Sean Payton suspended 1 year (1 Viewer)

[Andy Dufresne]

It makes me wonder if this is a combination punishment for other infractions/issues.

From PFT, here's part of Goodell's statement:

“A combination of elements made this matter particularly unusual and egregious,” Goodell added. “When there is targeting of players for injury and cash rewards over a three-year period, the involvement of the coaching staff, and three years of denials and willful disrespect of the rules, a strong and lasting message must be sent that such conduct is totally unacceptable and has no place in the game. . . .

“Let me be clear. There is no place in the NFL for deliberately seeking to injure another player, let alone offering a reward for doing so. Any form of bounty is incompatible with our commitment to create a culture of sportsmanship, fairness, and safety. Programs of this kind have no place in our game and we are determined that bounties will no longer be a part of the NFL.”

 

[Obie Wan]

its in giant red letters on the NFL.com site

That's insane. Is this partly because of the other stuff involving prescription meds the year before?1 year for something all teams seem to take part in? Goodell must be really chomping since he had a short off season to weigh in last year.

that's what happens when you lie to the league and try to cover it up - after the league already had conducted a 3 year investigation and obtained reams of evidence contradicting their lies

 

[Johnnymac]

Lawsuits, baby, lawsuits. The NFL wants to be able to point out in court that they do not tolerate this and that they have harshly punished the evildoers. If you look down the road, with the ongoing concussion lawsuits, and the possible future injury lawsuits, they are covering their butt.

We have a winner! It's ALWAYS about the money.The suspension of payton is way overboard. Goodell needs to find another job because he sucks at this one imo.

 

[Jason Wood]

I'm not a lawyer, and I know we have plenty of them on the boards. My question...does Goodell have the authority to suspend Payton without pay like this? I could see him getting away with a suspension and fine, but does keeping the guy from earning a living (to the tune of $6 million) overstep bounds?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

yes, but wouldn't fly in the criminal justice system. ex post facto laws are unconstitutional.

Good thing for the NFL they're not the government then.

 

[David Yudkin]

I'm not a lawyer, and I know we have plenty of them on the boards. My question...does Goodell have the authority to suspend Payton without pay like this? I could see him getting away with a suspension and fine, but does keeping the guy from earning a living (to the tune of $6 million) overstep bounds?

Either way it's an excessive amount, but couldn't they just set the fine at whatever his salary was?

 

[Ministry of Pain]

its in giant red letters on the NFL.com site

That's insane. Is this partly because of the other stuff involving prescription meds the year before?1 year for something all teams seem to take part in? Goodell must be really chomping since he had a short off season to weigh in last year.

that's what happens when you lie to the league and try to cover it up - after the league already had conducted a 3 year investigation and obtained reams of evidence contradicting their lies

I honestly was not aware there was a 3 yr investigation...that makes Sabertooth's posts a lot more credible. I guess this has been going on for a while and the Saints were at the forefront. I still think in the end while it isn't very sportsmanlike, not sure it really made the Saints have a decided advantage. Should we go back and look at some of those Darren Sharper hits from the Super bowl run season?Nice post, ty

 

[GregR]

Brutal punishment. Almost as brutal as the practice of offering monetary bonuses for injuring players.

Goodell made an example of Payton, and that sucks, but this needs to be nipped in the bud. The NFL cannot give the impression that this is remotely tolerated.

By the way, for the conspiracy theorists without a shred of proof, if this had been "going on for years", and "everyone was doing it", we would have heard about it, and there would be more investigations. We haven't, there aren't, and that's because everyone is NOT doing this.

He was the coach of a team that has admitted having a team sanctioned policy of trying to injure an opponent's players. He admitted knowing about it. I can't think of a more deserving infraction for this harsh penalty. Is it harsh, yes. But IMO, totally deserved.

And I think the arguments that everyone else does it or this is much worse than what Bellicheck got for cheating are folly. What Payton and the Saints did stands alone and shouldn't be compared to what other teams or coaches have done.

I applaud Goodell for doing what needed to be done knowing full well it would outrage people. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. I have a strong feeling teams won't be doing this particular crime any more.

Problem with this is that there isn't a set punishment for the crime. This might have been a good move from a policy perspective, but from a fairness perspective its highly suspect, given what current and former players have said about bounty systems.

The precedent of punishment for a bounty system was a warning with no fines or penalties, which the Saints received in 2010 and I believe the Packers likely received back in the days when Jim McMahon was body slammed.There was no precedent for punishment for saying you'd stop and continuing to run a bounty system and getting caught a second time.

I think it's safe to assume that the Saints used up everyone's warning now, and a first offense is going to get the same punishment the Saints got for a 2nd offense.

 

[Mello]

I'm not a lawyer, and I know we have plenty of them on the boards. My question...does Goodell have the authority to suspend Payton without pay like this? I could see him getting away with a suspension and fine, but does keeping the guy from earning a living (to the tune of $6 million) overstep bounds?

I would guess it's covered under his contract. If not, since the NFL Coaches Assoc. is not a union and there's no CBA between NFL and them, I do think things could be challenged at an antitrust level. Basically claim that all 32 teams are colluding together to agree to suspend him.

