What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Players publicly talking about injuring opponents ... (1 Viewer)

Doug B

Footballguy
Going into the 2012 season, the NFL's increasing emphasis on player safety could potentially have effects on how the league deals with public statements such as these made by DeAngelo Hall last September:

With Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo intending to play on Monday night despite having a busted rib, Redskins cornerback DeAngelo Hall intends to try to bust them some more.

"I want to get a chance to put my helmet on whatever's hurt," Hall said, per the Washington Post. "Romo's ribs — I'm going to be asking for some corner blitzes. If I know Felix Jones' shoulder's hurt, I'm not going to cut him. I'm definitely going to try to hit him up high, so that's just part of it.

"If you know something's wrong with an opponent, you're going to try to target in on that. We're going to try to definitely get as many hats on that team as possible."

Hall isn't saying anything that football players don't already think. Especially at the quarterback position, any opportunity to knock the starter out of the game should be embraced.

But when it comes to putting a helmet on Romo's ribs, Hall should be careful not to do it when Romo is in the act of throwing a pass, or when he has just thrown a pass. Under the rules, Romo is defenseless at those times, and he can't be hit in the helmet or with a helmet.
Will that kind of talk draw fines in 2012?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That kind of talk has to draw fines going forward, doesn't it?

Corollary: what kinds of penalties come down for Harrison-McCoy type hits in 2012? Goodell's gotta be raising the stakes now, doesn't he?

 
Those that have been in locker rooms have no problem with what Gregg Williams was saying.

Pretty soon hugging another player viciously will draw a penalty as they gently set them on the ground. It's football dammit!

 
Those that have been in locker rooms have no problem with what Gregg Williams was saying.
"I think it's really disgusting and something should be done about it to a higher extreme than what is [already set]. You're out there intending to hurt guys. This is their careers and how they take care of their families." --Donte Whitner"I really think he needs psychological help. I've never heard a coach talk like that" --Karl Mecklenburg"Not for one second would I sit in a room and listen to someone say, "We're going to take out someone's ACL," without standing up and saying, "What the hell are you talking about?" --Warren SappYou've been in more locker rooms than those guys? What are you, a custodian?
 
The locker-room stuff is not what this is about, though. Look at the OP ... DeAngelo Hall, as recently as 8 months ago, was talking pre-game to the media about purposefully injuring an opponent. Not behind closed doors at all.

 
Those that have been in locker rooms have no problem with what Gregg Williams was saying.
"I think it's really disgusting and something should be done about it to a higher extreme than what is [already set]. You're out there intending to hurt guys. This is their careers and how they take care of their families." --Donte Whitner"I really think he needs psychological help. I've never heard a coach talk like that" --Karl Mecklenburg"Not for one second would I sit in a room and listen to someone say, "We're going to take out someone's ACL," without standing up and saying, "What the hell are you talking about?" --Warren SappYou've been in more locker rooms than those guys? What are you, a custodian?
In the heat of the moment many things are said. You've never said "i'm going to kill that guy." Perhaps you should be in jail then.
 
Going into the 2012 season, the NFL's increasing emphasis on player safety could potentially have effects on how the league deals with public statements such as these made by DeAngelo Hall last September:

With Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo intending to play on Monday night despite having a busted rib, Redskins cornerback DeAngelo Hall intends to try to bust them some more.

"I want to get a chance to put my helmet on whatever's hurt," Hall said, per the Washington Post. "Romo's ribs — I'm going to be asking for some corner blitzes. If I know Felix Jones' shoulder's hurt, I'm not going to cut him. I'm definitely going to try to hit him up high, so that's just part of it.

"If you know something's wrong with an opponent, you're going to try to target in on that. We're going to try to definitely get as many hats on that team as possible."

Hall isn't saying anything that football players don't already think. Especially at the quarterback position, any opportunity to knock the starter out of the game should be embraced.

But when it comes to putting a helmet on Romo's ribs, Hall should be careful not to do it when Romo is in the act of throwing a pass, or when he has just thrown a pass. Under the rules, Romo is defenseless at those times, and he can't be hit in the helmet or with a helmet.
Will that kind of talk draw fines in 2012?
That's a great question, Doug B. And I think it's part of what's made the Bountygate thing so interesting. Because the line is so unclear. I think every football fan in the country expected Tony Romo to be targeted for clean hits to the ribs. That's 100% football. It's interesting to me too how different body parts factor in. Nobody seems too excited about ribs or a shoulder. But "testing" a players injured knee with a hit is very different.Really pretty fascinating. I don't know if you listen to Mike Golic on ESPN's morning show with Mike Greenberg but Golic has had some pretty insightful opinions on it. In his opinion, targeting the player's injury is absolutely going to happen. But it does change when it goes from a rib to a knee.

