Saints being investigated for putting bounties on players (2 Viewers)

[cobalt_27]

That practical situation aside even, if the report is accurate that Vilma offered a $10k bounty on Favre's head, it pretty much makes moot the rest of the questions raised.

How so?It was clearly in the Saints' best interests to try and knock Favre out of the game. I know many here will find that distasteful - if so I suggest those people watch some other sport - but it is a pretty universally accepted idea.So why is saying "I'll give $10,000 anybody who knocks Favre out of the game" suddenly so reprehensible?The Saints tried to cover it up and for that they will be deservedly punished, I just don't get the outrage over all this when it's been obvious for years that every defense wants to knock the other team's best players out of the game. It's not just part of the sport, it's an integral part.

Wow. Clearly makes sense everything you've said up to this point now. Such an unhealthy perspective, probably just best to leave you to yourself to figure this one out on your own.

 

[fatness]

London Fletcher was on NFL Network yesterday and said that he's known Gregg Williams for 10+ years, playing for him in Buffalo (where Gregg was head coach) and Washington (as DC), and he said that at no point in his time were there bounty programs. He said there was player-led incentive pools that paid cash for big plays of all sorts, but never bounties that encouraged illegal hits or injuries and the like.

I like London Fletcher a lot. But one thing you have to know about him is that he always defends the coaches and front office. Always.

 

[fatness]

Only its players on other teams and former coaches that have been quoted saying that they had similar systems and that "everyone does it".

That sounds convincing but you bog down when you have to post specifics. Most of what's been said by former players and former coaches is "they're not the only team that does it" which gets repeated by other talking heads and posters, as if repeating it makes it more true.Which coaching staff admitted doing it? Which teams are being investigated by the NFL for it? So far, one Gregg Williams team has been investigated and will be sanctioned, another Gregg Williams team is going to be investigated for the same thing (Redskins), and a third Gregg Williams team might be investigated (Bills).

Link

Billick says there is a defensive mentality to go after players and knock them out of the game. Billick says every team does things like bounties in their locker room. They just should never talk about it publicly. Billick thought that's where the mistake was.

Dan asked Billick how he would have dealt with Terrell Suggs' comments about the Ravens going after Hines Ward and Rashard Mendenhall. Billick said he would have sat him down --- as he had done when he was his coach -- and asked him what he was trying to achieve by talking publicly about that kind of stuff.

So Billick did not say the Ravens had a bounty program. Thanks for supporting my point. So fat this is a Gregg Williams thing, and people saying everyone does it are looking short on details.

 

[ScottyFargo]

I thought Gregg Easterbrook had an interesting editorial about all this. I don't agree with everything, but it's hard to argue with a lot of his points, especially about the trickle down to high school football (which is something he often talks about).

Easterbook on "Sinnergate"

That seems to be a good summary of the media's take on this--it's all about the Vikings NFC championship game. The author wrote at the time that a couple of the hits could have drawn a flag, but didn't. Now he's saying it's 4 hits. That sounds like revisionist history to me. He fails to point out that:

-Favre finished the game. If the Saints' objective to injure Favre at all costs through legal or illegal means, they failed miserably.

-Through the Saints playoff run that year they averaged a mere 6 penalties per game.

-In 54 games during that era, only 18 opponents were injured according to the WSJ. I don't know, but 1 injured opponent per every 3 games sounds pretty tame by NFL standards.

There's a bigger picture here, but that would make these journalists have to do more work than watch and report on a single game.

No, they did not "fail miserably" at the objective to injure Favre. The damage was cumulative and ultimately led to the damning interception on 3rd and short while trying to run out the clock.

They probably could have drawn another flag for the most brutal hit of the game - when McCray hit him low and defensive tackle Remi Ayodele hit him high, leading to the ankle injury and an interception by linebacker Jonathan Vilma.

Hobbled, Favre returned to the game, but he was clearly affected and later threw another costly interception to cornerback Tracy Porter late in the fourth quarter.

Could not have been more successful. And lest you think the quote is cherrypicking or is revisionist history, it was from 2010.

http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/2010/08/new_orleans_saints_unmoved_by.html

 

[GregR]

From what I heard on Mike and Mike this morning, Gdodell will be the judge and the jury on this thing, meaning that he'll be the one to set the penalty, and he'll be the one to overhear any appeal that the players or coaches might have.

I thought under the new CBA that he wasnt able to be the judge and jury anymore?

According to ESPN:

The players' union has not seen a full report of the investigation, so it can't be certain if Goodell will levy punishment under the on-field discipline or the personal conduct policy. There's a major distinction, because players can appeal on-field punishment to independent arbitrators Art Shell and Ted Cottrell. Appeals under the personal conduct policy are heard by Goodell and other league officials.

 

[Luke Skywalker]

That practical situation aside even, if the report is accurate that Vilma offered a $10k bounty on Favre's head, it pretty much makes moot the rest of the questions raised.

How so?It was clearly in the Saints' best interests to try and knock Favre out of the game. I know many here will find that distasteful - if so I suggest those people watch some other sport - but it is a pretty universally accepted idea.So why is saying "I'll give $10,000 anybody who knocks Favre out of the game" suddenly so reprehensible?The Saints tried to cover it up and for that they will be deservedly punished, I just don't get the outrage over all this when it's been obvious for years that every defense wants to knock the other team's best players out of the game. It's not just part of the sport, it's an integral part.

Wow. Clearly makes sense everything you've said up to this point now. Such an unhealthy perspective, probably just best to leave you to yourself to figure this one out on your own.

Please cease with the personal remarks. I've asked you at least twice now.

 

[Luke Skywalker]

That practical situation aside even, if the report is accurate that Vilma offered a $10k bounty on Favre's head, it pretty much makes moot the rest of the questions raised.

How so?It was clearly in the Saints' best interests to try and knock Favre out of the game. I know many here will find that distasteful - if so I suggest those people watch some other sport - but it is a pretty universally accepted idea.So why is saying "I'll give $10,000 anybody who knocks Favre out of the game" suddenly so reprehensible?