 

[Todem]

...

Well it will make every team make sure this is not going on. So in that regard the message is loud and clear. There is no place in sports for this kind of crap. I still think it was excessive. I think we know Payton was just caught in a situation that was under his leadership....but he may not have known about the extent of what was going on. I don't know to be honest. Williams...a year suspension to me would have been just. A lifetime ban is very harsh.

I'd been giving Payton some benefit of the doubt early on. But IIRC, then we heard that Payton's good friend, the convicted felon who was involved in Reggie Bush's NCAA violations at USC, had funded as an outsider some of the bounties and Payton knew about it and the league had confirmation of it in Payton's emails. At that point I think he lost most of that benefit of the doubt for me.

Unfortunately it's a culture thing in the NFL. This type of culture has been in the game for so long it became the norm among players. When coaches are involved....yeah then your really getting hairy. But among players....these guys..most of them are insane when they play football. Normal off the field...but on the field? Total nut bars. They are out to hurt you and hurt you badly.

Combating that kind of win-at-any-costs culture is definitely a big part of this. During the investigation, as the league began to hear it might be more widespread and found evidence of Williams doing the same with other clubs in the past, a comment came out from a league source close to Goodell along the lines of, we realized at that point the whole culture of this needed to change. I posted the exact quote in the other thread, don't feel like digging for it right now.

And how can the league expect a full speed defensive back or LB to all of a sudden hold up on hittng a guy crossing the middle? They get paid to hit them...and hit them hard and seperate them from the ball. It's taught at the pop warner level.

But please don't say this. This is just plain incorrect and a falsehood. The rules don't require a DB or LB to hold off hitting a guy. They require he not aim for the guy's head or neck, and not lead with his helmet. Every week we see dozens of huge hits on defenseless receivers that are perfectly legal under the new rules, and the physics of the hit is just as likely to separate him from the ball... apart from not being as likely to knock him unconscious and give him a concussion.

I have seen so many clean hits over the course of last season get fines, flags etc. I think the interpretation needs to be clear and it is not. Too many times a DE's hand grazes a QB's helmet, totally incidental and not intended nor harmful and we see flags...it makes me sick. Same for the defensless WR rule. A bad throw, over throw whatever....and the guy get's laid out...because the DB launched himself....not head first or leading with the head, a clean leagal hit and the flag is thrown.

It just needs to to be interpreted more consistently across all the crews.

I am one who hates these guys leading with the helmet. It is awful. And it is not nipped in the butt ever...not at any level. So these guys think it is ok and their muscle memory takes over.

 

[GregR]

I'm not a lawyer

Seriously? I don't know why but I thought you were.

 

[Disc Shark]

its in giant red letters on the NFL.com site

That's insane. Is this partly because of the other stuff involving prescription meds the year before?1 year for something all teams seem to take part in? Goodell must be really chomping since he had a short off season to weigh in last year.

that's what happens when you lie to the league and try to cover it up - after the league already had conducted a 3 year investigation and obtained reams of evidence contradicting their lies

I honestly was not aware there was a 3 yr investigation...that makes Sabertooth's posts a lot more credible. I guess this has been going on for a while and the Saints were at the forefront. I still think in the end while it isn't very sportsmanlike, not sure it really made the Saints have a decided advantage. Should we go back and look at some of those Darren Sharper hits from the Super bowl run season?Nice post, ty

For the record, the Saints have denied that anything went on in 2010 and 2011 regular seasons. If the program continued during those periods, then the punishment has some basis in reality. But suspending an NFL head coach for a full year is ridiculous.

 

[E_Smith]

I'm not a lawyer, and I know we have plenty of them on the boards. My question...does Goodell have the authority to suspend Payton without pay like this? I could see him getting away with a suspension and fine, but does keeping the guy from earning a living (to the tune of $6 million) overstep bounds?

Assuming the owners agree to follow the punishments handed down from Goodell, then yes. In reality, they could fire him for cause, so there really isn't a legal basis to object. Unless of course he could prove he had nothing to do with the bounty system, then he might have a case.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I'm not a lawyer, and I know we have plenty of them on the boards. My question...does Goodell have the authority to suspend Payton without pay like this? I could see him getting away with a suspension and fine, but does keeping the guy from earning a living (to the tune of $6 million) overstep bounds?

04/1/2012-03/31/2013It kills 2 off seasons

 

[guderian]

not sure it really made the Saints have a decided advantage. Should we go back and look at some of those Darren Sharper hits from the Super bowl run season?Nice post, ty

The Wall Street Journal went back and looked at the Saints game film over a 54-game span and only found 18 injuries that the Saints were involved in (i.e. excluding guys pulling up lame with a hamstring injury). One injury every 3 games hardly seems like a notable difference from any other NFL team. That's where the NFL's sanctimony on this issue is completely hypocritical--there was no noticeable on-field impact associated with this--it's purely retroactively covering their ### for lawsuits.