So to answer your question, my guess is the league will have some sort of blanket policy restricting players from talking about it. But it's definitely a blurry line for some players, some injuries and some situations. Good question.

J

 
'benson_will_lead_the_way said:
'CalBear said:
'benson_will_lead_the_way said:
Those that have been in locker rooms have no problem with what Gregg Williams was saying.
"I think it's really disgusting and something should be done about it to a higher extreme than what is [already set]. You're out there intending to hurt guys. This is their careers and how they take care of their families." --Donte Whitner"I really think he needs psychological help. I've never heard a coach talk like that" --Karl Mecklenburg

"Not for one second would I sit in a room and listen to someone say, "We're going to take out someone's ACL," without standing up and saying, "What the hell are you talking about?" --Warren Sapp

You've been in more locker rooms than those guys? What are you, a custodian?
In the heat of the moment many things are said. You've never said "i'm going to kill that guy." Perhaps you should be in jail then.
I'm bolding your statement above to remind you of what you said, that is clearly wrong. Lots of people who've been in locker rooms have a problem with what Williams actually said. Even if it was "in the heat of the moment" (which doesn't make much sense since this is a program that lasted for a long time and there must have been speeches like this many times during it).
 
'benson_will_lead_the_way said:
'CalBear said:
'benson_will_lead_the_way said:
Those that have been in locker rooms have no problem with what Gregg Williams was saying.
"I think it's really disgusting and something should be done about it to a higher extreme than what is [already set]. You're out there intending to hurt guys. This is their careers and how they take care of their families." --Donte Whitner"I really think he needs psychological help. I've never heard a coach talk like that" --Karl Mecklenburg

"Not for one second would I sit in a room and listen to someone say, "We're going to take out someone's ACL," without standing up and saying, "What the hell are you talking about?" --Warren Sapp

You've been in more locker rooms than those guys? What are you, a custodian?
In the heat of the moment many things are said. You've never said "i'm going to kill that guy." Perhaps you should be in jail then.
I'm bolding your statement above to remind you of what you said, that is clearly wrong. Lots of people who've been in locker rooms have a problem with what Williams actually said. Even if it was "in the heat of the moment" (which doesn't make much sense since this is a program that lasted for a long time and there must have been speeches like this many times during it).
You're right of course. Lots of players have said they had a problem with it. But plenty have been way less offended. I mentioned Mike Golic above. Tedy Bruschi is another guy who was pretty calm about it. Said it went a little too far targeting ligaments. http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=7783966 In another spot I heard him on, he talked about his very first play of contact coming back after his stroke, they crashed the fullback right into Bruschi. He said he went to the coach and said, "you didn't waste any time, did you". Coach said, "We had to test you to know". Bruschi was not just ok with it, he expected it. Exploiting weakness is a very real part of the game. How "sportsmanship" plays into that is super interesting to me.

J

 
You're right of course. Lots of players have said they had a problem with it. But plenty have been way less offended. I mentioned Mike Golic above. Tedy Bruschi is another guy who was pretty calm about it. Said it went a little too far targeting ligaments. http://espn.go.com/e...play?id=7783966 In another spot I heard him on, he talked about his very first play of contact coming back after his stroke, they crashed the fullback right into Bruschi. He said he went to the coach and said, "you didn't waste any time, did you". Coach said, "We had to test you to know". Bruschi was not just ok with it, he expected it.

Exploiting weakness is a very real part of the game. How "sportsmanship" plays into that is super interesting to me.
Agree. Saying "lots of players have problems with that kind of talk" is too vague. The only real issue was with the specificity of the body parts being called out.
 
'Joe Bryant said:
Going into the 2012 season, the NFL's increasing emphasis on player safety could potentially have effects on how the league deals with public statements such as these made by DeAngelo Hall last September:

With Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo intending to play on Monday night despite having a busted rib, Redskins cornerback DeAngelo Hall intends to try to bust them some more.

"I want to get a chance to put my helmet on whatever's hurt," Hall said, per the Washington Post. "Romo's ribs — I'm going to be asking for some corner blitzes. If I know Felix Jones' shoulder's hurt, I'm not going to cut him. I'm definitely going to try to hit him up high, so that's just part of it.

"If you know something's wrong with an opponent, you're going to try to target in on that. We're going to try to definitely get as many hats on that team as possible."