Because you can't just pay someone to injure your competitor just because it's in your best interests. It's a violation of NFL rules and the law. It should not be and does not need to be an integral part of the sport.

I think it's hopeless Cal. The dark side I sense in this one.

Not at all. I am simply offered my perspective based on 25+ years of playing and covering the game as a reporter. I am not attempting to assign a morality judgement; it's simply the way things work.

 

[Hov34]

That practical situation aside even, if the report is accurate that Vilma offered a $10k bounty on Favre's head, it pretty much makes moot the rest of the questions raised.

How so?It was clearly in the Saints' best interests to try and knock Favre out of the game. I know many here will find that distasteful - if so I suggest those people watch some other sport - but it is a pretty universally accepted idea.So why is saying "I'll give $10,000 anybody who knocks Favre out of the game" suddenly so reprehensible?The Saints tried to cover it up and for that they will be deservedly punished, I just don't get the outrage over all this when it's been obvious for years that every defense wants to knock the other team's best players out of the game. It's not just part of the sport, it's an integral part.

Wow. Clearly makes sense everything you've said up to this point now. Such an unhealthy perspective, probably just best to leave you to yourself to figure this one out on your own.

Please cease with the personal remarks. I've asked you at least twice now.

 

[Luke Skywalker]

The media has been pretty adamant that the Saints were on an "injure at all costs" mission--I've heard that they targeted ACLs, for instance, but I haven't seen any evidence of such hits beyond media supposition.

You have many tremenous points; unfortunately, it seems, they are falling on deaf ears. Apparently a lot of people would rather have their perspectives spoon-fed to them by a sensationalistic media than, you know, actually do any thinking for themselves.With that, I think I'm done posting in this thread.

 

[Luke Skywalker]

Cobalt has attempted to bait several Saints fans with his strawman comments since this got blown up. He clearly has a personal agenda and and is being nothing less than a troll.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Not at all. I am simply offered my perspective based on 25+ years of playing and covering the game as a reporter. I am not attempting to assign a morality judgement; it's simply the way things work.

It's the way things used to work.All the blah blah blah about the Vikings or the nuance of who pays the money or 'they did it too' is missing the point.

Goodell's going to squash the #### out of the Saints and it will be gone from the game. Or maybe not. But if not it won't be for lack of understanding that the NFL's not going to put up with it going forward.

 

[Luke Skywalker]

Not at all. I am simply offered my perspective based on 25+ years of playing and covering the game as a reporter. I am not attempting to assign a morality judgement; it's simply the way things work.

It's the way things used to work.All the blah blah blah about the Vikings or the nuance of who pays the money or 'they did it too' is missing the point.

Goodell's going to squash the #### out of the Saints and it will be gone from the game. Or maybe not. But if not it won't be for lack of understanding that the NFL's not going to put up with it going forward.

I agree with everything you said. I just think Goodell is more worried about public perception than actually eliminating the practice. I'm also not sure scapegoating the Saints is going to accomplish his goals. IMO.With that I really need to stop posting on this thread because it seems like nobody from either side cares to hear the other side's perspective, so this is all pretty pointless.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Sam Farmer talked with John Madden (who is the NFL's Safety Czar) and Madden told him that Goodell assured him that once this is done, bounties will never be a problem in the NFL again.

That tells me the Saints and everyone involved are about to get blown up with extremely severe penalties. Won't surprise me at all at this point if Gregg Williams is given a lifetime ban and Loomis is given some kind of unprecedented penalty.

 

[mphtrilogy]

yep this is a perception issue and a Multi-Billion dollar business.

someone will have to be sacrificed... and that will be Greg Williams

Lifetime ban is looking strong

I think the NFL wanted Benson to react more strongly and fire his GM at the least and fine his own coach... but now the NFL will take the Hammer to Benson as well.

I dont think I ever heard the Morts and Schefters of the world say Severe more often than they have in this case...

Benson should have fired his GM and it might have saved him a few million..., like Vick, he seems not to be remorseful..

and Payton is the wild card... could get a year himself, although I think it will be 8 games... and some cash..

6 picks.. 3 this year and 3 next year..

and no Ricky Willaims for them

doh!

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I just think Goodell is more worried about public perception than actually eliminating the practice.

I don't know how concerned Goodell really is about the players' safety. Only he knows that.But the concussion and player safety issue is one that threatens the long-term financial future of NFL. The lawsuits already in the pipeline are potentially very damaging. And I'm 100% sure Goodell really cares about heading off future claims based on instances where teams are explicitly encouraging players to inflict injury.

This stuff is going to be gone from the game forever very quickly now.

 

[pollardsvision]

The media has been pretty adamant that the Saints were on an "injure at all costs" mission--I've heard that they targeted ACLs, for instance, but I haven't seen any evidence of such hits beyond media supposition.

You have many tremenous points; unfortunately, it seems, they are falling on deaf ears. Apparently a lot of people would rather have their perspectives spoon-fed to them by a sensationalistic media than, you know, actually do any thinking for themselves.With that, I think I'm done posting in this thread.

I personally agree with many of your points. I'm not concerned what the intent is, if the execution is clean.For the NFL, though, it doesn't matter, they must drop the hammer on those involved.The media certainly plays a big factor, as you guys mention.NFL fans like to eat the meat, but nobody wants to visit a slaugherhouse, so to speak. The media sensationalizes things that don't play well with the general public.How many defensive players actually tell the QB about their intent to injure them? I'm assuming a ton of them. That's part of the game. The general public really doesn't want to know about it (except for old school fans watching it on NFL Films).Part of the "problem" is also the growing popularity.More and more, the NFL is expanding to non-traditional football fans. Any entertainment entity that outgrows it's core fanbase has to start watering down the product for mass consumption. I believe the music folk call it "selling out".

 

[Bigboy10182000]

The people who think this will never happen again need to have their heads checked. Yes, punishment will be severe but it won't stop.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Does anyone think that this could impact Brees? He's already steaming mad about getting the franchise tag and has said he absolutely won't sign it. If the franchise gets huge penalties, will Brees decide that he is going to force his way out so he doesn't go down with the ship? As a guy that made himself the face of the union during the lockout, could that mean Brees will want to distance himself from his teammates trying to intentionally injure other union members?