 

[guderian]

It's way overboard, but I think that was intended. One of the biggest threats to the game as a whole is the concussions/head trauma angle that keeps coming up and bounty programs just encourage more of those type of injuries (not to mention other injuries that could impact the NFL product negatively). Goodell couldn't tolerate it and the punishment had to be so over the top that it got the attention of any other teams that might doing something similar, especially if it was as widespread as all the fans seem to think it was. There's no doubt that this will not be tolerated by anyone in the future and everyone is on notice about how the NFL feels about this, nobody wants to test how much more over the top Goodell will go against a team that does this in the future. So I guess I think it's excessively punishing the organization, but I can see why the NFL would handle it that way.

I don't think its overboard at all. Here you had coaches that were actively seeking to undermine the competitive balance of the league. This bounty program goes against the very fabric of competitive sport. I'm glad Goodell did it.

How does this undermine the "competitive balance" of the league? Aren't there a bunch of guys in stripped shirts who are supposed to uniformly enforce the rules on the field???

 

[Disc Shark]

not sure it really made the Saints have a decided advantage. Should we go back and look at some of those Darren Sharper hits from the Super bowl run season?Nice post, ty

The Wall Street Journal went back and looked at the Saints game film over a 54-game span and only found 18 injuries that the Saints were involved in (i.e. excluding guys pulling up lame with a hamstring injury). One injury every 3 games hardly seems like a notable difference from any other NFL team. That's where the NFL's sanctimony on this issue is completely hypocritical--there was no noticeable on-field impact associated with this.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

not sure it really made the Saints have a decided advantage. Should we go back and look at some of those Darren Sharper hits from the Super bowl run season?

Nice post, ty

The Wall Street Journal went back and looked at the Saints game film over a 54-game span and only found 18 injuries that the Saints were involved in (i.e. excluding guys pulling up lame with a hamstring injury). One injury every 3 games hardly seems like a notable difference from any other NFL team. That's where the NFL's sanctimony on this issue is completely hypocritical--there was no noticeable on-field impact associated with this.

But that's not really what it's about, is it? It's about intent to injure more than it's about successfully injuring, right?

 

[Disc Shark]

not sure it really made the Saints have a decided advantage. Should we go back and look at some of those Darren Sharper hits from the Super bowl run season?

Nice post, ty

The Wall Street Journal went back and looked at the Saints game film over a 54-game span and only found 18 injuries that the Saints were involved in (i.e. excluding guys pulling up lame with a hamstring injury). One injury every 3 games hardly seems like a notable difference from any other NFL team. That's where the NFL's sanctimony on this issue is completely hypocritical--there was no noticeable on-field impact associated with this.

But that's not really what it's about, is it? It's about intent to injure more than it's about successfully injuring, right?

I've heard interviews with former players who have stated that they INTENDED to injure their opponents in EVERY game. To say otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of football.

 

[DiStefano]

not sure it really made the Saints have a decided advantage. Should we go back and look at some of those Darren Sharper hits from the Super bowl run season?Nice post, ty

The Wall Street Journal went back and looked at the Saints game film over a 54-game span and only found 18 injuries that the Saints were involved in (i.e. excluding guys pulling up lame with a hamstring injury). One injury every 3 games hardly seems like a notable difference from any other NFL team. That's where the NFL's sanctimony on this issue is completely hypocritical--there was no noticeable on-field impact associated with this--it's purely retroactively covering their ### for lawsuits.

Of course. That's the way the tort crumbles. They are in the business of making money.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I'm not a lawyer, and I know we have plenty of them on the boards. My question...does Goodell have the authority to suspend Payton without pay like this? I could see him getting away with a suspension and fine, but does keeping the guy from earning a living (to the tune of $6 million) overstep bounds?

He is not keeping him from earning a living. Payton can go work anywhere else he wants in the next year. No one is stopping him from earning a living elsewhere.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

But that's not really what it's about, is it?

It's about intent to injure more than it's about successfully injuring, right?

I've heard interviews with former players who have stated that they INTENDED to injure their opponents in EVERY game. To say otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of football.

Well that nature's about to change.

 

[Sabertooth]

I've lost a lot of respect for Payton. I used to feel he was a great motivator and a great coach. Seemed like a really good guy. Turns out he's just a pig.

He is and a his ability to bring a Lombardi Trophy home to a city that had been thru so much with Katrina, very little expectations but they won the Super Bowl. Payton is a great coach, just got caught up in a bad situation. Maybe he should have put a stop to it...maybe. Just out of curiosity as we go along with this...any chance Joe Paterno turning a blind eye in many folks eyes...any chance that event might have led Goodell to wanting to make sure coaches do not turn a blind eye to certain things on their football team or programs? I'm reaching here, I know but it just seems so excessive. i don't think he deserved a year off...we have seen far worse in the NFL.

When you lie and cheat to do it, I can't give respect for that. He's shamed himself and his team. Just what exactly did we see that was far worse in the NFL?

The Giants Linebackers in the 80s including Taylor and Carson used to have bounties...you might want to watch the Theismann leg break a few times, that's always pleasant. Saber, you seem to really dislike the Saints right now. We all know that teams have been doing this, Saints got caught, they are paying the penalty, why do we need to rub it in or act like the team should be disolved?

