What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

should the saints forfeit the hall of fame game? (1 Viewer)

bostonfred

bostonfred

Footballguy
What better way to protest the penalties and show solidarity as a team than to forfeit a nationally televised exhibition game. They lose nothing in the standings. They are within the rules to do so, and would gladly accept the loss in the preseason standings. They have a three hour broadcast which was already going to include nonstop talk about the saints, and they will get more tv coverage than ever on this important offseason issue.

Mr goodell has shown a willingness to suspend them, and it seems that in their opinion they were not given a fair process to respond. So, why not "suspend" the league for a game, on the one weekend a year (not counting the championship game) when you are literally the only game in town?

 
the shouldn't and they wouldn't because that would do nothing but hurt their own team. They need to evaluate players in live action as much as possible.

 
As much as I agree with the OP's sentiment, I like belljr's response better. The best thing the Saints could do this season is win. Having a losing season would let Goodell feel justified with his penalties. Having a successful season would rub his nose in it.

 
If the want to earn even more fines, go for it. If they did this, they would instantly become the most hated team in the NFL.

There are a ton of blue collar Cleveland people who NEED the game to go off without a hitch. Millionaires slap fighting does nothing but piss the fan ### off. If NFL Players start pulling this kind of crap, they'll find themselves falling in popularity very quickly.

 
The hate for the commishoner is out of control. The guy is not acting in the best interest of himself here and if you think that way you are not in touch with what is happening in the NFL.

NFL is at an all time high and he is acting with what is best for the league now and in the future. He may not get everything right, but his job is not easy and he is doing a really good job.

If the Saints forfeit the game it would be ridiculous. They messed up, got caught and the punishments were deserved.

 
The OP sounds like the kid who threw hair pulling temper tantrums when their momma took their cookie from them.

 
'bostonfred said:
What better way to protest the penalties and show solidarity as a team than to forfeit a nationally televised exhibition game. They lose nothing in the standings. They are within the rules to do so, and would gladly accept the loss in the preseason standings. They have a three hour broadcast which was already going to include nonstop talk about the saints, and they will get more tv coverage than ever on this important offseason issue. Mr goodell has shown a willingness to suspend them, and it seems that in their opinion they were not given a fair process to respond. So, why not "suspend" the league for a game, on the one weekend a year (not counting the championship game) when you are literally the only game in town?
Click to expand...
Why should they protest the penalties? Because they don't like the fact they were caught? Probably should have consulted you for my speeding fines. Damn, it sucked getting caught redhanded like that.
 
why should they do anything except go out and play football and take it like men cripes all of this the commish dissed us lets all get tough stuff from internet pizza rolls by ginos munchers crap is just crazy how about you go home and go for a walk or go donate some time at the salvation army or goodwill and put all of your energon cubes to a good use instead of just always finding something to be upset about this is the big change i have noticed over the last couple of years now it is like all the toughguys now look for stuff to get disrespected and mad about well back in my day we were too busy making time with the ladies for that crap so i guess hey go on and get all in a fight with some other dude i will be the slick over in the corner with your best girl because she thinks you are just a hothead and no fun to be around so hey maybe try taking up model railroading and take that to the bank

 
'SWC said:
why should they do anything except go out and play football and take it like men cripes all of this the commish dissed us lets all get tough stuff from internet pizza rolls by ginos munchers crap is just crazy how about you go home and go for a walk or go donate some time at the salvation army or goodwill and put all of your energon cubes to a good use instead of just always finding something to be upset about this is the big change i have noticed over the last couple of years now it is like all the toughguys now look for stuff to get disrespected and mad about well back in my day we were too busy making time with the ladies for that crap so i guess hey go on and get all in a fight with some other dude i will be the slick over in the corner with your best girl because she thinks you are just a hothead and no fun to be around so hey maybe try taking up model railroading and take that to the bank
Click to expand...
Whoa..."brohan" down?
 
'Carter_Can_Fly said:
The hate for the commishoner is out of control. The guy is not acting in the best interest of himself here and if you think that way you are not in touch with what is happening in the NFL. NFL is at an all time high and he is acting with what is best for the league now and in the future. He may not get everything right, but his job is not easy and he is doing a really good job.If the Saints forfeit the game it would be ridiculous. They messed up, got caught and the punishments were deserved.
Click to expand...
I might agree with some of what you say here, but if that was truly his motivation I think he would come down extremely hard on problem organizations (read Detroit).
 