If the Saints get hammered by the league and it causes Brees to do everything in his power to get out of NO, that would be the ultimate disaster. They'd be right back to being the Aints.

 

[Amused to Death]

The media has been pretty adamant that the Saints were on an "injure at all costs" mission--I've heard that they targeted ACLs, for instance, but I haven't seen any evidence of such hits beyond media supposition.

You have many tremenous points; unfortunately, it seems, they are falling on deaf ears. Apparently a lot of people would rather have their perspectives spoon-fed to them by a sensationalistic media than, you know, actually do any thinking for themselves.With that, I think I'm done posting in this thread.

Wow, did a sensationalistic media amass 18,000 documents and over 50,000 pages during their investigation? Did a sensationalistic media lie to the NFL? Just curious.

 

[David Yudkin]

yep this is a perception issue and a Multi-Billion dollar business.

someone will have to be sacrificed... and that will be Greg Williams

Lifetime ban is looking strong

I think the NFL wanted Benson to react more strongly and fire his GM at the least and fine his own coach... but now the NFL will take the Hammer to Benson as well.

I dont think I ever heard the Morts and Schefters of the world say Severe more often than they have in this case...

Benson should have fired his GM and it might have saved him a few million..., like Vick, he seems not to be remorseful..

and Payton is the wild card... could get a year himself, although I think it will be 8 games... and some cash..

6 picks.. 3 this year and 3 next year..

and no Ricky Willaims for them

doh!

I think the outcome of this will be far less severe than outlined here with an outline for severe penalties in the future. Basically, if this happens again teams are going to get reamed. But since there was no definition as to what the punishment would be for such situations, the penalty phase will be lighter.I still say a huge fine (maybe given direct to the player's health and benefits veteran's fund), a loss of a first round pick (or a second this year and next), Peyton suspended for a few games, and Williams becomes the fall guy (8 games).

 

[Hov34]

Does anyone think that this could impact Brees? He's already steaming mad about getting the franchise tag and has said he absolutely won't sign it. If the franchise gets huge penalties, will Brees decide that he is going to force his way out so he doesn't go down with the ship? As a guy that made himself the face of the union during the lockout, could that mean Brees will want to distance himself from his teammates trying to intentionally injure other union members?If the Saints get hammered by the league and it causes Brees to do everything in his power to get out of NO, that would be the ultimate disaster. They'd be right back to being the Aints.

The Saints should have to send Brees and Nicks to the Vikings as retribution - and pay their salaries.Oh, and Greg Williams should have to suit up, play WR and go across the middle against the Steelers. Too far?

 

[guderian]

The media has been pretty adamant that the Saints were on an "injure at all costs" mission--I've heard that they targeted ACLs, for instance, but I haven't seen any evidence of such hits beyond media supposition.

You have many tremenous points; unfortunately, it seems, they are falling on deaf ears. Apparently a lot of people would rather have their perspectives spoon-fed to them by a sensationalistic media than, you know, actually do any thinking for themselves.With that, I think I'm done posting in this thread.

It's like Katrina, the media has a narrative and they never let the facts get in the way of a good story. They just keep reporting each other's reports until they become 'fact' and a single instance becomes the norm and they form people's opinions for them.

 

[CalBear]

It's like Katrina, the media has a narrative and they never let the facts get in the way of a good story. They just keep reporting each other's reports until they become 'fact' and a single instance becomes the norm and they form people's opinions for them.

Hey, I didn't know former FEMA director Michael Brown was on the board, good to have your here. You might want to read the 218-page DHS report on how badly you screwed up the response to Katrina.

 

[Tau837]

Apparently a lot of people would rather have their perspectives spoon-fed to them by a sensationalistic media than, you know, actually do any thinking for themselves.

So those who disagree with you can't think for themselves. Got it.

 

[gianmarco]

Does anyone think that this could impact Brees? He's already steaming mad about getting the franchise tag and has said he absolutely won't sign it. If the franchise gets huge penalties, will Brees decide that he is going to force his way out so he doesn't go down with the ship? As a guy that made himself the face of the union during the lockout, could that mean Brees will want to distance himself from his teammates trying to intentionally injure other union members?If the Saints get hammered by the league and it causes Brees to do everything in his power to get out of NO, that would be the ultimate disaster. They'd be right back to being the Aints.

Just pointing out that a local reporter for the Saints during an interview last night stated that Brees was far from "livid" and said his understanding was that Brees understands the nature of the business and why the franchise tag was applied.

 

[netnalp]

Sam Farmer talked with John Madden (who is the NFL's Safety Czar) and Madden told him that Goodell assured him that once this is done, bounties will never be a problem in the NFL again.That tells me the Saints and everyone involved are about to get blown up with extremely severe penalties. Won't surprise me at all at this point if Gregg Williams is given a lifetime ban and Loomis is given some kind of unprecedented penalty.

I agree. I think Goodell is bothered that the Saints continued the practice when they were told to stop. It looks like the penalty the Pats got wasn't severe enough for teams to take the league office seriously. Goodell can't go light on the Saints because it will make his authority look weak.

 

[psychobillies]

Without reading through this entire thread, I'm assuming Buffalo and Washington, at least, will get the same penalty as the Saints right? Also, probably all of these other teams whose players have admitted to the same thing, like the Steelers. I understand that the league has to be tough here, but no way it's just the Saints is it?

 

[psychobillies]

Also, if Goodell knew this was going on for two years, and is just now getting around to it, how is that different than Payton and Loomis?

 

[RUSF18]

Without reading through this entire thread, I'm assuming Buffalo and Washington, at least, will get the same penalty as the Saints right? Also, probably all of these other teams whose players have admitted to the same thing, like the Steelers. I understand that the league has to be tough here, but no way it's just the Saints is it?

Maybe you should read through the entire thread.

 

[netnalp]

Also, if Goodell knew this was going on for two years, and is just now getting around to it, how is that different than Payton and Loomis?

Because the Saints said they would end the practice when the league office told them to stop. Then continued to do what they were told not to.I think that's why the punishment will be tough. The teams don't take the league office seriously.