But that's not far worse. You are speculating to something equal, not worse. And you have no proof of it. I don't know all teams have been doing bounties? I don't work in an NFL organization and neither do you. We don't KNOW anything except that the Saints did do it and got caught. It isn't rubbing it in at all. The Saints deserve any ill will they get. They are scum. Intentionally trying to injure members of their own elite fraternity.

 

[GregR]

And how can the league expect a full speed defensive back or LB to all of a sudden hold up on hittng a guy crossing the middle? They get paid to hit them...and hit them hard and seperate them from the ball. It's taught at the pop warner level.

But please don't say this. This is just plain incorrect and a falsehood. The rules don't require a DB or LB to hold off hitting a guy. They require he not aim for the guy's head or neck, and not lead with his helmet. Every week we see dozens of huge hits on defenseless receivers that are perfectly legal under the new rules, and the physics of the hit is just as likely to separate him from the ball... apart from not being as likely to knock him unconscious and give him a concussion.

I have seen so many clean hits over the course of last season get fines, flags etc. I think the interpretation needs to be clear and it is not. Too many times a DE's hand grazes a QB's helmet, totally incidental and not intended nor harmful and we see flags...it makes me sick. Same for the defensless WR rule. A bad throw, over throw whatever....and the guy get's laid out...because the DB launched himself....not head first or leading with the head, a clean leagal hit and the flag is thrown.

It just needs to to be interpreted more consistently across all the crews.

I am one who hates these guys leading with the helmet. It is awful. And it is not nipped in the butt ever...not at any level. So these guys think it is ok and their muscle memory takes over.

Bad calls are an issue yes, just like with any other penalty in the game. But they are not a sign that hard physical play is not still desired in the game.The blow to a QB's head is actually a great example. The first year that rule came out it was inconsistently officiated and there were a lot of bad calls. The NFL got the officiating tightened up, had them make a point of emphasis that it be forceful hits to the head. The officiating on that particular call got much, much better then.

I agree with you about consistency needs to improve. Having officials huddle to assure it isn't just a ref with a bad angle making the call would be good. And emphasizing significant contact. But there's a huge tendency for people to misstate what the rules are and what they allow which is why I said something. A bad call that shouldn't be made by the rules doesn't mean the intent behind the rule is bad.

 

[RavenLunatic]

I think it is too early to say but I don't see any affect on fantasy production. If anything, Brees gets more control of play calling and any hope of a concerted effort to get Ingram more involved will be gone.

We will find out how much Brees wants help from the traditional running game because I think he is bigger than Carmichael or Spags. We will also find out if the goal line calls were decisions from Peyton directly.

 

[Tiger Fan]

If anyone reads this entire article and still think the punishment isn't worthy, I'd like to hear the rationale.