'Carter_Can_Fly said:
The hate for the commishoner is out of control. The guy is not acting in the best interest of himself here and if you think that way you are not in touch with what is happening in the NFL. NFL is at an all time high and he is acting with what is best for the league now and in the future. He may not get everything right, but his job is not easy and he is doing a really good job.If the Saints forfeit the game it would be ridiculous. They messed up, got caught and the punishments were deserved.
Click to expand...
Got caught doing what? I have seen no evidence that says they did anything but play football. All those who believe anything different are either haters or just media hype followers.
 
Ha.

Ok let's not hurt the working folks who rely on the game. Agreed.

And the Saints would love the extra work, especially with Brees having been out.

And they need to evaluate players just like any other team.

And they have other avenues to pursue their claims, like court.

And all the other stuff is blahblahblah.

Orleanians are talking about how great it will be to be in the Dome when Goodell has to hand the Championship trophy over in front of all of us, and the Lombardi Gras can go right out the Dome, down Poydras and into the Vieux Carre.

So let's do that.

Plus my brother, sister in law and nephew will be at the game so I'd hate to see their trip ruined (they're also going to Cleveland, the golf tournament, the rock HOF, and the NFL HOF).

Geaux Saints.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
:lmao: at you people who still refuse to believe the Saints did anything wrong. Of course they did. And now they're being punished for it.

Were they the only ones doing it? I very much doubt it. But they were the ones who got caught, and that's just how it goes sometimes.

 
'Phenix said:
'Carter_Can_Fly said:
The hate for the commishoner is out of control. The guy is not acting in the best interest of himself here and if you think that way you are not in touch with what is happening in the NFL. NFL is at an all time high and he is acting with what is best for the league now and in the future. He may not get everything right, but his job is not easy and he is doing a really good job.If the Saints forfeit the game it would be ridiculous. They messed up, got caught and the punishments were deserved.
Click to expand...
I have seen no evidence that says they did anything but play football.
Click to expand...
Goodell didn't listen to you?
 
'Borat said:
:lmao: at you people who still refuse to believe the Saints did anything wrong. Of course they did. And now they're being punished for it.

Were they the only ones doing it? I very much doubt it. But they were the ones who got caught, and that's just how it goes sometimes.
Click to expand...
Yeah.
{=sarcasm*}

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'the next level said:
Have you read the article (link below) - "The Saints Ain't Sinners"?http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-hassett-saints-bounty-program-20120715,0,1284132.storyIf the Saints truly had a pay-to-injure scheme then they were very bad at executing it. Even so, this forfeiture idea would probably work against them. Would anger way too many viewers excited to have some football on TV this weekend, even if it is exhibition.
Click to expand...
>>>Did the New Orleans Saints injure more players?The data-driven answer is a resounding "no." The Saints appear to have injured far fewer players over the 2009, 2010 and 2011 seasons. The numbers are striking. From 2009 to 2011, the Saints injured, on average, 3.2 opposing players each game. The rest of the teams in the league caused, on average, 3.8 injuries per game. This difference is highly statistically significant, or in other words, it would hold up in a court of law or a fancy academic journal. In each year of the bounty program, the Saints injured fewer players than the average for the league. In 2009, the Saints injured 2.8 players a game, and other teams injured on average 3.8. In 2010, it was 3.5 and 3.6, and in 2011 it was 3.3 and 3.8.The Saints' behavior on the field was certainly aberrant, but positively so. Only one other team, the San Diego Chargers, injured fewer opponents per game over this entire time frame (3.1 injuries). Of the 32 teams, the Saints injured the third fewest in the 2009 season, the 15th fewest in 2010 and the third fewest in 2011. <<<Facts? Pah(!), who needs `em.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'the next level said:
Have you read the article (link below) - "The Saints Ain't Sinners"?

http://www.latimes.c...0,1284132.story

If the Saints truly had a pay-to-injure scheme then they were very bad at executing it. Even so, this forfeiture idea would probably work against them. Would anger way too many viewers excited to have some football on TV this weekend, even if it is exhibition.
Click to expand...
From the article:"But such harsh penalties for the players should require some evidence that the bounty system affected their on-field behavior, evidence that the Saints injured more players than the typical team"

Uh, no. That would be like saying there has to be a successful murder to prosecute someone for attempted murder.

I tend to think they just weren't that good at it. Trying to injure someone while not being blatant about it with dozens of cameras watching isn't the easiest thing to do. And being inept doesn't make you any less a scumbag.