 

[GregR]

yep this is a perception issue and a Multi-Billion dollar business.

someone will have to be sacrificed... and that will be Greg Williams

Lifetime ban is looking strong

I think the NFL wanted Benson to react more strongly and fire his GM at the least and fine his own coach... but now the NFL will take the Hammer to Benson as well.

I dont think I ever heard the Morts and Schefters of the world say Severe more often than they have in this case...

Benson should have fired his GM and it might have saved him a few million..., like Vick, he seems not to be remorseful..

and Payton is the wild card... could get a year himself, although I think it will be 8 games... and some cash..

6 picks.. 3 this year and 3 next year..

and no Ricky Willaims for them

doh!

I was thinking about Benson's (lack of) actions last night. I think if I were Benson I might have already announced a suspension of the staff members involved, in addition to anything that the NFL levels. It might help lessen what would be done to the team and players, and it is even conceivable it could lessen what Loomis and Payton will get if the team shows they are setting their ship to order. Though I wouldn't bet on the latter point. But more than any of that, I think it's probably just the right thing to do. Unless Benson was aware the whole time in which case I can see not doing it as it would be kind of two-faced.Also, I'll be really surprised if there is a lifetime suspension of Williams. I think the 6-8 game range is much more likely.

 

[siffoin]

yep this is a perception issue and a Multi-Billion dollar business.

someone will have to be sacrificed... and that will be Greg Williams

Lifetime ban is looking strong

I think the NFL wanted Benson to react more strongly and fire his GM at the least and fine his own coach... but now the NFL will take the Hammer to Benson as well.

I dont think I ever heard the Morts and Schefters of the world say Severe more often than they have in this case...

Benson should have fired his GM and it might have saved him a few million..., like Vick, he seems not to be remorseful..

and Payton is the wild card... could get a year himself, although I think it will be 8 games... and some cash..

6 picks.. 3 this year and 3 next year..

and no Ricky Willaims for them

doh!

I think the outcome of this will be far less severe than outlined here with an outline for severe penalties in the future. Basically, if this happens again teams are going to get reamed. But since there was no definition as to what the punishment would be for such situations, the penalty phase will be lighter.I still say a huge fine (maybe given direct to the player's health and benefits veteran's fund), a loss of a first round pick (or a second this year and next), Peyton suspended for a few games, and Williams becomes the fall guy (8 games).

It seems unfair to me to lose out on draft picks specifically because it also means one less college player will get drafted -the loss of an opportunity for some college player (who had nothing to do with the Saint's organizational bounty program) to have an NFL career.Fines to me are meaningless too. So what if Payton gets fined $1m. He'll make that up in community benefits...free meals, local commercials all on the "hush-hush"...I'm sure if the guy wants to take a vacation to Hawaii in the off-season he flies private jet and stays in someones house all on a "boosters" dime. 1%'s don't care about fines.

Better would be to reduce the Saints cap space...a hit at an average cost of a few 1st rounders over a couple of years for example. Have N.O. lose the privilege of hosting the Superbowl for 10+ years. Now instead of being "celebrated" and "comped" every time they walk in a restaurant...perhaps Payton et al get some grief about losing all that local revenue from a superbowl week.

For Williams...I'd think his punishment should really be up to the Rams. I mean if they're going to let him go due to a lengthy suspension...why not ban him for years or even for life. Again, no matter what the Rams are going get punished for the Saints sins. That just doesn't seem fair.

 

[pollardsvision]

Without reading through this entire thread, I'm assuming Buffalo and Washington, at least, will get the same penalty as the Saints right? Also, probably all of these other teams whose players have admitted to the same thing, like the Steelers. I understand that the league has to be tough here, but no way it's just the Saints is it?

Sorry, GB.Sometimes in life, you just gotta bend over and grab your ankles. Maybe everyone does it, but the Saints brought this on themselves and have to take the fall.I'd make sure and really enjoy this final year of Drew Brees and really take the time to reflect on the great memories of the past few years. You'll need them.Not every franchise gets a run like that.

 

[GroveDiesel]

yep this is a perception issue and a Multi-Billion dollar business.

someone will have to be sacrificed... and that will be Greg Williams

Lifetime ban is looking strong

I think the NFL wanted Benson to react more strongly and fire his GM at the least and fine his own coach... but now the NFL will take the Hammer to Benson as well.

I dont think I ever heard the Morts and Schefters of the world say Severe more often than they have in this case...

Benson should have fired his GM and it might have saved him a few million..., like Vick, he seems not to be remorseful..

and Payton is the wild card... could get a year himself, although I think it will be 8 games... and some cash..

6 picks.. 3 this year and 3 next year..

and no Ricky Willaims for them

doh!

I think the outcome of this will be far less severe than outlined here with an outline for severe penalties in the future. Basically, if this happens again teams are going to get reamed. But since there was no definition as to what the punishment would be for such situations, the penalty phase will be lighter.I still say a huge fine (maybe given direct to the player's health and benefits veteran's fund), a loss of a first round pick (or a second this year and next), Peyton suspended for a few games, and Williams becomes the fall guy (8 games).

It seems unfair to me to lose out on draft picks specifically because it also means one less college player will get drafted -the loss of an opportunity for some college player (who had nothing to do with the Saint's organizational bounty program) to have an NFL career.Fines to me are meaningless too. So what if Payton gets fined $1m. He'll make that up in community benefits...free meals, local commercials all on the "hush-hush"...I'm sure if the guy wants to take a vacation to Hawaii in the off-season he flies private jet and stays in someones house all on a "boosters" dime. 1%'s don't care about fines.

Better would be to reduce the Saints cap space...a hit at an average cost of a few 1st rounders over a couple of years for example. Have N.O. lose the privilege of hosting the Superbowl for 10+ years. Now instead of being "celebrated" and "comped" every time they walk in a restaurant...perhaps Payton et al get some grief about losing all that local revenue from a superbowl week.

For Williams...I'd think his punishment should really be up to the Rams. I mean if they're going to let him go due to a lengthy suspension...why not ban him for years or even for life. Again, no matter what the Rams are going get punished for the Saints sins. That just doesn't seem fair.

