Warren Sapp Out BountyGate WhistleBlower (1 Viewer)

[Bigboy10182000]

Where did I say I had sources? Why are you avoiding the other half a dozen reporters like Peter King, Mike Florio, Jason La Canforna, Jay Glazer who all say Sapp is wrong? I am capable of making judgement calls and my judgement is that I'm going to trust those guys and their sources over Sapp and his.

If you want to choose to believe Warren Sapp over every other reporter that has reported on this, you're free to do so. And I'm free to point out how silly I think that decision is and how improbable it is that you and Warren Sapp are correct.

First I didn't mean your sources personally. What I meant was, on a normal day, these guys are blowhards who don't know anything...unless, of course, they're opinion sides with your side of an argument. Not you personally..in general. Also, for all I know they all have the same "source" but that's all for a different day...

Maybe I haven't done a good enough job of articulating my point.

I am NOT choosing any one side, that's where you and I differ. The basis of my point (that I have stated several times on this page) is that no one knows for sure. IMHO, I choose not to believe one source (AKA an anonomus person we'll never know) over another. I am commenting on the topic at hand which the last time I checked was "Warren Sapp Out BountyGate WhistleBlower" and implicating Shockey as the one. I am refusing to delve into who's source knows more about what...I'll wait for facts instead.

I hope this helped

 

[Avery]

Admittedly, I didn't read the whole thread but why is someone who reports someone breaking the rules a "snitch" or a "rat" or are our expectations of behavior in professional industries now ruled by prison and street codes of conduct?

Neither.They're ruled by THEIR professional industry...not yours...not prison...not street codes.

There's a reason why there was one rat/snitch/ whistleblower and not a bunch...

"It's easy to stand in the crowd but it takes courage to stand alone."

Yes it does...unless you're unidentified...

So your line of courageous vs. snitch/rat is if whether or not your are publicly identified. Got it.

Therefore, if Shockey was the source, by "outting" him, Sapp turned Shockey from a rat, snitch into a courageous whistleblower, right?

 

[Phenix]

I'm genuinely at a loss as to why this would be something that Sapp should not report. This isn't like a witness against the mafia, can someone explain to me why this is such a bad thing?

Think it was lame of Sapp to "out" Shockey as the "snitch". First of all, it's just hearsay and Sapp said he didn't check the facts, but he believed his source. Secondly, Sapp has repeatedly said that they should be punished and that there was no place for this kind of thing in football. By calling Shockey a snitch, he's saying that even though it's wrong, nothing should be said about it. Thirdly...Hey Sapp for snitching on Shockey.

FYI...What Sapp did is in no way snitching.

Sapp slandered Shockey on national tv, and could be sued for it. James Brown said this morning it was an employee under Sean Payton and Gregg Williams who told. He said it was not a player. He said the employee felt like he was mistreated under Payton and Williams, and went to the league and told them about the bounty program.

And if that's the case then the whole thread is for not...

So many in here were so quick to crucify Shockey, and he didn't do it.

Are you sure he didnt do it? its he said she said. Its ok for one guy to say shockey didnt do it, but sapp cant say shockey did and you believe some other guy without proof but not sapp. That does not sound like an open minded opinion, it sounds like bias on your part.One guy said it wasnt shockey so it wasnt shockey, what other proof do you need.

 

[greggorymac]

He will be fired by end of news day today.

 

[Phenix]

Admittedly, I didn't read the whole thread but why is someone who reports someone breaking the rules a "snitch" or a "rat" or are our expectations of behavior in professional industries now ruled by prison and street codes of conduct?

Neither.They're ruled by THEIR professional industry...not yours...not prison...not street codes.

There's a reason why there was one rat/snitch/ whistleblower and not a bunch...

"It's easy to stand in the crowd but it takes courage to stand alone."

Yes it does...unless you're unidentified...

So your line of courageous vs. snitch/rat is if whether or not your are publicly identified. Got it.

Therefore, if Shockey was the source, by "outting" him, Sapp turned Shockey from a rat, snitch into a courageous whistleblower, right?

Its ok for our parents to tell us no one likes tattletales (sp?) as we grow up, but now we call our parents liars, because i guess most love them. I cannot believe the people defending scum like shockey. did you not see his encounter with toomer just a few days ago. this guy is something, unless your a saints hater then he is your new best friend.You do not snitch on your brotherhood that you were a part of. Only way shockey is innocent in this is if he told while he was a member of the Saints. Stop defending Shockey, he is as big of a turd there is. Sapp just reported the news, lol, pathetic to be upset at Sapp what so ever. its a comedy show in here.