Hall isn't saying anything that football players don't already think. Especially at the quarterback position, any opportunity to knock the starter out of the game should be embraced.

But when it comes to putting a helmet on Romo's ribs, Hall should be careful not to do it when Romo is in the act of throwing a pass, or when he has just thrown a pass. Under the rules, Romo is defenseless at those times, and he can't be hit in the helmet or with a helmet.
Will that kind of talk draw fines in 2012?
That's a great question, Doug B. And I think it's part of what's made the Bountygate thing so interesting. Because the line is so unclear. I think every football fan in the country expected Tony Romo to be targeted for clean hits to the ribs. That's 100% football. It's interesting to me too how different body parts factor in. Nobody seems too excited about ribs or a shoulder. But "testing" a players injured knee with a hit is very different.Really pretty fascinating. I don't know if you listen to Mike Golic on ESPN's morning show with Mike Greenberg but Golic has had some pretty insightful opinions on it. In his opinion, targeting the player's injury is absolutely going to happen. But it does change when it goes from a rib to a knee.

So to answer your question, my guess is the league will have some sort of blanket policy restricting players from talking about it. But it's definitely a blurry line for some players, some injuries and some situations. Good question.

J
IMO, the PR control will certainly have to be stiffer to be consistent with the league's stance on player safety. If a guy talks about it then they will have to be subject to some sort of discipline. I see no difference between a player saying he is going to intentionally injure an opponent than a player potentially being paid for injuring an opponent. Both demonstrate the motivation to injure the opposition intentionally and potentially outside the bounds of the rules.That said, even though it they might not discuss it with the media, I absolutely expect players to continue to do what they have always done and what IMO is a legitimate part of the game, which is target the opponents weakness.

Something of a don't ask, don't tell approach to things is likely what will evolve.

So long as the hits are legal, personally I have no problem with the ethics of going after an existing injury, so long as it's not the head. A shoulder = a knee = the ribs. It's fair game if the hit is legal.

Admittedly, lots of shades of grey to this situation tho.

 
'Joe Bryant said:
That's a great question, Doug B. And I think it's part of what's made the Bountygate thing so interesting. Because the line is so unclear. I think every football fan in the country expected Tony Romo to be targeted for clean hits to the ribs. That's 100% football. It's interesting to me too how different body parts factor in. Nobody seems too excited about ribs or a shoulder. But "testing" a players injured knee with a hit is very different.

Really pretty fascinating. I don't know if you listen to Mike Golic on ESPN's morning show with Mike Greenberg but Golic has had some pretty insightful opinions on it. In his opinion, targeting the player's injury is absolutely going to happen. But it does change when it goes from a rib to a knee.

So to answer your question, my guess is the league will have some sort of blanket policy restricting players from talking about it. But it's definitely a blurry line for some players, some injuries and some situations. Good question.

J
I dunno Joe. I'm pretty sure if some DL has a bad knee or ankle, you're going to see cut blocks to that side pretty much all day and nobody's going to think twice about it. Sure, maybe that's a lineman vs. quarterback thing, but I think it goes a bit farther...This is professional sports. Any advantage that can be taken will be taken. I think the fine line isn't in what body part it is, but rather whether the intent is to "injure" or to "hurt".

As this relates to Bountygate... Doug's original question is a little flawed because the Saints were being punished as much ( or more ) for the cover-up as they were for the actions. We saw that the commissioner didn't punish other bounty programs because they stopped when told to do so, so we really have no idea whether talk like this is likely to garner attention from the league. The fact that this is gotten this much news probably means that egregious (read:publicized) offenses will see fines, but like many things with Goodell, he does the right thing.... as soon as the media picks up on it.

However, if we ignore that, and talk just about the actions... then it was really Williams' mentality that is drawing ire. He talks about injuries. He talks specifically about ACLs. He talks about "firing up the cart". These are things that **injure**, not things that **hurt**, and therein lies the problem.

Granted, there's a correlation to Golic's comments in that knees and heads are more likely to cause permanent injury, but I think that's a corollary rather than the rule.

Deangelo Hall's talk about Romo is really just a reference to exploiting a disadvantage of an opponent. If Romo chooses to be on the field, so be it. Hall wants to make the guy hurt, as all football players do, but there's an understanding that he really doesn't want to cause any permanent injury.