Why would a player lose out on his career just because the Saints can't draft him? There would still be the exact same number of roster spots in the NFL. You'd just have the guy that otherwise would have been the last pick in the draft end up being the first guy signed as an undrafted free agent.And your proposed punishment ends up doing exactly what you were trying to avoid. By reducing the Saints cap space, players really will lose out on money. Which means that some guy that would have been able to sign for above the NFL minimum will have to sign for the minimum instead. Because they can't just void or reduce the contracts of the guys already there who were responsible. Plus, the NFL can't reduce their cap number anyway since it would be complete violation of the CBA. They have no right to reduce the pool of money to the players.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

I'll be really surprised if there is a lifetime suspension of Williams. I think the 6-8 game range is much more likely.

Can you explain your thoughts as to why 6-8 weeks and not a lifetime ban? Not that I'm arguing with you, but I'd vote for a lifetime ban only because the acts committed were so egregious, so indefensible, there really is no way to explain this in any way that the league would want anything to do with GW again. In Mike Vick's case, he at least went to prison and served his time. But for GW to be able to have the same sphere of influence over players is a situation that will require constant policing over him going forward, and who exactly is going to keep him in check? Better imo to send a message to the league and slit the throat of the sacrifical lamb for all to see. Wash their hands of GW and make an example of him. It's not fair, but it's probably the most pragmatic solution.

 

[netnalp]

It seems unfair to me to lose out on draft picks specifically because it also means one less college player will get drafted -the loss of an opportunity for some college player (who had nothing to do with the Saint's organizational bounty program) to have an NFL career.Fines to me are meaningless too. So what if Payton gets fined $1m. He'll make that up in community benefits...free meals, local commercials all on the "hush-hush"...I'm sure if the guy wants to take a vacation to Hawaii in the off-season he flies private jet and stays in someones house all on a "boosters" dime. 1%'s don't care about fines.Better would be to reduce the Saints cap space...a hit at an average cost of a few 1st rounders over a couple of years for example. Have N.O. lose the privilege of hosting the Superbowl for 10+ years. Now instead of being "celebrated" and "comped" every time they walk in a restaurant...perhaps Payton et al get some grief about losing all that local revenue from a superbowl week. For Williams...I'd think his punishment should really be up to the Rams. I mean if they're going to let him go due to a lengthy suspension...why not ban him for years or even for life. Again, no matter what the Rams are going get punished for the Saints sins. That just doesn't seem fair.

The loss of draft picks just means who will be "Mr. Irrelevant" changes by a few players. That late in the draft, it can be said they are better off being UDFAs so they can choose amongst the teams that want them so they get the best opportunity.I think public opinion of your punishment would be that it is weak. Not hosting the SB hurts the businesses that would benefit from the event while the Saints could make up the loss in revenue by raising prices. That's punishing the public, not the Saints.

 

[David Yudkin]

I'll be really surprised if there is a lifetime suspension of Williams. I think the 6-8 game range is much more likely.

Can you explain your thoughts as to why 6-8 weeks and not a lifetime ban? Not that I'm arguing with you, but I'd vote for a lifetime ban only because the acts committed were so egregious, so indefensible, there really is no way to explain this in any way that the league would want anything to do with GW again. In Mike Vick's case, he at least went to prison and served his time. But for GW to be able to have the same sphere of influence over players is a situation that will require constant policing over him going forward, and who exactly is going to keep him in check? Better imo to send a message to the league and slit the throat of the sacrifical lamb for all to see. Wash their hands of GW and make an example of him. It's not fair, but it's probably the most pragmatic solution.

I can't speak for Greg . . . but I concluded on my own a similar sentence, so I will answer my thoughts.The main reason would be that similar situations and the practice of incentives/bounties has been going on for years. IMO, it would be unfair to ban a guy for a somewhat common practice (albeit perhaps more severe program in NO than in other locales). Akin to giving someone the death penalty for speeding when a huge amount of people speed.I still am surprised why some people get so outraged to learn about things that are many times common practice. Football is a violent games and players are encouraged to be violent. I agree, trying to injury and maim crosses the line, but I don't think the Saints went WAY over the line.The punishment should fit the crime . . . but my fear in a severe penalty is that we may hear about all sorts of stuff going on from a lot of teams. Will they then suspend half the coaches and coordinators for things they did that did not comply with the league rules?The NFL has done a decent job policing itself and keeping things from leaking out. I doubt they will want more dirty laundry getting aired in public.

 

[RUSF18]

I'll be really surprised if there is a lifetime suspension of Williams. I think the 6-8 game range is much more likely.

Can you explain your thoughts as to why 6-8 weeks and not a lifetime ban? Not that I'm arguing with you, but I'd vote for a lifetime ban only because the acts committed were so egregious, so indefensible, there really is no way to explain this in any way that the league would want anything to do with GW again. In Mike Vick's case, he at least went to prison and served his time. But for GW to be able to have the same sphere of influence over players is a situation that will require constant policing over him going forward, and who exactly is going to keep him in check? Better imo to send a message to the league and slit the throat of the sacrifical lamb for all to see. Wash their hands of GW and make an example of him. It's not fair, but it's probably the most pragmatic solution.

I can't speak for Greg . . . but I concluded on my own a similar sentence, so I will answer my thoughts.The main reason would be that similar situations and the practice of incentives/bounties has been going on for years. IMO, it would be unfair to ban a guy for a somewhat common practice (albeit perhaps more severe program in NO than in other locales). Akin to giving someone the death penalty for speeding when a huge amount of people speed.I still am surprised why some people get so outraged to learn about things that are many times common practice. Football is a violent games and players are encouraged to be violent. I agree, trying to injury and maim crosses the line, but I don't think the Saints went WAY over the line.The punishment should fit the crime . . . but my fear in a severe penalty is that we may hear about all sorts of stuff going on from a lot of teams. Will they then suspend half the coaches and coordinators for things they did that did not comply with the league rules?The NFL has done a decent job policing itself and keeping things from leaking out. I doubt they will want more dirty laundry getting aired in public.