Sapp is a genius for cracking that news. I trust a former player in the league who is liked by many, over some media guy who is looking for headlines at breaking some other name.

 

[Avery]

Admittedly, I didn't read the whole thread but why is someone who reports someone breaking the rules a "snitch" or a "rat" or are our expectations of behavior in professional industries now ruled by prison and street codes of conduct?

Neither.They're ruled by THEIR professional industry...not yours...not prison...not street codes.

There's a reason why there was one rat/snitch/ whistleblower and not a bunch...

"It's easy to stand in the crowd but it takes courage to stand alone."

Yes it does...unless you're unidentified...

So your line of courageous vs. snitch/rat is if whether or not your are publicly identified. Got it.

Therefore, if Shockey was the source, by "outting" him, Sapp turned Shockey from a rat, snitch into a courageous whistleblower, right?

Its ok for our parents to tell us no one likes tattletales (sp?) as we grow up, but now we call our parents liars, because i guess most love them. I cannot believe the people defending scum like shockey. did you not see his encounter with toomer just a few days ago. this guy is something, unless your a saints hater then he is your new best friend.You do not snitch on your brotherhood that you were a part of. Only way shockey is innocent in this is if he told while he was a member of the Saints. Stop defending Shockey, he is as big of a turd there is. Sapp just reported the news, lol, pathetic to be upset at Sapp what so ever. its a comedy show in here.

Sapp is a genius for cracking that news. I trust a former player in the league who is liked by many, over some media guy who is looking for headlines at breaking some other name.

I don't even know where to start with this, so I'll just leave you with your moral code.

 

[delusional]

Snitching on a snitch makes it just as bad, if not worse.

 

[roadkill1292]

He will be fired by end of news day today.

I don't like to make these kinds of predictions but I certainly think some kind of punishment is in order, the reasons for which have been capably spelled out by others. As a news gatherer, which he's not, he was unbelievably sloppy in failing to confirm his source's allegations. As an analyst, he supported his views on the situation with unsupported data. And as an employee of the league, he exposed his employer to potential legal ramifications. He screwed up so badly that even if he is accurate on the identity of the whistleblower, he should still be sanctioned by the NFL.

 

[GregR]

...Are you sure he didnt do it? its he said she said. Its ok for one guy to say shockey didnt do it, but sapp cant say shockey did and you believe some other guy without proof but not sapp. That does not sound like an open minded opinion, it sounds like bias on your part.One guy said it wasnt shockey so it wasnt shockey, what other proof do you need.

No, we're not believing "some other guy". We're believing multiple other guys in as much position as Sapp to know, who all seem in agreement Sapp is wrong.

 

[GregR]

This idea of the Saints "playing within the rules on the field" seems to be contradicted by the statements handing out the punishments that said that the Saints were among the most penalized teams for personal fouls, roughing the passer, etc. during that time period. I believe it said they were in the top 3 all 3 years.So, no, they clearly weren't playing within the rules on the field and the bounty system may have been a reason why.

What's that say about the teams who were more penalized? Should the NFL launch an investigation for each of them?

I just went back and read the info and first I should correct myself. The Saints were in the top 5 in roughing the passer penalties all 3 years, in the top 5 in unnecessary roughness penalties in 2009 and 2011 and 6th in 2010.The league statement doesn't specifically state where among the top 5 in all those years the Saints fell. It could be 1st,4th and 5th; 2nd,2nd, 5th. Whatever. But it's clear that they were among the top 5 teams each year in those categories.As for your concern about "the other 2 teams" (which would be 4 now that I got the info right), I'm not sure where we'd find the information, but I don't think that we can assume that the other 4 teams each year were consistent from year to year. It could be very possible that the Saints were the only team to appear in the top 5 all 3 years. I think you would agree that a team consistently being among the top 5 in roughness penalties would be different than a team just appearing there once, yes?

To further what Grove said... if the NFL saw as compelling a reason to investigate another team as they did the Saints, they would have.I've said before I was cheering for the Saints against the Vikings. If I named the teams I have cheered for most after the Texans, the Saints are probably #2 or #3 on the list. And while watching the game live I thought the Saints were so blatantly trying to injure that I ended up cheering for the Vikings by the end of the game. It was obvious. There were plays, like hitting the QB so long after a handoff that you probably go through multiple 256 game regular seasons and never see a comparable play. In the full context of how many unnecessary hits, and unnecessarily dangerous hits were delivered, it was pretty clear just watching live what they were doing, so there should be no surprise they got spotted doing it.Now that the NFL has caught a team and handed out a punishment that will be a deterrent, I imagine they'll draw a line in the sand and not go investigate past incidents without a real smoking gun. The Saints were given the benefit of a 2nd chance and blew it. The rest of the league won't be given that luxury. The warning sent because of the Saints will be the rest of the league's 2nd chance if they were doing the same.So no, the NFL should not launch an investigation. It would be stupid of them to do so. They are a business and this is not the sort of publicity they want. If they can achieve both and moral and legal obligations of protecting their employees from unnecessary injury by laying down the law once and drawing a line in the sand going forward, that is what a reasonable person should expect them to do.