Thus, you saw the Giants players backtrack on their pregame talk about Kyle Williams' concussions in the NFC championship game. But I do think its the less about the part and more about the p

Complex issue, regardless.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'benson_will_lead_the_way said:
'CalBear said:
'benson_will_lead_the_way said:
Those that have been in locker rooms have no problem with what Gregg Williams was saying.
"I think it's really disgusting and something should be done about it to a higher extreme than what is [already set]. You're out there intending to hurt guys. This is their careers and how they take care of their families." --Donte Whitner"I really think he needs psychological help. I've never heard a coach talk like that" --Karl Mecklenburg

"Not for one second would I sit in a room and listen to someone say, "We're going to take out someone's ACL," without standing up and saying, "What the hell are you talking about?" --Warren Sapp

You've been in more locker rooms than those guys? What are you, a custodian?
In the heat of the moment many things are said. You've never said "i'm going to kill that guy." Perhaps you should be in jail then.
I'm bolding your statement above to remind you of what you said, that is clearly wrong. Lots of people who've been in locker rooms have a problem with what Williams actually said. Even if it was "in the heat of the moment" (which doesn't make much sense since this is a program that lasted for a long time and there must have been speeches like this many times during it).
I'm going to remind you again that saying and doing are completely different animals. If you don't think that every team tests out players injuries then you've clearly never played competitive sports.How would you take out a players ACL? Most ACL tears come from a player planting too far forward and then trying to make a lateral cut. Most aren't even touched by a defender.

I will take it a step further and say that in theory Gregg Williams may have just wanted his players to be aggressive with the entire program. With all of the fines and penalties with hitting players...perhaps he wanted his players to block it out and just take the player out. In a day and age when a WR is running a post route for the winning TD, but a defender can't hit him if he's defenseless because it's a penalty. If you use incentives for players to play aggressively more of those in between plays will be eliminated.

Note: I'm an offensive guy and have been for my entire coaching career. But I have no problems with the bounty program and think all of the new rules isn't good for football.

 
You're right of course. Lots of players have said they had a problem with it. But plenty have been way less offended. I mentioned Mike Golic above. Tedy Bruschi is another guy who was pretty calm about it. Said it went a little too far targeting ligaments. http://espn.go.com/e...play?id=7783966 In another spot I heard him on, he talked about his very first play of contact coming back after his stroke, they crashed the fullback right into Bruschi. He said he went to the coach and said, "you didn't waste any time, did you". Coach said, "We had to test you to know". Bruschi was not just ok with it, he expected it.

Exploiting weakness is a very real part of the game. How "sportsmanship" plays into that is super interesting to me.
Agree. Saying "lots of players have problems with that kind of talk" is too vague. The only real issue was with the specificity of the body parts being called out.
Thanks Doug. And even then, it seems to me to me that the real issue the player had was not just the specificity, but the knee. Targeting the head and "putting a lick" on the WR to see where he was with a concussion didn't seem to draw the :eek: that going after Crabtree's ACL did. Knees just seem more sensitive.

J

 
'benson_will_lead_the_way said:
'CalBear said:
'benson_will_lead_the_way said:
Those that have been in locker rooms have no problem with what Gregg Williams was saying.
"I think it's really disgusting and something should be done about it to a higher extreme than what is [already set]. You're out there intending to hurt guys. This is their careers and how they take care of their families." --Donte Whitner"I really think he needs psychological help. I've never heard a coach talk like that" --Karl Mecklenburg

"Not for one second would I sit in a room and listen to someone say, "We're going to take out someone's ACL," without standing up and saying, "What the hell are you talking about?" --Warren Sapp

You've been in more locker rooms than those guys? What are you, a custodian?
In the heat of the moment many things are said. You've never said "i'm going to kill that guy." Perhaps you should be in jail then.
I'm bolding your statement above to remind you of what you said, that is clearly wrong. Lots of people who've been in locker rooms have a problem with what Williams actually said. Even if it was "in the heat of the moment" (which doesn't make much sense since this is a program that lasted for a long time and there must have been speeches like this many times during it).
I'm going to remind you again that saying and doing are completely different animals. If you don't think that every team tests out players injuries then you've clearly never played competitive sports.How would you take out a players ACL? Most ACL tears come from a player planting too far forward and then trying to make a lateral cut. Most aren't even touched by a defender.

I will take it a step further and say that in theory Gregg Williams may have just wanted his players to be aggressive with the entire program. With all of the fines and penalties with hitting players...perhaps he wanted his players to block it out and just take the player out. In a day and age when a WR is running a post route for the winning TD, but a defender can't hit him if he's defenseless because it's a penalty. If you use incentives for players to play aggressively more of those in between plays will be eliminated.