 
'SaintsInDome2006 said:
'the next level said:
Have you read the article (link below) - "The Saints Ain't Sinners"?http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-hassett-saints-bounty-program-20120715,0,1284132.storyIf the Saints truly had a pay-to-injure scheme then they were very bad at executing it. Even so, this forfeiture idea would probably work against them. Would anger way too many viewers excited to have some football on TV this weekend, even if it is exhibition.
Click to expand...
>>>Did the New Orleans Saints injure more players?The data-driven answer is a resounding "no." The Saints appear to have injured far fewer players over the 2009, 2010 and 2011 seasons. The numbers are striking. From 2009 to 2011, the Saints injured, on average, 3.2 opposing players each game. The rest of the teams in the league caused, on average, 3.8 injuries per game. This difference is highly statistically significant, or in other words, it would hold up in a court of law or a fancy academic journal. In each year of the bounty program, the Saints injured fewer players than the average for the league. In 2009, the Saints injured 2.8 players a game, and other teams injured on average 3.8. In 2010, it was 3.5 and 3.6, and in 2011 it was 3.3 and 3.8.The Saints' behavior on the field was certainly aberrant, but positively so. Only one other team, the San Diego Chargers, injured fewer opponents per game over this entire time frame (3.1 injuries). Of the 32 teams, the Saints injured the third fewest in the 2009 season, the 15th fewest in 2010 and the third fewest in 2011. <<<Facts? Pah(!), who needs `em.
Click to expand...
The point wasn't that Saints actully injured more players, but that the team had a rewards system in place for those times then they did injure players.
 
'JamesTheScot said:
'the next level said:
Have you read the article (link below) - "The Saints Ain't Sinners"?

http://www.latimes.c...0,1284132.story

If the Saints truly had a pay-to-injure scheme then they were very bad at executing it. Even so, this forfeiture idea would probably work against them. Would anger way too many viewers excited to have some football on TV this weekend, even if it is exhibition.
Click to expand...
From the article:"But such harsh penalties for the players should require some evidence that the bounty system affected their on-field behavior, evidence that the Saints injured more players than the typical team"

Uh, no. That would be like saying there has to be a successful murder to prosecute someone for attempted murder.

I tend to think they just weren't that good at it. Trying to injure someone while not being blatant about it with dozens of cameras watching isn't the easiest thing to do. And being inept doesn't make you any less a scumbag.
Click to expand...
They weren't that good at it.

Gee, they could set tens of NFL records, win a Championship, and 42 games in 3 years but {snap} they just couldn't take out that defenseless receiver.

 
'coolnerd said:
'SaintsInDome2006 said:
'the next level said:
Have you read the article (link below) - "The Saints Ain't Sinners"?http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-hassett-saints-bounty-program-20120715,0,1284132.storyIf the Saints truly had a pay-to-injure scheme then they were very bad at executing it. Even so, this forfeiture idea would probably work against them. Would anger way too many viewers excited to have some football on TV this weekend, even if it is exhibition.
Click to expand...
>>>Did the New Orleans Saints injure more players?The data-driven answer is a resounding "no." The Saints appear to have injured far fewer players over the 2009, 2010 and 2011 seasons. The numbers are striking. From 2009 to 2011, the Saints injured, on average, 3.2 opposing players each game. The rest of the teams in the league caused, on average, 3.8 injuries per game. This difference is highly statistically significant, or in other words, it would hold up in a court of law or a fancy academic journal. In each year of the bounty program, the Saints injured fewer players than the average for the league. In 2009, the Saints injured 2.8 players a game, and other teams injured on average 3.8. In 2010, it was 3.5 and 3.6, and in 2011 it was 3.3 and 3.8.The Saints' behavior on the field was certainly aberrant, but positively so. Only one other team, the San Diego Chargers, injured fewer opponents per game over this entire time frame (3.1 injuries). Of the 32 teams, the Saints injured the third fewest in the 2009 season, the 15th fewest in 2010 and the third fewest in 2011. <<<Facts? Pah(!), who needs `em.
Click to expand...
The point wasn't that Saints actually injured more players, but that the team had a rewards system in place for those times then they did injure players.
Click to expand...
So every time they injured a player they were rewarded?Every time?I don't think even the NFL has alleged that.Also this is a pretty lousy incentive that leads to the poorest results in the league. This was a team that could win division and league titles but they just couldn't find a way to injure more players.Got it.
 