 

[unckeyherb]

Yes exactly. Freeman's quote is referencing his knowledge of the incident after discussing it with people involved in the situation. As is Mike Florio's opinion in that same article. The sentence you reference is in no way referring to any legitimate source. Its barely speculation by 'joebucsfan.com'. its just a segue. It's nothing more. HTH

Exactly...and Sapp's comments yesterday were from his sources as well. The fact that people don't know exactley what happens escapes a ton of people on this board--almost as if they can't handle it.Sapp has his source...as does Florio and Freeman. Do you know for sure that any of them know or are you just picking sides? The grown-up in me is willing conceed that I don't know who really knows what. If Sapp is wrong (I have said this before) the whole thread is for not...sort of in the same vein as a "Peyon Manning is going to Tennessee" thread is now.

I definitely understand that I don't know for sure. Here's what I do know- 1. Sapp, to my knowledge, has cited no one as to where he came by his information (not even a loose 'a source close to the team tells me..') 2. Multiple reporters have come out citing sources that completely and directly re-buff Sapp's claim. 3. Sapp, in doing this may have broken the law; if not, he has at a minimum, proven himself to be a media analyst that no source would ever, ever, trust in confidence again. Either way, it appears to me that NFL Network can't keep him around-which I am personally ecstatic about.

So you now agree that it wasn't just speculation by 'joebucsfan.com'? And that we, in fact, still do not know for sure who's right and who's wrong?

I don't want to sidetrack the point you replied to in my earlier post. Some are posting these reports from other "sources" as fact when in fact they are not.

Nope. Like I said, it wasn't even speculation by 'joebucsfan.com' It was a segue to wrap up the paragraph. Thats all. Regardless, as countless others have already pointed out no one is saying anything as fact-just that on one hand you have multiple beat writers and sports journalists, all with legitimate team sources, all lining up on one side saying it was not Shockey, and on the other hand you have one Warren Sapp saying it was Shockey and that he is a snitch. I leave it to you to make your own determination on how you want to process that information. My whole point at the beginning of this was in response to people condemning Shockey for taking so long to come out about this and not stepping up when he was on the Saints. My question (which no one answered) was asking, if Shockey is a #### for waiting till he's on another team to report it, what does that say about the guys that didn't report it-ever; including one NFL poster boy Drew Brees.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Admittedly, I didn't read the whole thread but why is someone who reports someone breaking the rules a "snitch" or a "rat" or are our expectations of behavior in professional industries now ruled by prison and street codes of conduct?

Neither.They're ruled by THEIR professional industry...not yours...not prison...not street codes.

There's a reason why there was one rat/snitch/ whistleblower and not a bunch...

"It's easy to stand in the crowd but it takes courage to stand alone."

Yes it does...unless you're unidentified...

So your line of courageous vs. snitch/rat is if whether or not your are publicly identified. Got it.

Therefore, if Shockey was the source, by "outting" him, Sapp turned Shockey from a rat, snitch into a courageous whistleblower, right?

Try to keep up with the sarcasm...

 

[The Doctor]

Now imagine Shockey is black.Does Sapp still out him as the alleged "whistle blower"?

Really? This is a race thing?

why not?im sure maywaether would turn it into one

 

[Gadabout]

I wonder if any of this is tied into the Santini mess.

 

[massraider]

Shockey responded to Sapp's allegations, he posted text messages between himself and Payton, where Payton said he knew Shockey didn't say anything.

This still might be a he-said, she-said, but the evidence is piling up that Shockey wasn't the whistleblower.