Note: I'm an offensive guy and have been for my entire coaching career. But I have no problems with the bounty program and think all of the new rules isn't good for football.
To make sure I understand, you have no problem with players getting cash rewards for injuring players?J

 
'Joe Bryant said:
That's a great question, Doug B. And I think it's part of what's made the Bountygate thing so interesting. Because the line is so unclear. I think every football fan in the country expected Tony Romo to be targeted for clean hits to the ribs. That's 100% football. It's interesting to me too how different body parts factor in. Nobody seems too excited about ribs or a shoulder. But "testing" a players injured knee with a hit is very different.

Really pretty fascinating. I don't know if you listen to Mike Golic on ESPN's morning show with Mike Greenberg but Golic has had some pretty insightful opinions on it. In his opinion, targeting the player's injury is absolutely going to happen. But it does change when it goes from a rib to a knee.

So to answer your question, my guess is the league will have some sort of blanket policy restricting players from talking about it. But it's definitely a blurry line for some players, some injuries and some situations. Good question.

J
I dunno Joe. I'm pretty sure if some DL has a bad knee or ankle, you're going to see cut blocks to that side pretty much all day and nobody's going to think twice about it. Sure, maybe that's a lineman vs. quarterback thing, but I think it goes a bit farther...This is professional sports. Any advantage that can be taken will be taken. I think the fine line isn't in what body part it is, but rather whether the intent is to "injure" or to "hurt".

As this relates to Bountygate... Doug's original question is a little flawed because the Saints were being punished as much ( or more ) for the cover-up as they were for the actions. We saw that the commissioner didn't punish other bounty programs because they stopped when told to do so, so we really have no idea whether talk like this is likely to garner attention from the league. The fact that this is gotten this much news probably means that egregious (read:publicized) offenses will see fines, but like many things with Goodell, he does the right thing.... as soon as the media picks up on it.

However, if we ignore that, and talk just about the actions... then it was really Williams' mentality that is drawing ire. He talks about injuries. He talks specifically about ACLs. He talks about "firing up the cart". These are things that **injure**, not things that **hurt**, and therein lies the problem.

Granted, there's a correlation to Golic's comments in that knees and heads are more likely to cause permanent injury, but I think that's a corollary rather than the rule.

Deangelo Hall's talk about Romo is really just a reference to exploiting a disadvantage of an opponent. If Romo chooses to be on the field, so be it. Hall wants to make the guy hurt, as all football players do, but there's an understanding that he really doesn't want to cause any permanent injury.

Thus, you saw the Giants players backtrack on their pregame talk about Kyle Williams' concussions in the NFC championship game. But I do think its the less about the part and more about the p

Complex issue, regardless.
I agree. It'll evolve to more of a "don't ask / don't tell" thing as players will continue to "test" players coming back from injury as it's a possible weakness. And exploiting weakness is part of the game.While I'm at it, one other area I think you'll see evolve into a "don't talk about it" thing will be players taking pain killing injections. It's just bad PR for the league to openly be talking about numbing an injury so the guy can continue to play. It'll still happen, just won't be talked about as the player safety lawsuits start piling up. That becomes tough to defend that you knowingly sent an injured player back onto the field after masking the injury with a painkilling injection. It'll still happen. Just won't be talked about.

J

 
'benson_will_lead_the_way said:
'CalBear said:
'benson_will_lead_the_way said:
Those that have been in locker rooms have no problem with what Gregg Williams was saying.
"I think it's really disgusting and something should be done about it to a higher extreme than what is [already set]. You're out there intending to hurt guys. This is their careers and how they take care of their families." --Donte Whitner"I really think he needs psychological help. I've never heard a coach talk like that" --Karl Mecklenburg

"Not for one second would I sit in a room and listen to someone say, "We're going to take out someone's ACL," without standing up and saying, "What the hell are you talking about?" --Warren Sapp

You've been in more locker rooms than those guys? What are you, a custodian?
In the heat of the moment many things are said. You've never said "i'm going to kill that guy." Perhaps you should be in jail then.
I'm bolding your statement above to remind you of what you said, that is clearly wrong. Lots of people who've been in locker rooms have a problem with what Williams actually said. Even if it was "in the heat of the moment" (which doesn't make much sense since this is a program that lasted for a long time and there must have been speeches like this many times during it).
I'm going to remind you again that saying and doing are completely different animals. If you don't think that every team tests out players injuries then you've clearly never played competitive sports.How would you take out a players ACL? Most ACL tears come from a player planting too far forward and then trying to make a lateral cut. Most aren't even touched by a defender.