'SaintsInDome2006 said:
'coolnerd said:
'SaintsInDome2006 said:
'the next level said:
Have you read the article (link below) - "The Saints Ain't Sinners"?http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-hassett-saints-bounty-program-20120715,0,1284132.storyIf the Saints truly had a pay-to-injure scheme then they were very bad at executing it. Even so, this forfeiture idea would probably work against them. Would anger way too many viewers excited to have some football on TV this weekend, even if it is exhibition.
Click to expand...
>>>Did the New Orleans Saints injure more players?The data-driven answer is a resounding "no." The Saints appear to have injured far fewer players over the 2009, 2010 and 2011 seasons. The numbers are striking. From 2009 to 2011, the Saints injured, on average, 3.2 opposing players each game. The rest of the teams in the league caused, on average, 3.8 injuries per game. This difference is highly statistically significant, or in other words, it would hold up in a court of law or a fancy academic journal. In each year of the bounty program, the Saints injured fewer players than the average for the league. In 2009, the Saints injured 2.8 players a game, and other teams injured on average 3.8. In 2010, it was 3.5 and 3.6, and in 2011 it was 3.3 and 3.8.The Saints' behavior on the field was certainly aberrant, but positively so. Only one other team, the San Diego Chargers, injured fewer opponents per game over this entire time frame (3.1 injuries). Of the 32 teams, the Saints injured the third fewest in the 2009 season, the 15th fewest in 2010 and the third fewest in 2011. <<<Facts? Pah(!), who needs `em.
Click to expand...
The point wasn't that Saints actually injured more players, but that the team had a rewards system in place for those times then they did injure players.
Click to expand...
So every time they injured a player they were rewarded?Every time?I don't think even the NFL has alleged that.Also this is a pretty lousy incentive that leads to the poorest results in the league. This was a team that could win division and league titles but they just couldn't find a way to injure more players.Got it.
Click to expand...
Assume my friends promised me $1000 to cheat on wife, but my efforts yield nothing, do you really think my wife would not take that same as cheating? The biggest issue in the case has been where did the hard evidence come from? Lack of success in injurying dudes, has nothing to do with there being a system of rewards in place. Honestly, I think NO is the scapegoat here; both proven and rumored bounties have been part of football forever, but it does not take away the wrongness of the attempt by the saints.
 
'SaintsInDome2006 said:
'JamesTheScot said:
'the next level said:
Have you read the article (link below) - "The Saints Ain't Sinners"?

http://www.latimes.c...0,1284132.story

If the Saints truly had a pay-to-injure scheme then they were very bad at executing it. Even so, this forfeiture idea would probably work against them. Would anger way too many viewers excited to have some football on TV this weekend, even if it is exhibition.
Click to expand...
From the article:"But such harsh penalties for the players should require some evidence that the bounty system affected their on-field behavior, evidence that the Saints injured more players than the typical team"

Uh, no. That would be like saying there has to be a successful murder to prosecute someone for attempted murder.

I tend to think they just weren't that good at it. Trying to injure someone while not being blatant about it with dozens of cameras watching isn't the easiest thing to do. And being inept doesn't make you any less a scumbag.
Click to expand...
They weren't that good at it.

Gee, they could set tens of NFL records, win a Championship, and 42 games in 3 years but {snap} they just couldn't take out that defenseless receiver.
Click to expand...
Boy. You guys still don't get it.
 
What they should do is play Favre's Highschool team, provided Favre gets to freely talk people from the sideline at his leisure.

 
'bostonfred said:
What better way to protest the penalties and show solidarity as a team than to forfeit a nationally televised exhibition game. They lose nothing in the standings. They are within the rules to do so, and would gladly accept the loss in the preseason standings. They have a three hour broadcast which was already going to include nonstop talk about the saints, and they will get more tv coverage than ever on this important offseason issue. Mr goodell has shown a willingness to suspend them, and it seems that in their opinion they were not given a fair process to respond. So, why not "suspend" the league for a game, on the one weekend a year (not counting the championship game) when you are literally the only game in town?
Click to expand...
:goodposting:
 
Lofl.....yeah, i'm sure the NFL made this up because any successful business needs a damaging scandal now and then.