Commissioner Roger Goodell notified the New Orleans Saints today of the discipline that will be imposed on team management for violations of the NFL's long-standing "bounty" rule that endangered player safety over a three-year period.Discipline for individual players involved in the Saints' prohibited program continues to be under review with the NFL Players Association and will be addressed by Commissioner Goodell at a later date. The program included "bounty" payments for "knock-outs" and "cart-offs," plays on which an opposing player was forced to leave the game. At times, the bounties even targeted specific players by name.The NFL's extensive investigation established the existence of an active bounty program on the Saints during the 2009, 2010, and 2011 seasons in violation of league rules, a deliberate effort to conceal the program's existence from league investigators, and a clear determination to maintain the program despite express direction from Saints ownership that it stop as well as ongoing inquiries from the league office."We are all accountable and responsible for player health and safety and the integrity of the game," Commissioner Goodell said. "We will not tolerate conduct or a culture that undermines those priorities. No one is above the game or the rules that govern it. Respect for the game and the people who participate in it will not be compromised.""A combination of elements made this matter particularly unusual and egregious," Commissioner Goodell continued. "When there is targeting of players for injury and cash rewards over a three-year period, the involvement of the coaching staff, and three years of denials and willful disrespect of the rules, a strong and lasting message must be sent that such conduct is totally unacceptable and has no place in the game."Following the March 2 announcement of the NFL's initial findings, the league office conducted further investigation, including Commissioner Goodell meeting with many of the key individuals involved, sometimes on multiple occasions. The commissioner also discussed the matter with the leadership of the NFL Players Association and individual players.Based on the record, Commissioner Goodell has imposed the following discipline on Saints management:» The New Orleans Saints are fined $500,000. In addition, because the violation involves a competitive rule, the Saints will forfeit their selections in the second round of the 2012 and 2013 NFL drafts.» Saints Head Coach Sean Payton is suspended without pay for the 2012 NFL season, effective April 1.» Saints General Manager Mickey Loomis is suspended without pay for the first eight regular-season games of the 2012 season.» Former Saints (and current St. Louis Rams) defensive coordinator Gregg Williams is suspended indefinitely from the NFL, effective immediately. Commissioner Goodell will review Coach Williams' status at the conclusion of the 2012 season and consider whether to reinstate him, and, if so, on what terms. Commissioner Goodell said he will give close attention to the extent to which Coach Williams cooperates with the NFL in any further proceedings.» Saints assistant Head Coach Joe Vitt is suspended without pay for the first six regular-season games of the 2012 season.» The Saints and the individuals disciplined today are expected to participate in efforts led by the league office to develop programs that will instruct players and coaches at all levels of the game on the need for respect for the game and those who participate in it, on principles of fair play, safety and sportsmanship, and to ensure that bounties will not be part of football at any level.Commissioner Goodell stated that the actions of the individuals disciplined today violated league rules and constituted conduct detrimental to the league and players. He said the existence of a pay-for-performance/bounty program undermined the integrity of the game. The violations were compounded by the failure of Coach Payton to supervise the players and coaches and his affirmative decision starting in 2010 (a) not to inquire into the facts concerning the pay-for-performance/bounty program even though he was aware of the league's inquiries both in 2010 and 2012; (b) to falsely deny that the program existed; © to encourage the false denials by instructing assistants to "make sure our ducks are in a row;" and (d) to ignore instructions from the league office and club ownership to ensure that no such program existed."Beyond the clear and continuing violations of league rules, and lying to investigators, the bounty program is squarely contrary to the league's most important initiatives - enhancing player health and safety and protecting the integrity of the game," Commissioner Goodell said. "Let me be clear. There is no place in the NFL for deliberately seeking to injure another player, let alone offering a reward for doing so. Any form of bounty is incompatible with our commitment to create a culture of sportsmanship, fairness, and safety. Programs of this kind have no place in our game and we are determined that bounties will no longer be a part of the NFL."A 2007 amendment to the NFL Constitution and By-Laws obligated coaches and supervisory employees "to communicate openly and candidly with the principal owner and/or his designated representative; to ensure that club ownership is informed on a complete and timely basis of all matters affecting the club's operations; and to avoid actions that undermine or damage the club's reputation or operating success." The obligation to supervise the coaching staff and players is also expressly set forth in the employment agreement signed by Coach Payton.Commissioner Goodell said he will separately address potential sanctions for players and others with documented involvement in the bounty program."While I will not address player conduct at this time, I am profoundly troubled by the fact that players - including leaders among the defensive players - embraced this program so enthusiastically and participated with what appears to have been a deliberate lack of concern for the well-being of their fellow players," Commissioner Goodell said. "While all club personnel are expected to play to win, they must not let the quest for victory so cloud their judgment that they willingly and willfully target their opponents and engage in unsafe and prohibited conduct intended to injure players."While NFL staff has interviewed people in connection with public allegations of bounty programs at other clubs, no evidence was established showing that the programs at other clubs involved targeting opposing players or rewarding players for injuring an opponent. Commissioner Goodell emphasized that if additional information is brought to his attention that discloses bounties offered for injuring specific opposing players, he will revisit the matter to consider additional discipline.The findings in the league's investigation, corroborated by multiple independent sources, conclusively established the following:1. The Saints defensive team operated a pay-for-performance/bounty program, primarily funded by players, during the 2009, 2010, and 2011 seasons. Under that program, players regularly made cash "donations" to a pool, and were "fined" for mental errors, loafing, penalties, and the like. At least one assistant coach (defensive coordinator Gregg Williams) also occasionally contributed to the pool. There is no evidence that any club money was contributed to the program.2. Payments were made for plays such as interceptions or fumble recoveries. All such payments are against league rules. Payments also were made for plays on which opposing players were injured. In addition, specific players were sometimes targeted. The investigation showed bounties being placed on four quarterbacks of opposing teams - Brett Favre, Cam Newton, Aaron Rodgers, and Kurt Warner. Multiple sources have confirmed that several players pledged funds toward bounties on specific opposing players, with defensive captain Jonathan Vilma offering $10,000 to any player who knocked Brett Favre out of the NFC Championship Game in 2010.3. Coach Williams acknowledged that he designed and implemented the program with the assistance of certain defensive players. He said that he did so after being told by Saints Head Coach Sean Payton that his assignment was to make the defense "nasty." Coach Williams described his role as overseeing record keeping, defining payout amounts, deciding on who received payouts, and distributing envelopes with cash to players who "earned" rewards.4. In each of the 2009-2011 seasons, the Saints were one of the top five teams in the league in roughing the passer penalties. In 2009 and 2011, the Saints were also in the top five teams in unnecessary roughness penalties; in 2010, the Saints ranked sixth in the category. In the January 16, 2010 divisional playoff game against the Arizona Cardinals, Saints defensive players were assessed $15,000 in fines for fouls committed against opposing players. The following week, in the NFC Championship Game against the Minnesota Vikings, Saints defensive players were assessed $30,000 in fines for four separate illegal hits, several of which were directed against quarterback Brett Favre.5. Coach Williams now acknowledges that when he was first questioned about this matter in early 2010 he intentionally misled NFL investigators and made no effort to stop the program after he became aware of the league's investigation.6. Coach Williams further confirmed that the program continued during the 2010 and 2011 seasons, and that he occasionally contributed funds to the pool in each of those seasons.7. Assistant Head Coach/Defense Joe Vitt acknowledged that he was aware of the program in 2009-2011. He admitted that, when interviewed in 2010, he "fabricated the truth" to NFL investigators and denied that any pay-for-performance or bounty program existed at the Saints.8. Coach Vitt said one of his primary roles was to monitor the activity of Coach Williams. This was based on the direction of Coach Payton, who apparently had less than full confidence in Coach Williams. Despite Coach Vitt's knowledge of the bounty program, his understanding of the terms "knock-out" and "cart-off," his witnessing Coach Williams handing out envelopes that he believed to contain cash, and his acknowledgement that the defensive meeting preceding the 2010 NFC Championship Game may have "got out of hand" with respect to Brett Favre, Coach Vitt claimed he never advised either Coach Payton or General Manager Mickey Loomis of the "pay-for-performance/bounty" program.9. A summary prepared following a Saints preseason game included the statement, "1 Cart-off - Crank up the John Deer (sic) Tractor" in reference to a hit on an opposing player. Similar statements are reflected in prepared documents or slides in connection with other games in multiple seasons. A review of the game films confirms that opposing players were injured on the plays identified in the documents.10. When interviewed in 2012, Sean Payton claimed to be entirely unaware of the program, a claim contradicted by others. Further, prior to the Saints' opening game in 2011, Coach Payton received an email from a close associate that stated in part, "PS Greg Williams put me down for $5000 on Rogers (sic)." When shown the email during the course of the investigation, Coach Payton stated that it referred to a "bounty" on Green Bay quarterback Aaron Rodgers.11. In early 2010, Mr. Loomis advised Coach Payton that the league office was investigating allegations concerning a bounty program. Coach Payton said that he met with his top two defensive assistants, Coach Williams and Coach Vitt, in advance of the interview with league investigators and told them, "Let's make sure our ducks are in a row." Remarkably, Coach Payton claimed that he never inquired of Coach Williams and Coach Vitt as to what happened in the interviews, never asked them if a "pay-for-performance" or bounty program was in fact in place, and never gave any instructions to discontinue such a program.12. In January 2012, prior to the Saints' first playoff game of the 2011 season, Coach Payton was advised by Mr. Loomis that the league office had reopened the investigation. Coach Payton made a cursory inquiry but took no action to ensure that any bounty program was discontinued.13. General Manager Mickey Loomis was not present at meetings of the Saints defense at which bounties were discussed and was not aware of bounties being placed on specific players. Mr. Loomis became aware of the allegations regarding a bounty program no later than February 2010 when he was notified of the investigation into the allegations during a meeting with NFL Executive Vice President-Football Operations Ray Anderson. He was directed to ensure that any such program ceased immediately. By his own admission, Mr. Loomis did not do enough to determine if a pay-for-performance/bounty program existed or to end any such program that did exist.14. Saints owner Tom Benson notified Mr. Loomis in January 2012 prior to the team's participation in the playoffs that the league's investigation had been reopened. Mr. Benson reiterated his position that a bounty program was unacceptable and instructed Mr. Loomis to ensure that if a bounty program existed at the Saints it would stop immediately. By his own admission, Mr. Loomis responded to this direction by making only cursory inquiries of Coaches Payton and Williams. He never issued instructions to end the bounty program to either the coaching staff or the players.15. There is no evidence that Saints ownership had any knowledge of the pay-for-performance or bounty program. There is no evidence that any club funds were used for the program. Ownership made clear that it disapproved of the program, gave prompt and clear direction that it stop, and gave full and immediate cooperation to league investigators.