I will take it a step further and say that in theory Gregg Williams may have just wanted his players to be aggressive with the entire program. With all of the fines and penalties with hitting players...perhaps he wanted his players to block it out and just take the player out. In a day and age when a WR is running a post route for the winning TD, but a defender can't hit him if he's defenseless because it's a penalty. If you use incentives for players to play aggressively more of those in between plays will be eliminated.

Note: I'm an offensive guy and have been for my entire coaching career. But I have no problems with the bounty program and think all of the new rules isn't good for football.
To make sure I understand, you have no problem with players getting cash rewards for injuring players?J
Injuries are the worst part of the game, but they're professionals. I guess I just don't know how far this is going to go.1 Are they supposed to gently set the QB on the ground? Whenever a QB gets hurt now from a hit is everyone going to point to a bounty program?

2) How do you purposely injure a player? Go for their head...leads to more missed tackles. Go for their ankle/knee...leads to more missed tackles. If players are focused on trying to hurt people they will be overaggressive and attempt to tackle people in areas that are a low probability of success.

4) How do they solve all of the safety issues? Replace the current helmets with thin plastic/leather and leave the facemasks on. This will prevent defenders from launching themselves and using their helmet as a missile. Players will actually have to use their shoulder and wrap up(weird concept I know).

 
1 Are they supposed to gently set the QB on the ground? Whenever a QB gets hurt now from a hit is everyone going to point to a bounty program?
No, only when a QB is hurt when he's hit after he's gotten rid of the ball, from two different directions at once. After getting hit from the blind side two seconds after he handed off the ball earlier in the game, as Favre was.
2) How do you purposely injure a player? Go for their head...leads to more missed tackles. Go for their ankle/knee...leads to more missed tackles. If players are focused on trying to hurt people they will be overaggressive and attempt to tackle people in areas that are a low probability of success.
You hit when you don't need to.It certainly doesn't seem like the Saints' bounty program made their defense good. It just made them try to hurt people. In 2009 they were 20th in points against and 25th in yardage against. So obviously the goals of the bounty program were not aligned with improving defensive performance.
4) How do they solve all of the safety issues? Replace the current helmets with thin plastic/leather and leave the facemasks on. This will prevent defenders from launching themselves and using their helmet as a missile. Players will actually have to use their shoulder and wrap up(weird concept I know).
There could be better things done with helmets, but that won't help with the problem of intentionally hitting people after the play's over.
 
2) How do you purposely injure a player? Go for their head...leads to more missed tackles. Go for their ankle/knee...leads to more missed tackles. If players are focused on trying to hurt people they will be overaggressive and attempt to tackle people in areas that are a low probability of success.
Players do go for other players heads, whether it leads to missed tackles or not. There are plenty of examples of it, many of them drawing fines now. Just watch most any James Harrison play that drew a fine.You can also hit a player unnecessarily if you want to injure him. A defender is allowed to take 1 step in hitting a QB after he's released a pass. One of the Saints took 2 1/2 steps after a handoff took place, and leveled the QB. IIRC, Williams was reported to have told his defense before that game that he was fine with flags for late hits.

Intentionally trying to create an injury can't ensure 100% it will happen, but they can definitely increase the chances of one happening. They can even do so and get away without it being flagged if they are clever or lucky.

 
2) How do you purposely injure a player? Go for their head...leads to more missed tackles. Go for their ankle/knee...leads to more missed tackles. If players are focused on trying to hurt people they will be overaggressive and attempt to tackle people in areas that are a low probability of success.
Players do go for other players heads, whether it leads to missed tackles or not. There are plenty of examples of it, many of them drawing fines now. Just watch most any James Harrison play that drew a fine.You can also hit a player unnecessarily if you want to injure him. A defender is allowed to take 1 step in hitting a QB after he's released a pass. One of the Saints took 2 1/2 steps after a handoff took place, and leveled the QB. IIRC, Williams was reported to have told his defense before that game that he was fine with flags for late hits.

Intentionally trying to create an injury can't ensure 100% it will happen, but they can definitely increase the chances of one happening. They can even do so and get away without it being flagged if they are clever or lucky.
I wasn't referencing the NFC Championship game, just in general.How do they police this though? As the OP is suggesting, will comments be fined/suspended now? If a player is going to hit a guy late to injure will it be a half season long suspension? etc.

I also agree that it increases the probability for injury.