Since you started going down the road...what if a $10k bounty was put on a QB, and a Saints defender ended up breaking the QBs neck, paralyzing him or killing him? What should the punishment be then?

 

[siffoin]

yep this is a perception issue and a Multi-Billion dollar business.

someone will have to be sacrificed... and that will be Greg Williams

Lifetime ban is looking strong

I think the NFL wanted Benson to react more strongly and fire his GM at the least and fine his own coach... but now the NFL will take the Hammer to Benson as well.

I dont think I ever heard the Morts and Schefters of the world say Severe more often than they have in this case...

Benson should have fired his GM and it might have saved him a few million..., like Vick, he seems not to be remorseful..

and Payton is the wild card... could get a year himself, although I think it will be 8 games... and some cash..

6 picks.. 3 this year and 3 next year..

and no Ricky Willaims for them

doh!

I think the outcome of this will be far less severe than outlined here with an outline for severe penalties in the future. Basically, if this happens again teams are going to get reamed. But since there was no definition as to what the punishment would be for such situations, the penalty phase will be lighter.I still say a huge fine (maybe given direct to the player's health and benefits veteran's fund), a loss of a first round pick (or a second this year and next), Peyton suspended for a few games, and Williams becomes the fall guy (8 games).

It seems unfair to me to lose out on draft picks specifically because it also means one less college player will get drafted -the loss of an opportunity for some college player (who had nothing to do with the Saint's organizational bounty program) to have an NFL career.Fines to me are meaningless too. So what if Payton gets fined $1m. He'll make that up in community benefits...free meals, local commercials all on the "hush-hush"...I'm sure if the guy wants to take a vacation to Hawaii in the off-season he flies private jet and stays in someones house all on a "boosters" dime. 1%'s don't care about fines.

Better would be to reduce the Saints cap space...a hit at an average cost of a few 1st rounders over a couple of years for example. Have N.O. lose the privilege of hosting the Superbowl for 10+ years. Now instead of being "celebrated" and "comped" every time they walk in a restaurant...perhaps Payton et al get some grief about losing all that local revenue from a superbowl week.

For Williams...I'd think his punishment should really be up to the Rams. I mean if they're going to let him go due to a lengthy suspension...why not ban him for years or even for life. Again, no matter what the Rams are going get punished for the Saints sins. That just doesn't seem fair.

Why would a player lose out on his career just because the Saints can't draft him? There would still be the exact same number of roster spots in the NFL. You'd just have the guy that otherwise would have been the last pick in the draft end up being the first guy signed as an undrafted free agent.And your proposed punishment ends up doing exactly what you were trying to avoid. By reducing the Saints cap space, players really will lose out on money. Which means that some guy that would have been able to sign for above the NFL minimum will have to sign for the minimum instead. Because they can't just void or reduce the contracts of the guys already there who were responsible. Plus, the NFL can't reduce their cap number anyway since it would be complete violation of the CBA. They have no right to reduce the pool of money to the players.

Yea...I guess in hindsight you make good points. Of course I recognize there would be a "first" undrafted free agent instead of being the last pick. I was thinking that would be unfair as I just figured there'd be a $ difference from last pick to first udfa...maybe $25k or so (I'm not sure) but $25k might be a pretty big deal if you were that last pick. Again once you get down to these later round picks they are mostly camp fodder and I get that. But there is something to be said for being an NFL draft "pick."As for skirting the CBA. You're correct there. I guess my point was more of a have the punishment fit the crime, and I think that will be tricky. Fines and a couple game suspension to run an organizational bounty program with possible criminal influences from people from outside the organization taking part. If that's all it is that seems pretty weak. And I can't imagine that being much of a preventative especially if it got a team a super bowl win.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

I'll be really surprised if there is a lifetime suspension of Williams. I think the 6-8 game range is much more likely.

Can you explain your thoughts as to why 6-8 weeks and not a lifetime ban? Not that I'm arguing with you, but I'd vote for a lifetime ban only because the acts committed were so egregious, so indefensible, there really is no way to explain this in any way that the league would want anything to do with GW again. In Mike Vick's case, he at least went to prison and served his time. But for GW to be able to have the same sphere of influence over players is a situation that will require constant policing over him going forward, and who exactly is going to keep him in check? Better imo to send a message to the league and slit the throat of the sacrifical lamb for all to see. Wash their hands of GW and make an example of him. It's not fair, but it's probably the most pragmatic solution.

I can't speak for Greg . . . but I concluded on my own a similar sentence, so I will answer my thoughts.The main reason would be that similar situations and the practice of incentives/bounties has been going on for years. IMO, it would be unfair to ban a guy for a somewhat common practice (albeit perhaps more severe program in NO than in other locales). Akin to giving someone the death penalty for speeding when a huge amount of people speed.I still am surprised why some people get so outraged to learn about things that are many times common practice. Football is a violent games and players are encouraged to be violent. I agree, trying to injury and maim crosses the line, but I don't think the Saints went WAY over the line.The punishment should fit the crime . . . but my fear in a severe penalty is that we may hear about all sorts of stuff going on from a lot of teams. Will they then suspend half the coaches and coordinators for things they did that did not comply with the league rules?The NFL has done a decent job policing itself and keeping things from leaking out. I doubt they will want more dirty laundry getting aired in public.

I agree with that analogy about 'death penalty for speeding', when it appears ostensively that everyone is doing it. I get that. But why did the league sit on this info 2 years to unleash it now, if it didn't have an agenda? What is the agenda? Now that this has ballooned into "bountygate" and has embossed its face to our national sports headlines day after day after day, how does the NFL find retribution commensurate with the crime? The NFL has stirred this pot, and maybe they had a hidden agenda to get back at the players union. But now that they have exposed the "dirty laundry" in your words, they don't have the luxury of putting the cork back in the bottle. This story won't conveniently go away without a resounding and detailed response from the NFL. They need to send the message or the story will never die out on its own.

 

[David Yudkin]

I'll be really surprised if there is a lifetime suspension of Williams. I think the 6-8 game range is much more likely.

