stays busy selling the myth that football would be safe so long as the guys on the field played with a little integrity. Now where is the integrity in that? [Update, 1:20 p.m.: Due to an editing error, the wording at the end of this paragraph was originally taken from an earlier draft. The piece has been updated.]
    VoicesofWrestling.com

    Comment

    • FirstTimer
      Freeman Error

      • Feb 2009
      • 18729

      Originally posted by FedEx227
      Why is this aspect of the story so under covered? You had a gambler who hung around the players and team and was seen in photos wearing Saints gear on their sideline putting money in the pot for bounties.

      If this happened in baseball... you know gamblers affecting the way the game is played (aka the first 50 years of organized baseball), it'd be a bigger national story, no?

      I mean let's separate the issue that NFL fans can't fathom the legalities of being given monetary benefits to intentionally hurt someone (whether it's "part of the game" or not - hint - it's not), but we have a gambler running around with a team in a sport that despite it's best attempt is so obviously tied to gambling. I just find it funny how little it's being talked about.
      There are soruces now saying he wasn't funding it FWIW.

      (Hub Arkush on WSCR yesterday)
      Originally posted by Senser81
      Here is the cliffnotes version of this thread:
      Your cliffnotes cliffnotes:

      Zoneblitz: Derpa derpa herpa derp.

      Tailback U: Derpadidoda

      DSpyder84: Derpa Derp!

      Comment

      • ZoneBlitz
        .
        • Feb 2009
        • 1844

        Originally posted by Senser81
        Zoneblitz: No player in NFL history has ever tried to injure another player. I've personally spoken with several ex-NFL players, and they've all corroborated the private thoughts and intentions of the other players they played with. Besides, its impossible to intentionally injure someone anyways.
        Way to completely butcher my point in order to make your lame jokes.

        My point is that its difficult to intentionally injure someone within the rules.

        You gave countless examples of injuries on legal hits, but they are all bullshit, because you dont know that there was intent to injure on those hits.

        Then you gave examples of non-legal hits, but they are also bullshit, because it wasnt within the rules.

        So the cliffnotes version of your posts in this thread is you failed to disprove anything ive said. You're welcome to keep trying.

        Comment

        • Senser81
          VSN Poster of the Year
          • Feb 2009
          • 12804

          Originally posted by ZoneBlitz
          Way to completely butcher my point in order to make your lame jokes.

          My point is that its difficult to intentionally injure someone within the rules.

          You gave countless examples of injuries on legal hits, but they are all bullshit, because you dont know that there was intent to injure on those hits.

          Then you gave examples of non-legal hits, but they are also bullshit, because it wasnt within the rules.

          So the cliffnotes version of your posts in this thread is you failed to disprove anything ive said. You're welcome to keep trying.
          I feel like Tom Cruise arguing with Col. Jessup in A Few Good Men...

          "If you ordered Santiago not to be touched, and your orders are always followed, why the need to transfer Santiago?"

          "If players never intentionally injure each other, and its impossible to injure someone within the framework of the rules, how could bounties exist in the first place? If players never have intent to injure, how could the concept of 'dirty players' even exist?"

          Your posting has transformed into something beyond terrible. Take a break.

          Comment

          • DSpydr84
            I need a sub
            • Oct 2008
            • 2605

            Originally posted by Warner2BruceTD
            When it comes to Tailback, DSpyder, bucky, and zoneblitz...

            -I think they are severely underestimating the extent of the Saints bounty program, and the level of vitriol behind it. Sorry, but you can not brush this off as a relatively harmless "pay for performance" incentive when there is an 18,000 page NFL investigation documenting things such as $10,000 on the table for injuring Brett Favre, and a convicted felon essentially being on staff with no other role other than providing cash for bounties and hooking up players with 'gifts'. This is like "The U" without Luther Campbell, except it involves presumably grown men and a coaching staff that not only overlooked it, but constructed and supported it.

            -I think they are severely overestimating the extent of the bounty programs going on in the rest of the league. While i'm sure other bounty programs exist, i'm also willing to bet that this is not happening in every locker room, and in the places where it is, not nearly to the extent of what the Saints were doing.

            -Saying players are not motivated by "small" sums of money like $1,000 or $10,000 is not only patently ridiculous, but also incredibly naive and missing the point of collecting on a "bounty". You are dealing with immature men in their 20's, many of which live above their means and are broke 6 months after their 4 year NFL career is over. A good portion of these guys would be bagging groceries or handing you french fries if they were not playing in the NFL. We are not dealing with the best and the brightest here.