 
2) How do you purposely injure a player? Go for their head...leads to more missed tackles. Go for their ankle/knee...leads to more missed tackles. If players are focused on trying to hurt people they will be overaggressive and attempt to tackle people in areas that are a low probability of success.
You hit when you don't need to.It certainly doesn't seem like the Saints' bounty program made their defense good. It just made them try to hurt people. In 2009 they were 20th in points against and 25th in yardage against. So obviously the goals of the bounty program were not aligned with improving defensive performance.
A bit off topic, but you don't know this. I definitely didn't make them good, but maybe the Saints D would have been 32nd in points and yardage against. Who knows? :shrug:I truly think anyone looking at this objectively would have to conclude that the goal of the program was certainly to improve the defensive performance. It was just a terrible way to accomplish it and didn't really produce any useful results.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Going into the 2012 season, the NFL's increasing emphasis on player safety could potentially have effects on how the league deals with public statements such as these made by DeAngelo Hall last September:

With Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo intending to play on Monday night despite having a busted rib, Redskins cornerback DeAngelo Hall intends to try to bust them some more.

"I want to get a chance to put my helmet on whatever's hurt," Hall said, per the Washington Post. "Romo's ribs — I'm going to be asking for some corner blitzes. If I know Felix Jones' shoulder's hurt, I'm not going to cut him. I'm definitely going to try to hit him up high, so that's just part of it.

"If you know something's wrong with an opponent, you're going to try to target in on that. We're going to try to definitely get as many hats on that team as possible."

Hall isn't saying anything that football players don't already think. Especially at the quarterback position, any opportunity to knock the starter out of the game should be embraced.

But when it comes to putting a helmet on Romo's ribs, Hall should be careful not to do it when Romo is in the act of throwing a pass, or when he has just thrown a pass. Under the rules, Romo is defenseless at those times, and he can't be hit in the helmet or with a helmet.
Will that kind of talk draw fines in 2012?
I would have (still) have no problem with those quotes as long as they are not backed up with a detailed payment system financed by a twice convicted felon and have been warned for years to stop and the coaches/GM lie about it.
 
'Amused to Death said:
I would have (still) have no problem with those quotes as long as they are not backed up with a detailed payment system financed by a twice convicted felon and have been warned for years to stop and the coaches/GM lie about it.
Why bring up the Saints' bounty system? The appropriateness of Hall's quotes should stand or fall on their own....

Tangent, riffing off what Joe posted earlier: is it a whole different ball of wax if a player publicly proclaims they're going after an opponent's knee?

 
Hitting a guy hard is expected. Testing a player by hitting him hard and clean in a place he's recently been injured is expected. If you can't take that hit better get off the field.

Taking cheap shots away from the play, late and high, or banging on a guy's head in the pile after every play to induce a concussion, and being paid to do those things is completely different.

Conflating the two or pretending that Hall's comments have any relevance to what the Saints were doing is plain dishonest.

As to the original question - one of the benefits of making an example of the Saints is that Goodell's not going to have to say much of anything as it relates to comments like Hall's. The message has already been sent and I'm sure teams will be telling players to zip it when it comes to talk about injuring the other team.

 
'Amused to Death said:
I would have (still) have no problem with those quotes as long as they are not backed up with a detailed payment system financed by a twice convicted felon and have been warned for years to stop and the coaches/GM lie about it.
Why bring up the Saints' bounty system? The appropriateness of Hall's quotes should stand or fall on their own.
I'm saying where I'd draw the line. If a player is returning from injury, yes players are going to target the injury. I would hope quotes like that wouldn't draw a fine.I brought up the Saints because that is front and center in the NFL's increasing emphasis on player safety.
 
The NFL didn't stand for this stuff 20 years ago. Remember the guy with opponents jersey numbers on his towel?

Some of these NFL players are suffering from the same syndrome many Facebook users do. They like to hear themselves talk, and are missing the switch which tells them whether or not something is appropriate to talk about in public. Of course guys will try to hit the QB on his flak jacket if he's got sore ribs. But to yammer on about it in public?

 
If a player is returning from injury, yes players are going to target the injury. I would hope quotes like that wouldn't draw a fine.
If they did, would you feel like the league was crossing a line? Could you buy the argument that "protecting player safety" gives the league the duty to come down on quotes like Halls?
I brought up the Saints because that is front and center in the NFL's increasing emphasis on player safety.
Gotcha.
 
The NFL didn't stand for this stuff 20 years ago. Remember the guy with opponents jersey numbers on his towel?
Yep, Charles Martin (about :45 in). Consider, though, that he was suspended two games for ending Jim McMahon's season. Gotta think Goodell cuts Charles Martin off for a full season going by 2012 sensibilities.
 