:rolleyes:

 
'SaintsInDome2006 said:
'JamesTheScot said:
'the next level said:
Have you read the article (link below) - "The Saints Ain't Sinners"?

http://www.latimes.c...0,1284132.story

If the Saints truly had a pay-to-injure scheme then they were very bad at executing it. Even so, this forfeiture idea would probably work against them. Would anger way too many viewers excited to have some football on TV this weekend, even if it is exhibition.
Click to expand...
From the article:"But such harsh penalties for the players should require some evidence that the bounty system affected their on-field behavior, evidence that the Saints injured more players than the typical team"

Uh, no. That would be like saying there has to be a successful murder to prosecute someone for attempted murder.

I tend to think they just weren't that good at it. Trying to injure someone while not being blatant about it with dozens of cameras watching isn't the easiest thing to do. And being inept doesn't make you any less a scumbag.
Click to expand...
They weren't that good at it.

Gee, they could set tens of NFL records, win a Championship, and 42 games in 3 years but {snap} they just couldn't take out that defenseless receiver.
Click to expand...
Well, when my options are 1) they weren't that good at it or 2) they just pretended to go along, I'm going with the former.Is Vilma such a chicken #### that he'd pretend that he was going along with an illegal bounty system to injure players rather than stand up and say "no way"? Because that's what your argument unavoidably distills down to.

I'm not a Saints fan. I don't have a dog in the fight. Heck, I rooted for them in the Super Bowl. There's no bias here. No one cares enough about your Saints to be out to get you.

So the idea that the coaches were for it and the players just acted like they were doesn't pass the smell test. What's the down side for them to openly refuse to go along? Is the coach going to bench starters and thereby decrease his odds of winning on Sunday (and thus jeopardize his job)? Is he going to make them run laps? Be sensible. Anything he could do to them just gives those players incentive to go to the league and report him...which gets him suspended. Players complain to the NFLPA when coaches make them wear pads on the wrong day.

I don't know, maybe the DC had pics of Vilma in the arms of a pool boy and that was his leverage. :rolleyes:

 
Oh! How bout the Saints only draft Penn State players to declare solidarity with those who champion stupid causes guaranteed to make the civilized world hate you?

 
'Phenix said:
'Carter_Can_Fly said:
The hate for the commishoner is out of control. The guy is not acting in the best interest of himself here and if you think that way you are not in touch with what is happening in the NFL. NFL is at an all time high and he is acting with what is best for the league now and in the future. He may not get everything right, but his job is not easy and he is doing a really good job.If the Saints forfeit the game it would be ridiculous. They messed up, got caught and the punishments were deserved.
Click to expand...
Got caught doing what? I have seen no evidence that says they did anything but play football. All those who believe anything different are either haters or just media hype followers.
Click to expand...
Woah! That changed everything. Have you called Goodell with this? You sir could save NO football this year.
 
'SaintsInDome2006 said:
'the next level said:
Have you read the article (link below) - "The Saints Ain't Sinners"?http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-hassett-saints-bounty-program-20120715,0,1284132.storyIf the Saints truly had a pay-to-injure scheme then they were very bad at executing it. Even so, this forfeiture idea would probably work against them. Would anger way too many viewers excited to have some football on TV this weekend, even if it is exhibition.
Click to expand...
>>>Did the New Orleans Saints injure more players?The data-driven answer is a resounding "no." The Saints appear to have injured far fewer players over the 2009, 2010 and 2011 seasons. The numbers are striking. From 2009 to 2011, the Saints injured, on average, 3.2 opposing players each game. The rest of the teams in the league caused, on average, 3.8 injuries per game. This difference is highly statistically significant, or in other words, it would hold up in a court of law or a fancy academic journal. In each year of the bounty program, the Saints injured fewer players than the average for the league. In 2009, the Saints injured 2.8 players a game, and other teams injured on average 3.8. In 2010, it was 3.5 and 3.6, and in 2011 it was 3.3 and 3.8.The Saints' behavior on the field was certainly aberrant, but positively so. Only one other team, the San Diego Chargers, injured fewer opponents per game over this entire time frame (3.1 injuries). Of the 32 teams, the Saints injured the third fewest in the 2009 season, the 15th fewest in 2010 and the third fewest in 2011. <<<Facts? Pah(!), who needs `em.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't this support the concept that they were focused on injuring a specific player (or couple of players)? I mean, why bother with the guy they weren't getting paid to injure. If it was $20k for Brett Favre, why waste your good stuff on a guy that is simply going to limp off the field with no green coming your way.I can't speak to whether this is truly statistically significant or not (the article asserts this but with no basis to say this is the case or what is considered statistically significant--maybe they are simply using the 10% rule) but the fact that it is that different may mean something, just quite possibly the opposite of what the article (and others in this thread) are insinuating it means.
 