            -I've been trying to explain to these guys that, A.) NFL players are not actively trying to injure each other at all times (ridiculous), and B.) it is entirely possible to attempt to injure an opposing player with "a good, clean, legal hit" (trademark bucky). Senser was far more articulate and did a much better job explaining this, and THAT'S WHY THE LEGALITY OF THE HITS ARE IRRELEVANT WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT BOUNTIES. Saying "show me the dirty hits, show me the penalties" is an instant credibility killer in a debate like this, and shows me that you have no fucking clue about what is happening here. Ironically, in the case of high school football hero Tailback, it also shows he has very little concept of what happens on a football field, despite his tired lectures to the rest of us.

            -And finally, the "eh, you can never stop it, so who cares!" argument is perhaps the most foolish and ridiculous point of view in a thread full of foolish and ridiculous points of view. We'll never stop murder either, so let's throw our hands and stop talking about people being brutally killed, because it's a non-story. bucky and his "functional part of the discussion" and suggesting harsher penalties and fines is completely worthless and added nothing to the conversation. Go away, please. Stop infecting threads with your obvious statements and general goober behavior. Tailback & zoneblitz asserting that you will never stop bounties is bullshit, too. The Saints won't be placing bounties anymore. I'll bet a bunch of other teams where this is going on will abruptly stop after seeing what has happened the last week.
            Thanked this for your first two points, which is probably true in some ways.


            Originally posted by Senser81
            Here is the cliffnotes version of this thread:

            Zoneblitz: No player in NFL history has ever tried to injure another player. I've personally spoken with several ex-NFL players, and they've all corroborated the private thoughts and intentions of the other players they played with. Besides, its impossible to intentionally injure someone anyways.

            Tailback U: You can't stop people from having bounties, so why bother punishing the offenders? In fact, why are we even talking about this? Its a non-issue. My point is that no one other than myself should even be discussing this.

            DSpyder84: Come see the violence inherent in the system!! Come see the violence inherent in the system!!
            So you don't think the game in inherently violent?

            Again, I'm not saying it's acceptable. That's one of the reasons I like it, but it doesn't make it right. But you even said yourself that these things happened in the past and their happening again today. AGAIN, I AM NOT THROWING MY HANDS IN THE AIR SAYING "LET IT GO". What I'm saying is if they want these things to change, the game needs to be played in a different manner. That's it. And it doesn't bother me which way they choose to go, but if they think they can put a stop to CERTAIN PLAYERS (NOT EVERYONE IN THE LEAGUE) trying to hurt other players and/or betting on performances, I don't think they can under the current framework of the game. Every article being posted says this happens everywhere (although W2B is probably correct saying it wasn't nearly to the level of New Orleans). The culture of the game promotes it. Either that changes, or this stuff keeps happening.

            To me, I couldn't care less if they kept the game how it is and "bounties" (of some sort) continued. It really doesn't affect me, I don't know these guys, I just watch the game. Their long-term health isn't my concern, sorry if that sounds cold. But the NFL is foolish if they think anything that happens here will stop it forever, unless the rules of the game are different.

            Comment

            • Senser81
              VSN Poster of the Year
              • Feb 2009
              • 12804

              Originally posted by FedEx227
              The Real Outrage of the Saints Bounty Scandal
              This is an offseason edition of the NFL roundtable, a partnership between Slate and Deadspin. For more roundtable goodness, go back and read every...

              Nate Jackson - Slate

              Great article talking about the money involved and reward system in football (all levels).
              Don't quite get the point of the article. Do bounties make the game more dangerous? Can you really say one way or another? And if there is the slightest chance that bounties do make the game more dangerous, then shouldn't the NFL try to legislate it?

              The article makes it seem as if the league office is being hypocritical, but thats a very elementary way of viewing things. The NFL can't have bounties, because its too easy to injure a QB (for example). If the league starts losing its Brett Favre's and Kurt Warner's to bounty-induced injuries, then the NFL product itself is going to resemble the XFL, with terrible offenses and the only exciting moments being produced by the steal-the-bacon coin flip.

              Comment

              • FirstTimer
                Freeman Error

                • Feb 2009
                • 18729

                Originally posted by DSpydr84



                So you don't think the game in inherently violent?

                .
                :joeybats:






                God help you if you think that question is relevant after reading his post.

                Comment

                • ZoneBlitz
                  .
                  • Feb 2009
                  • 1844

                  Originally posted by Senser81
                  "If players never intentionally injure each other, and its impossible to injure someone within the framework of the rules, how could bounties exist in the first place? If players never have intent to injure, how could the concept of 'dirty players' even exist?"
                  Bounties exist as reward for big hits...and in the Saints case, injuries resulting from big hits.

                  Dirty players are players that play past the whistle and past the rules. Therefore anything they do is not within the rules, which is what im talking about.

                  If injuring players was so easy like you claim, then all of the Saints opponents shoulda had players carted off the field every game, which didnt happen.

                  I dont have the stats but i bet the Saints opponents injury rate was the same as every other team.