If a player is returning from injury, yes players are going to target the injury. I would hope quotes like that wouldn't draw a fine.
If they did, would you feel like the league was crossing a line? Could you buy the argument that "protecting player safety" gives the league the duty to come down on quotes like Halls?
Per our commissioner's typical M.O., (1) there will first be some kind of league-wide memo. (2) Then there will be a private warning if someone ignores it. (3) Anyone spouting off in James Harrison-like irreverence to Saint Roger will cause the hammer to drop in all its Goodell-ian glory.My guess is it doesn't get too far past step 2. The Saints penalties are going to be enough to scare anyone but the most arrogant/stupid into silence. I doubt comments like Hall's will get much more than Goodell sending something to Deangelo telling him to shut it.As for whether I buy it... I think the media will buy it, and I think the NFLPA will buy it. Probably all that matters.
 
If a player is returning from injury, yes players are going to target the injury. I would hope quotes like that wouldn't draw a fine.
If they did, would you feel like the league was crossing a line? Could you buy the argument that "protecting player safety" gives the league the duty to come down on quotes like Halls?
Per our commissioner's typical M.O., (1) there will first be some kind of league-wide memo. (2) Then there will be a private warning if someone ignores it. (3) Anyone spouting off in James Harrison-like irreverence to Saint Roger will cause the hammer to drop in all its Goodell-ian glory.My guess is it doesn't get too far past step 2. The Saints penalties are going to be enough to scare anyone but the most arrogant/stupid into silence. I doubt comments like Hall's will get much more than Goodell sending something to Deangelo telling him to shut it.As for whether I buy it... I think the media will buy it, and I think the NFLPA will buy it. Probably all that matters.
Rightly or wrongly, the media buying it will be the only decision point for Goodell.The real test to this particular question would come if a player does indicate they want to harm an opposing player and then actually follows through on it and causes an injury to their target.The size and tone of the media coverage in that situation would determine Roger's course of action as it does in every instance.
 
I think a player coming out and saying they tried to injure someone else should be punished, yes. I think evidence a player was trying to injure someone, or that a team is advocating injuring players, should be punished. And an admission is about as solid of evidence as you can hope for.

Whether the NFL will, I don't know. I suspect they probably will, but then I'd have thought they'd have done something even before Bountygate, and they didn't.

 
I think a player coming out and saying they tried to injure someone else should be punished, yes. I think evidence a player was trying to injure someone, or that a team is advocating injuring players, should be punished. And an admission is about as solid of evidence as you can hope for.
The case in the OP is a little different. It's nt a current quote, but a quote from last September, and Hall said it before their game against the Cowboys, not after.
 
I think a player coming out and saying they tried to injure someone else should be punished, yes. I think evidence a player was trying to injure someone, or that a team is advocating injuring players, should be punished. And an admission is about as solid of evidence as you can hope for.
The case in the OP is a little different. It's nt a current quote, but a quote from last September, and Hall said it before their game against the Cowboys, not after.
I don't think he's advocating trying to injure them, I think he's saying he wants to make them hurt. I don't think that should be punished.I didn't at first interpret Greg Williams initial statements in the recording about Frank Gore as advocating injuring him. I thought it was odd wording, but I didn't assume it was any more literal than "get out there and tear their heads off!" is. At least not until he continued on and was naming each body part or specific injury to try to inflict on specific players. At which point the Gore comments took on a different meaning.

Same with Hall. I don't interpret what he said to be an intent to injure. Now if he goes out there and blatantly spears Romo in the ribs, then his words would taken on a different meaning to me. And I'd see him being much more deserving of punishment with the statement and action taken together.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If a player is returning from injury, yes players are going to target the injury. I would hope quotes like that wouldn't draw a fine.
If they did, would you feel like the league was crossing a line? Could you buy the argument that "protecting player safety" gives the league the duty to come down on quotes like Halls?
For me Doug, I think it's all about covering their legal exposure. When a player is suing the league for allowing a culture to exist where this kind of thing was ok, if I'm the attorney for the plaintiff, I say, "Look at this guy talking about hurting this player. This is a league that controls everything that gets out and they were apparently fine with him saying this stuff. They must be endorsing this type of thing".If Goodell brings the hammer down on this type of talk, he says in court, "Of course we try to do everything we possibly can to create a culture of player safety. This guy talked about injuring another player and we absolutely don't put up with that and fined him $XXXXXXX" It's how the world works today.J
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top