 

[Mello]

Lawsuits, baby, lawsuits. The NFL wants to be able to point out in court that they do not tolerate this and that they have harshly punished the evildoers. If you look down the road, with the ongoing concussion lawsuits, and the possible future injury lawsuits, they are covering their butt.

Could be done far more easily by just teaching players about the risks, having set procedures in place to deal with injuries, and making players sign a waver agreeing not to sue as a condition of employment.

 

[jonessed]

not sure it really made the Saints have a decided advantage. Should we go back and look at some of those Darren Sharper hits from the Super bowl run season?

Nice post, ty

The Wall Street Journal went back and looked at the Saints game film over a 54-game span and only found 18 injuries that the Saints were involved in (i.e. excluding guys pulling up lame with a hamstring injury). One injury every 3 games hardly seems like a notable difference from any other NFL team. That's where the NFL's sanctimony on this issue is completely hypocritical--there was no noticeable on-field impact associated with this.

But that's not really what it's about, is it? It's about intent to injure more than it's about successfully injuring, right?

Considering the punishment for the first investigation was simply a warning it's hard to feel sorry for them when they get slammed on the second run. Really, how hard is it to stop encouraging players to injure through payment? 30 seconds in a team meeting?I really consider the advantage minimal at best, but the idea that you would pay players to injure while the NFL is changing rules specifically addressing this after you were already warned to cut it out is ####### moronic. What the hell were they thinking? It boggles the mind.

I like the Saints, Payton, Brees, and what they did for New Orleans in that Superbowl run was great for the NFL as well as the city, but screw 'em, what they were doing was inexcusable and how they were flaunting warnings was blatant.

I think New England was lucky to get a slap on the wrist for cheating, but I don't think any more coaches will get caught blatantly cheating or putting a bounty on big hits anymore.

 

[guderian]

not sure it really made the Saints have a decided advantage. Should we go back and look at some of those Darren Sharper hits from the Super bowl run season?