                  Originally posted by Senser81
                  Your posting has transformed into something beyond terrible. Take a break.
                  This is senser-speak for "i have nothing to counter with".

                  Comment

                  • DSpydr84
                    I need a sub
                    • Oct 2008
                    • 2605

                    Originally posted by FirstTimer
                    God help you if you think that question is relevant after reading his post.
                    It was a rhetorical question in response to his perspective on what I said. Thanks Jeeves.

                    Comment

                    • FirstTimer
                      Freeman Error

                      • Feb 2009
                      • 18729

                      Originally posted by DSpydr84
                      It was a rhetorical question in response to his perspective on what I said. Thanks Jeeves.
                      If you think the rhetorical question has any merit you don't understand his perspective.

                      Quit being a doofus.

                      Comment

                      • DSpydr84
                        I need a sub
                        • Oct 2008
                        • 2605

                        Originally posted by FirstTimer
                        If you think the rhetorical question has any merit you don't understand his perspective.

                        Quit being a doofus.
                        That was kinda the point (and the point of rhetoric devices), to see his perspective...

                        :dogchasingtail:

                        Comment

                        • FirstTimer
                          Freeman Error

                          • Feb 2009
                          • 18729

                          Originally posted by DSpydr84
                          That was kinda the point (and the point of rhetoric devices), to see his perspective...

                          :dogchasingtail:
                          :gayrod:

                          :brianwilson:

                          :joeybats:


                          Try again genius.

                          Your rhetorical question made no point because it's not his perspective.......................................

                          Comment

                          • DSpydr84
                            I need a sub
                            • Oct 2008
                            • 2605

                            Originally posted by Senser81
                            Here is the cliffnotes version of this thread:

                            Zoneblitz: No player in NFL history has ever tried to injure another player. I've personally spoken with several ex-NFL players, and they've all corroborated the private thoughts and intentions of the other players they played with. Besides, its impossible to intentionally injure someone anyways.

                            Tailback U: You can't stop people from having bounties, so why bother punishing the offenders? In fact, why are we even talking about this? Its a non-issue. My point is that no one other than myself should even be discussing this.

                            DSpyder84: Come see the violence inherent in the system!! Come see the violence inherent in the system!!
                            Originally posted by DSpydr84
                            So you don't think the game in inherently violent?

                            Again, I'm not saying it's acceptable. That's one of the reasons I like it, but it doesn't make it right. But you even said yourself that these things happened in the past and their happening again today. AGAIN, I AM NOT THROWING MY HANDS IN THE AIR SAYING "LET IT GO". What I'm saying is if they want these things to change, the game needs to be played in a different manner. That's it. And it doesn't bother me which way they choose to go, but if they think they can put a stop to CERTAIN PLAYERS (NOT EVERYONE IN THE LEAGUE) trying to hurt other players and/or betting on performances, I don't think they can under the current framework of the game. Every article being posted says this happens everywhere (although W2B is probably correct saying it wasn't nearly to the level of New Orleans). The culture of the game promotes it. Either that changes, or this stuff keeps happening.

                            To me, I couldn't care less if they kept the game how it is and "bounties" (of some sort) continued. It really doesn't affect me, I don't know these guys, I just watch the game. Their long-term health isn't my concern, sorry if that sounds cold. But the NFL is foolish if they think anything that happens here will stop it forever, unless the rules of the game are different.

                            Originally posted by FirstTimer
                            Your rhetorical question made no point because it's not his perspective.......................................
                            I've got no problem admitting when I'm wrong or if I said something strange, but you're not making any sense here.

                            He's laughing at me saying the game is violent, so I'm asking if he thinks the game is not violent (with the understanding that he thinks it is, hence rhetorical).

                            Why am I explaining myself. This is so stupid.

                            Comment

                            • FirstTimer
                              Freeman Error

                              • Feb 2009
                              • 18729

                              Originally posted by DSpydr84
                              I've got no problem admitting when I'm wrong or if I said something strange, but you're not making any sense here.
                              :joeybats:

                              Originally posted by DSpydr84
                              He's laughing at me saying the game is violent
                              No, he's laughing at you for being stupid.

                              Continually saying the game is violent is an obviously point and holds no weight in the discussion in the context of having bounties to injure people.

                              Again.

                              Quit being a moron.

                              Comment

                              • Tailback U
                                No substitute 4 strength.
                                • Nov 2008
                                • 10282

                                Originally posted by FedEx227
                                The Real Outrage of the Saints Bounty Scandal
                                This is an offseason edition of the NFL roundtable, a partnership between Slate and Deadspin. For more roundtable goodness, go back and read every...

                                Nate Jackson - Slate

                                Great article talking about the money involved and reward system in football (all levels).
                                This article is exactly what I am talking about. My thoughts are identical.

                                Comment

                                Working...