'Funkley said:
Lofl.....yeah, i'm sure the NFL made this up because any successful business needs a damaging scandal now and then. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Because people in charge of companies have never made mistakes before. Enron anyone? Just to name one of the million bad practices from companies.Again show me this evidence that you use to crucify the Saints. I have not seen evidence, show me yours. Oh.... thats right, your listening to the media, and what the commish has to say. But when one of the most decorated and respected players in the league says this is BS, it carries no weight.Also, got caught? they didnt get caught genius, some bitter employee was seeking revenge. Another red flag for these issues."Kill the head" is all you have, yup that is a dead ringer for what pay to play bounty means. The naive ways of life people live. Also, if you listen to the media you would also believe that JoPa was the one raping boys not Jerry Sandusky. Media distorts facts to get you to believe whatever.
 
Saints fans are continuing to be pathologically dense here. At least Penn State fans seem to be evolving to the point of acceptance.

 
'Phenix said:
'Funkley said:
Lofl.....yeah, i'm sure the NFL made this up because any successful business needs a damaging scandal now and then. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Because people in charge of companies have never made mistakes before. Enron anyone? Just to name one of the million bad practices from companies.Again show me this evidence that you use to crucify the Saints. I have not seen evidence, show me yours. Oh.... thats right, your listening to the media, and what the commish has to say. But when one of the most decorated and respected players in the league says this is BS, it carries no weight.Also, got caught? they didnt get caught genius, some bitter employee was seeking revenge. Another red flag for these issues."Kill the head" is all you have, yup that is a dead ringer for what pay to play bounty means. The naive ways of life people live. Also, if you listen to the media you would also believe that JoPa was the one raping boys not Jerry Sandusky. Media distorts facts to get you to believe whatever.
Click to expand...
:lmao: Steeped in entitlement and denial.
 
Saints would never forfeit the game in protest because that would put the NFL in a bad light and the Saints have more class than that.

 
it is good to see that there are some strangeos out there who think that the saints were somehow wronged but hey i guess we need people like the penn state yahoos down in the south to and someone has to believe that the moon landing was faked and that bigfoot is right over there oh my god so hey you guys who want to forfeit to show the world a message keep on being classy here is what would happen if you forfitted you would send a message all right and that message would be we are gigantic tool sheds so keep on keeping on tercel spinner drivers blasting zydecko music rap and do not take it to the bank because you would probably ruin our fdic insurnace rating

 
they should forfeit the whole season. Then Goodell will learn his lesson. Sit down in protest till they get their coach back.

I'm sure that will work too.

 
hey saints denialheads remember that part when gregg williams apologized and admitted the program and his role in it oh yeah never mind that does not help your conspiracy theory jeez just come off it and give it a rest i mean i am probably the dumbest guy around here but you are giving me a serious run for my discount double check title belt with this one

 
'cobalt_27 said:
'Phenix said:
'Funkley said:
Lofl.....yeah, i'm sure the NFL made this up because any successful business needs a damaging scandal now and then. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Because people in charge of companies have never made mistakes before. Enron anyone? Just to name one of the million bad practices from companies.Again show me this evidence that you use to crucify the Saints. I have not seen evidence, show me yours. Oh.... thats right, your listening to the media, and what the commish has to say. But when one of the most decorated and respected players in the league says this is BS, it carries no weight.Also, got caught? they didnt get caught genius, some bitter employee was seeking revenge. Another red flag for these issues."Kill the head" is all you have, yup that is a dead ringer for what pay to play bounty means. The naive ways of life people live. Also, if you listen to the media you would also believe that JoPa was the one raping boys not Jerry Sandusky. Media distorts facts to get you to believe whatever.
Click to expand...
:lmao: Steeped in entitlement and denial.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GregR
  • Poll Poll
Mel Kiper and the Hall of Fame / Pete Rozelle award
Replies
36
Views
842
massraider
massraider
Yogibear
Pro Football Hall of Fame revises bylaws governing annual selection process
Replies
0
Views
320
Yogibear
Yogibear
Ministry of Pain
"Eye in the Sky" that suddenly is influencing NFL games
Replies
46
Views
2K
IHEARTFF
I

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top