Nice post, ty

The Wall Street Journal went back and looked at the Saints game film over a 54-game span and only found 18 injuries that the Saints were involved in (i.e. excluding guys pulling up lame with a hamstring injury). One injury every 3 games hardly seems like a notable difference from any other NFL team. That's where the NFL's sanctimony on this issue is completely hypocritical--there was no noticeable on-field impact associated with this.

But that's not really what it's about, is it? It's about intent to injure more than it's about successfully injuring, right?

There's two issues here. One is the legal/NFL rule issue that this clearly violates. The second is the "competitive advantage" angle that many in this thread are arguing. I'd argue that unless you can show me that the Saints committed materially more personal foul type penalties (they were 8th in the NFL over this span) or inflicted more injuries than other teams, then it goes a long way toward validating the Mike Golic/Marcellus Wiley arguments that this type of stuff doesn't really affect your on-field play.

 

[Disc Shark]

But that's not really what it's about, is it?

It's about intent to injure more than it's about successfully injuring, right?

I've heard interviews with former players who have stated that they INTENDED to injure their opponents in EVERY game. To say otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of football.

Well that nature's about to change.

I agree that the NFL is attempting to change that.

 

[Amused to Death]

I'm not a lawyer, and I know we have plenty of them on the boards. My question...does Goodell have the authority to suspend Payton without pay like this? I could see him getting away with a suspension and fine, but does keeping the guy from earning a living (to the tune of $6 million) overstep bounds?

He is not keeping him from earning a living. Payton can go work anywhere else he wants in the next year. No one is stopping him from earning a living elsewhere.

Agreed. He's perfectly able to go coach at a high school, college, or earn a living as an electrician. Making a living in the NFL is a privilege, not a right.

 

[B-Deep]

not sure it really made the Saints have a decided advantage. Should we go back and look at some of those Darren Sharper hits from the Super bowl run season?

Nice post, ty

The Wall Street Journal went back and looked at the Saints game film over a 54-game span and only found 18 injuries that the Saints were involved in (i.e. excluding guys pulling up lame with a hamstring injury). One injury every 3 games hardly seems like a notable difference from any other NFL team. That's where the NFL's sanctimony on this issue is completely hypocritical--there was no noticeable on-field impact associated with this.

But that's not really what it's about, is it? It's about intent to injure more than it's about successfully injuring, right?

I've heard interviews with former players who have stated that they INTENDED to injure their opponents in EVERY game. To say otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of football.

yet rewarding people for it shows a lack of understanding of the rules

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

the other teams QB must go down and go down hard!

 

[Samuel L Bronkowitz]

The Giants Linebackers in the 80s including Taylor and Carson used to have bounties...you might want to watch the Theismann leg break a few times, that's always pleasant.

Wait, you think that was part of a bounty?

 

[GregR]

not sure it really made the Saints have a decided advantage. Should we go back and look at some of those Darren Sharper hits from the Super bowl run season?

Nice post, ty

The Wall Street Journal went back and looked at the Saints game film over a 54-game span and only found 18 injuries that the Saints were involved in (i.e. excluding guys pulling up lame with a hamstring injury). One injury every 3 games hardly seems like a notable difference from any other NFL team. That's where the NFL's sanctimony on this issue is completely hypocritical--there was no noticeable on-field impact associated with this.

But that's not really what it's about, is it? It's about intent to injure more than it's about successfully injuring, right?

I've heard interviews with former players who have stated that they INTENDED to injure their opponents in EVERY game. To say otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of football.

The interviews you heard make an excellent argument for why the punishment was so severe.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Players, especially ex-players, should be giving this a round of applause.

If you're going to point out (and in some cases, sue) that the league didn't do enough for player safety - citing issues such as dementia, etc - then you have to be encouraged when it actually does do something to ensure it.

 

[Mello]

the other teams QB must go down and go down hard!

Not anymore. Now the QB must be gently caressed to the ground.

 

[B-Deep]

But that's not really what it's about, is it?

It's about intent to injure more than it's about successfully injuring, right?

I've heard interviews with former players who have stated that they INTENDED to injure their opponents in EVERY game. To say otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of football.

Well that nature's about to change.

I agree that the NFL is attempting to change that.

i doubt owners will be happy if their coaches ignore this and their teams suffer the same fate

 

[Mello]

Players, especially ex-players, should be giving this a round of applause.If you're going to point out (and in some cases, sue) that the league didn't do enough for player safety - citing issues such as dementia, etc - then you have to be encouraged when it actually does do something to ensure it.

They aren't though. Most players don't have a problem with the nature of football.

 

[Tom Hagen]

The Giants Linebackers in the 80s including Taylor and Carson used to have bounties...you might want to watch the Theismann leg break a few times, that's always pleasant.

Saber, you seem to really dislike the Saints right now. We all know that teams have been doing this, Saints got caught, they are paying the penalty, why do we need to rub it in or act like the team should be disolved?

I doubt this would have ever been a story if it was just the players using their own money. The fact that coaches and outsiders were funding the bounties makes this different. If nothing else it clearly circumvents the salary cap even though the dollar figures are relatively small.