The evidence is already overwhelming that some twelve year olds in here watch too many movies. "snitches get stiches"? Please.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Yes exactly. Freeman's quote is referencing his knowledge of the incident after discussing it with people involved in the situation. As is Mike Florio's opinion in that same article. The sentence you reference is in no way referring to any legitimate source. Its barely speculation by 'joebucsfan.com'. its just a segue. It's nothing more. HTH

Exactly...and Sapp's comments yesterday were from his sources as well. The fact that people don't know exactley what happens escapes a ton of people on this board--almost as if they can't handle it.Sapp has his source...as does Florio and Freeman. Do you know for sure that any of them know or are you just picking sides? The grown-up in me is willing conceed that I don't know who really knows what. If Sapp is wrong (I have said this before) the whole thread is for not...sort of in the same vein as a "Peyon Manning is going to Tennessee" thread is now.

I definitely understand that I don't know for sure. Here's what I do know- 1. Sapp, to my knowledge, has cited no one as to where he came by his information (not even a loose 'a source close to the team tells me..') 2. Multiple reporters have come out citing sources that completely and directly re-buff Sapp's claim. 3. Sapp, in doing this may have broken the law; if not, he has at a minimum, proven himself to be a media analyst that no source would ever, ever, trust in confidence again. Either way, it appears to me that NFL Network can't keep him around-which I am personally ecstatic about.

So you now agree that it wasn't just speculation by 'joebucsfan.com'? And that we, in fact, still do not know for sure who's right and who's wrong?

I don't want to sidetrack the point you replied to in my earlier post. Some are posting these reports from other "sources" as fact when in fact they are not.

Nope. Like I said, it wasn't even speculation by 'joebucsfan.com' It was a segue to wrap up the paragraph. Thats all. Regardless, as countless others have already pointed out no one is saying anything as fact-just that on one hand you have multiple beat writers and sports journalists, all with legitimate team sources, all lining up on one side saying it was not Shockey, and on the other hand you have one Warren Sapp saying it was Shockey and that he is a snitch. I leave it to you to make your own determination on how you want to process that information. My whole point at the beginning of this was in response to people condemning Shockey for taking so long to come out about this and not stepping up when he was on the Saints. My question (which no one answered) was asking, if Shockey is a #### for waiting till he's on another team to report it, what does that say about the guys that didn't report it-ever; including one NFL poster boy Drew Brees.

So to recap...

I say no one knows for sure what happened and who is right.

'joebucsfan.com' says whether this is true or not remains to be seen.

And you say "I definitely understand that I don't know for sure"

And then you say you disagree...makes sense...

Post #151 is where I'm leaving...this is just getting redundant...

 

[guderian]

This idea of the Saints "playing within the rules on the field" seems to be contradicted by the statements handing out the punishments that said that the Saints were among the most penalized teams for personal fouls, roughing the passer, etc. during that time period. I believe it said they were in the top 3 all 3 years.So, no, they clearly weren't playing within the rules on the field and the bounty system may have been a reason why.

You're missing the point. If they played "outside the rules", they were penalized according to the NFLs rules by the refs on the field. So how is it a huge "competitive advantage" when the on-field play is monitored by the refs and penalties issued where appropriate???Over that entire period they ranked something like 8th in related penalties.

 

[guderian]

This idea of the Saints "playing within the rules on the field" seems to be contradicted by the statements handing out the punishments that said that the Saints were among the most penalized teams for personal fouls, roughing the passer, etc. during that time period. I believe it said they were in the top 3 all 3 years.So, no, they clearly weren't playing within the rules on the field and the bounty system may have been a reason why.

What's that say about the teams who were more penalized? Should the NFL launch an investigation for each of them?

I just went back and read the info and first I should correct myself. The Saints were in the top 5 in roughing the passer penalties all 3 years, in the top 5 in unnecessary roughness penalties in 2009 and 2011 and 6th in 2010.The league statement doesn't specifically state where among the top 5 in all those years the Saints fell. It could be 1st,4th and 5th; 2nd,2nd, 5th. Whatever. But it's clear that they were among the top 5 teams each year in those categories.As for your concern about "the other 2 teams" (which would be 4 now that I got the info right), I'm not sure where we'd find the information, but I don't think that we can assume that the other 4 teams each year were consistent from year to year. It could be very possible that the Saints were the only team to appear in the top 5 all 3 years. I think you would agree that a team consistently being among the top 5 in roughness penalties would be different than a team just appearing there once, yes?

That's very selective use of the penalty stats. Do you know how many "roughing the passer" penalties it took to rank 3rd in 2009? 3 for 47 yards. There was a more thorough analysis done that showed they were 8th over the entire period in related penalties.

 

[guderian]

Snitches get sutures?

 

[Eire32]

Street justice will be carried out on the selfish, egotistical Shockey.

You seem to be making some assumptions based on unconfirmed facts.

no assumption on the selfish, egotistical part.