Can you explain your thoughts as to why 6-8 weeks and not a lifetime ban? Not that I'm arguing with you, but I'd vote for a lifetime ban only because the acts committed were so egregious, so indefensible, there really is no way to explain this in any way that the league would want anything to do with GW again. In Mike Vick's case, he at least went to prison and served his time. But for GW to be able to have the same sphere of influence over players is a situation that will require constant policing over him going forward, and who exactly is going to keep him in check? Better imo to send a message to the league and slit the throat of the sacrifical lamb for all to see. Wash their hands of GW and make an example of him. It's not fair, but it's probably the most pragmatic solution.

I can't speak for Greg . . . but I concluded on my own a similar sentence, so I will answer my thoughts.The main reason would be that similar situations and the practice of incentives/bounties has been going on for years. IMO, it would be unfair to ban a guy for a somewhat common practice (albeit perhaps more severe program in NO than in other locales). Akin to giving someone the death penalty for speeding when a huge amount of people speed.I still am surprised why some people get so outraged to learn about things that are many times common practice. Football is a violent games and players are encouraged to be violent. I agree, trying to injury and maim crosses the line, but I don't think the Saints went WAY over the line.The punishment should fit the crime . . . but my fear in a severe penalty is that we may hear about all sorts of stuff going on from a lot of teams. Will they then suspend half the coaches and coordinators for things they did that did not comply with the league rules?The NFL has done a decent job policing itself and keeping things from leaking out. I doubt they will want more dirty laundry getting aired in public.

Since you started going down the road...what if a $10k bounty was put on a QB, and a Saints defender ended up breaking the QBs neck, paralyzing him or killing him? What should the punishment be then?

The question is who should the penalty be on? If a player did something well out of bounds and illegal (ie body slammed a QB well after a play and broke his neck), he would face severe disciplinary action for the act all its own. If there were ring leaders that put him up to it, that may be a different issue. What if the player made a perfectly legal hit and broke the player's neck? Would it make any difference if the tackler got paid $10K extra? $1 extra? Nothing extra but got to skip practice every Wednesday? None of the outcomes are good (broken neck) no matter which scenario happened. I also have no idea if games are shielded from criminal and civil laws (hockey players get charged with crimes on occasion, but I don't believe they have ever stuck and the cases haven't gone anywhere).

 

[GregR]

I agree with that analogy about 'death penalty for speeding', when it appears ostensively that everyone is doing it. I get that. But why did the league sit on this info 2 years to unleash it now, if it didn't have an agenda? What is the agenda? Now that this has ballooned into "bountygate" and has embossed its face to our national sports headlines day after day after day, how does the NFL find retribution commensurate with the crime? The NFL has stirred this pot, and maybe they had a hidden agenda to get back at the players union. But now that they have exposed the "dirty laundry" in your words, they don't have the luxury of putting the cork back in the bottle. This story won't conveniently go away without a resounding and detailed response from the NFL. They need to send the message or the story will never die out on its own.

I don't think your statement is factually correct about the NFL "sitting on this info for 2 years". They investigated it, and while they believed it was going on, they didn't have enough proof in 2010 to level punishment, so they told the Saints to stop and clean up anything of the sort.Then in 2011 someone came forward and revealed the extent of what was going on, and the NFL went back in and found the evidence. At which point they had the evidence, and so informed the rest of the clubs of their finding at which point it hit the press.If I'm the NFL, I don't see a reason I would want to take public the 2010 allegations and the investigation when there wasn't actionable proof at that time. After 2011, obviously the public is going to have to find out. It isn't like you can fine the Saints draft picks or suspend the coach without someone noticing.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

So then, boys will be boys and this kind of behavior has always been and always will be. Probably exists even now on every NFL team, every college team, every HS team to some degree for different rewards. The bounty is just another skin, a sticker on the helmet, a trophy. Money is the only thing that makes this a damnable offense, right? Why even bother punishing anyone for this then? It's a non-issue. I mean if we aren't going to be hyprocritical that is.

 

[GregR]

I'll be really surprised if there is a lifetime suspension of Williams. I think the 6-8 game range is much more likely.

Can you explain your thoughts as to why 6-8 weeks and not a lifetime ban? Not that I'm arguing with you, but I'd vote for a lifetime ban only because the acts committed were so egregious, so indefensible, there really is no way to explain this in any way that the league would want anything to do with GW again. In Mike Vick's case, he at least went to prison and served his time. But for GW to be able to have the same sphere of influence over players is a situation that will require constant policing over him going forward, and who exactly is going to keep him in check? Better imo to send a message to the league and slit the throat of the sacrifical lamb for all to see. Wash their hands of GW and make an example of him. It's not fair, but it's probably the most pragmatic solution.

I can't speak for Greg . . . but I concluded on my own a similar sentence, so I will answer my thoughts.The main reason would be that similar situations and the practice of incentives/bounties has been going on for years. IMO, it would be unfair to ban a guy for a somewhat common practice (albeit perhaps more severe program in NO than in other locales). Akin to giving someone the death penalty for speeding when a huge amount of people speed.I still am surprised why some people get so outraged to learn about things that are many times common practice. Football is a violent games and players are encouraged to be violent. I agree, trying to injury and maim crosses the line, but I don't think the Saints went WAY over the line.The punishment should fit the crime . . . but my fear in a severe penalty is that we may hear about all sorts of stuff going on from a lot of teams. Will they then suspend half the coaches and coordinators for things they did that did not comply with the league rules?The NFL has done a decent job policing itself and keeping things from leaking out. I doubt they will want more dirty laundry getting aired in public.

Since you started going down the road...what if a $10k bounty was put on a QB, and a Saints defender ended up breaking the QBs neck, paralyzing him or killing him? What should the punishment be then?

The question is who should the penalty be on? If a player did something well out of bounds and illegal (ie body slammed a QB well after a play and broke his neck), he would face severe disciplinary action for the act all its own. If there were ring leaders that put him up to it, that may be a different issue. What if the player made a perfectly legal hit and broke the player's neck? Would it make any difference if the tackler got paid $10K extra? $1 extra? Nothing extra but got to skip practice every Wednesday? None of the outcomes are good (broken neck) no matter which scenario happened. I also have no idea if games are shielded from criminal and civil laws (hockey players get charged with crimes on occasion, but I don't believe they have ever stuck and the cases haven't gone anywhere).