 

[DiStefano]

Lawsuits, baby, lawsuits. The NFL wants to be able to point out in court that they do not tolerate this and that they have harshly punished the evildoers. If you look down the road, with the ongoing concussion lawsuits, and the possible future injury lawsuits, they are covering their butt.

Could be done far more easily by just teaching players about the risks, having set procedures in place to deal with injuries, and making players sign a waver agreeing not to sue as a condition of employment.

You must be joking. Whenever an injury happens, lawyers rush around looking for who to sue. Number one on the list is who has deep pockets. That waiver wouldn't be worth a damn, and could not possible cover a deliberate attempt to injure.

 

[HellToupee]

Has Payton coached his last game in NO?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Players, especially ex-players, should be giving this a round of applause.If you're going to point out (and in some cases, sue) that the league didn't do enough for player safety - citing issues such as dementia, etc - then you have to be encouraged when it actually does do something to ensure it.

They aren't though. Most players don't have a problem with the nature of football.

That might be true for current ones but it's becoming increasingly not so with ex-players.

 

[SelenaCat]

The "it's been going on for years" defense is a pretty poor one. Genocide has been going on for years, does that make it okay? Racism has existed for years. Is that a valid defense?

Yes, players get hurt in this game and yes, accidents happen, but to deliberately encourage your players to injure other players is wrong. And they got punished as they should have been, especially after repeated warnings.

 

[Multiple Scores]

And to think...

The players have yet to get their suspensions.

No playoffs for the Saints this year.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

not sure it really made the Saints have a decided advantage. Should we go back and look at some of those Darren Sharper hits from the Super bowl run season?

Nice post, ty

The Wall Street Journal went back and looked at the Saints game film over a 54-game span and only found 18 injuries that the Saints were involved in (i.e. excluding guys pulling up lame with a hamstring injury). One injury every 3 games hardly seems like a notable difference from any other NFL team. That's where the NFL's sanctimony on this issue is completely hypocritical--there was no noticeable on-field impact associated with this.

But that's not really what it's about, is it? It's about intent to injure more than it's about successfully injuring, right?

actually with Payton it's more about not doing anything to stop it, which in turn is like condoning it....kinda like a parent buying liqour for their kid....it's bad enough the kid is drinking, but it's worse the parent allowed it/encouraged it to happen and didn't do anything to stop it when they knew it was wrong.....

 

[Ghost Rider]

I'm not a lawyer, and I know we have plenty of them on the boards. My question...does Goodell have the authority to suspend Payton without pay like this? I could see him getting away with a suspension and fine, but does keeping the guy from earning a living (to the tune of $6 million) overstep bounds?

He is not keeping him from earning a living. Payton can go work anywhere else he wants in the next year. No one is stopping him from earning a living elsewhere.

Agreed. He's perfectly able to go coach at a high school, college, or earn a living as an electrician. Making a living in the NFL is a privilege, not a right.

Yep, and he lost that right for a year. He could probably go coach arena football for a year and make some nice bank doing that.

 

[Gadabout]

And to think...The players have yet to get their suspensions. No playoffs for the Saints this year.

As long as #9 is back there saying "hut", they won't be kept outta the playoffs.

 

[Disc Shark]

not sure it really made the Saints have a decided advantage. Should we go back and look at some of those Darren Sharper hits from the Super bowl run season?

Nice post, ty

The Wall Street Journal went back and looked at the Saints game film over a 54-game span and only found 18 injuries that the Saints were involved in (i.e. excluding guys pulling up lame with a hamstring injury). One injury every 3 games hardly seems like a notable difference from any other NFL team. That's where the NFL's sanctimony on this issue is completely hypocritical--there was no noticeable on-field impact associated with this.

But that's not really what it's about, is it? It's about intent to injure more than it's about successfully injuring, right?

I've heard interviews with former players who have stated that they INTENDED to injure their opponents in EVERY game. To say otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of football.

The interviews you heard make an excellent argument for why the punishment was so severe.

I fully understand that the NFL is attempting to change the culture of violence in the League, but crippling the Saints and reducing their capacity to compete in the NFL is an unfair way to go about it.

 

[Sinn Fein]

not sure it really made the Saints have a decided advantage. Should we go back and look at some of those Darren Sharper hits from the Super bowl run season?

Nice post, ty

The Wall Street Journal went back and looked at the Saints game film over a 54-game span and only found 18 injuries that the Saints were involved in (i.e. excluding guys pulling up lame with a hamstring injury). One injury every 3 games hardly seems like a notable difference from any other NFL team. That's where the NFL's sanctimony on this issue is completely hypocritical--there was no noticeable on-field impact associated with this.

But that's not really what it's about, is it? It's about intent to injure more than it's about successfully injuring, right?

I've heard interviews with former players who have stated that they INTENDED to injure their opponents in EVERY game. To say otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of football.

The interviews you heard make an excellent argument for why the punishment was so severe.

I fully understand that the NFL is attempting to change the culture of violence in the League, but crippling the Saints and reducing their capacity to compete in the NFL is an unfair way to go about it.

Life's not fair. Deal with it.League really had no other choice here.