David's answer to the original question is much along with how I feel. Compared to past punishments handed out, I think a lifetime ban would be excessive for the first punishment he's handed, even with the second chance the Saints were given. If Williams served a suspension for this and got caught doing it yet again afterwards, then a life ban might be more appropriate.On the broken neck scenario... it's a tough situation. First I think the criminal justice system should be involved. Second, I do think there is merit, and enough precedent, for more serious punishment based on a more serious injury having happened, especially in situations that show gross misbehavior. If you kill someone while driving drunk, the penalty is a lot worse than just driving drunk.But as far as an NFL response to it, it would depend on the exact details as David points out. The more confident you are the reckless behavior occurred as an intent to injure the more confident I'd be that a harsher punishment is warranted. I could see giving Charles Martin (the guy who body slammed Jim McMahon) a year suspension. If someone paid by Greg Williams did the same I could see Williams' penalty being stiffer because we have fairly definitive proof that it did indeed lead to injuries.But what if it is something where we don't know if the tackler did anything any different because of the bounty? That's one of the issues with the Saints situation. I have no doubt some of the Saints were trying to injure Favre at least... I thought so when the game was played. I feel it's pretty certain when he was clobbered long after he'd handed off the ball it was an attempt to injure him that had little to do with football other than "win at any cost including the health of another player in ways that don't have to do with stopping the ball from being advanced on the play". Other plays in that game, viewed individually, I couldn't say whether they had extra intent to injure Favre or not, though I'd say it was a possibility. Taken in the context of just how many such plays there were including the few blatant ones, I wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt.But, I don't just write every time they hit a QB off as an attempt to injure him. Plenty of times I'm sure it was a normal football play and nothing about the bounty even entered the players mind. I do think important games and playoff games that Williams probably stressed it more and there is more likelihood intent to injure did take place there.David, in response to your statement about not being sure if games are shielded from criminal and civil laws, back when Bertuzzi slashed someone in the head with his stick, the discussion was that the courts do judge sports differently... if a scrum breaks out and a punch is thrown, you're less likely to be convicted if it happens in a football game than if it happens in a restaurant. I can't give you the exact legal definitions, but something has to go beyond the level of what is expected to happen in the sport, that I presume it is considered you consented to by playing.Despite some people's claims of universal acceptance that football players are supposed to injure each other, clearly that isn't the case as we have plenty of quotes from players, coaches, the league, etc, saying there isn't room for it in the game, that they don't accept it is, etc. Reference the Kurt Warner quotes I posted if anyone wants an example of such.

 

[psychobillies]

Without reading through this entire thread, I'm assuming Buffalo and Washington, at least, will get the same penalty as the Saints right? Also, probably all of these other teams whose players have admitted to the same thing, like the Steelers. I understand that the league has to be tough here, but no way it's just the Saints is it?

Sorry, GB.Sometimes in life, you just gotta bend over and grab your ankles. Maybe everyone does it, but the Saints brought this on themselves and have to take the fall.I'd make sure and really enjoy this final year of Drew Brees and really take the time to reflect on the great memories of the past few years. You'll need them.Not every franchise gets a run like that.

I'm pretty sure this will have zero effect on Brees's long term status here or the Saint's ability to maintain this run.

 

[GregR]

So then, boys will be boys and this kind of behavior has always been and always will be. Probably exists even now on every NFL team, every college team, every HS team to some degree for different rewards. The bounty is just another skin, a sticker on the helmet, a trophy. Money is the only thing that makes this a damnable offense, right? Why even bother punishing anyone for this then? It's a non-issue. I mean if we aren't going to be hyprocritical that is.

I'm unsure with it being text whether you are being serious or facetious. It starts out seeming serious, but then I get to "Money is the only thing that makes this a damnable offense" when we're talking about a situation of unnecessarily injuring other human beings. So I'm assuming you're being facetious?

 

[az_prof]

This story makes the point I was making: The Saints were targeting Favre in NFC Championship game and it may have cost the Vikings a shot at the SB.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/07/favre-says-ref-apologized-for-missing-saints-hit-in-nfc-championship/

 

[Gadabout]

This story makes the point I was making: The Saints were targeting Favre in NFC Championship game and it may have cost the Vikings a shot at the SB. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/07/favre-says-ref-apologized-for-missing-saints-hit-in-nfc-championship/

Shoula woulda coulda. Vikes might have won that game had Favre got knocked out.

 

[Bird]

If there were no suspensions given for Spygate then I have a hard time justifying suspensions for Bountygate. There should be hefty fines commensurate with salaries and lost draft picks but suspensions seem much less likely since the offender is a Franchise. I guess if you can determine the highest position within the Saints organization that knew of the NFL warning but did nothing to stop it then that person could be suspended but would the impact be felt on the field. If Gregg Williams had been warned at previous coaching jobs and continued the practice in NO then he could be suspended following that logic. However, if Belichick didn't get suspended for Spygate then how can Payton be suspended for this.

 

[pollardsvision]

Without reading through this entire thread, I'm assuming Buffalo and Washington, at least, will get the same penalty as the Saints right? Also, probably all of these other teams whose players have admitted to the same thing, like the Steelers. I understand that the league has to be tough here, but no way it's just the Saints is it?

Sorry, GB.Sometimes in life, you just gotta bend over and grab your ankles. Maybe everyone does it, but the Saints brought this on themselves and have to take the fall.I'd make sure and really enjoy this final year of Drew Brees and really take the time to reflect on the great memories of the past few years. You'll need them.Not every franchise gets a run like that.

I'm pretty sure this will have zero effect on Brees's long term status here or the Saint's ability to maintain this run.

I'm sorry for your loss. Denial, at this point, is perfectly natural and normal. The anger and bargaining will come soon enough.I hope you get to the hope and acceptance stage soon enough. It's not going to be an easy road though. We're here for you.