 

[roadkill1292]

Street justice will be carried out on the selfish, egotistical Shockey.

You seem to be making some assumptions based on unconfirmed facts.

no assumption on the selfish, egotistical part.

Congrats!

 

[Eire32]

Street justice will be carried out on the selfish, egotistical Shockey.

You seem to be making some assumptions based on unconfirmed facts.

no assumption on the selfish, egotistical part.

Congrats!

right back at you. great job with your 10,314 post.

 

[CalBear]

You do not snitch on your brotherhood that you were a part of.

The "brotherhood" that encourages and celebrates serious injuries to other members of the brotherhood? (In pre-season games, no less). Some brotherhood that is.

 

[roadkill1292]

Street justice will be carried out on the selfish, egotistical Shockey.

You seem to be making some assumptions based on unconfirmed facts.

no assumption on the selfish, egotistical part.

Congrats!

right back at you. great job with your 10,314 post.

I'd like to thank all the little people who helped out along the way.Now that we've got the sniping out of the way, would you like to discuss the original post I quoted? I've raised the question elsewhere as to why the whistleblower (who may or may not be Shockey -- it's not looking very likely right now but it's fairly irrelevant to the bigger question) would be specifically targeted for his actions?

 

[GregR]

This idea of the Saints "playing within the rules on the field" seems to be contradicted by the statements handing out the punishments that said that the Saints were among the most penalized teams for personal fouls, roughing the passer, etc. during that time period. I believe it said they were in the top 3 all 3 years.

So, no, they clearly weren't playing within the rules on the field and the bounty system may have been a reason why.

You're missing the point. If they played "outside the rules", they were penalized according to the NFLs rules by the refs on the field. So how is it a huge "competitive advantage" when the on-field play is monitored by the refs and penalties issued where appropriate???Over that entire period they ranked something like 8th in related penalties.

No reasonable person thinks that the refs make every call correctly. The NFL came out and said that the refs did not penalize the Saints properly. The head of officiating's exact words for one play that was not flagged was that it was "poster-child" evidence of a personal foul.

Posts like these based on so obviously flawed premises do not win any points. I don't care if the Saints had the fewest injuries in the league over those three years. They admitted they ran the bounty program. Before I ever heard about a bounty program I could tell they obviously were trying to injure at least one QB far beyond the violence expected in football. I wasn't the only one, it was obvious enough it sparked the investigation that led to the Saints admitting it.

If anyone thinks:

* removing the other team's QB is not a competitive advantage

* Greg Williams would have kicked in his own personal money and wasted time over three years running such a program if he didn't think it gave them an advantage

* the Saints would have continued the program after being warned if it didn't give them a competitive advantage

Then they are not being at all reasonable at all. Which is why responses to such posts dried up long ago.

 

[unckeyherb]

Yes exactly. Freeman's quote is referencing his knowledge of the incident after discussing it with people involved in the situation. As is Mike Florio's opinion in that same article. The sentence you reference is in no way referring to any legitimate source. Its barely speculation by 'joebucsfan.com'. its just a segue. It's nothing more. HTH

Exactly...and Sapp's comments yesterday were from his sources as well. The fact that people don't know exactley what happens escapes a ton of people on this board--almost as if they can't handle it.Sapp has his source...as does Florio and Freeman. Do you know for sure that any of them know or are you just picking sides? The grown-up in me is willing conceed that I don't know who really knows what. If Sapp is wrong (I have said this before) the whole thread is for not...sort of in the same vein as a "Peyon Manning is going to Tennessee" thread is now.

I definitely understand that I don't know for sure. Here's what I do know- 1. Sapp, to my knowledge, has cited no one as to where he came by his information (not even a loose 'a source close to the team tells me..') 2. Multiple reporters have come out citing sources that completely and directly re-buff Sapp's claim. 3. Sapp, in doing this may have broken the law; if not, he has at a minimum, proven himself to be a media analyst that no source would ever, ever, trust in confidence again. Either way, it appears to me that NFL Network can't keep him around-which I am personally ecstatic about.

So you now agree that it wasn't just speculation by 'joebucsfan.com'? And that we, in fact, still do not know for sure who's right and who's wrong?

I don't want to sidetrack the point you replied to in my earlier post. Some are posting these reports from other "sources" as fact when in fact they are not.

Nope. Like I said, it wasn't even speculation by 'joebucsfan.com' It was a segue to wrap up the paragraph. Thats all. Regardless, as countless others have already pointed out no one is saying anything as fact-just that on one hand you have multiple beat writers and sports journalists, all with legitimate team sources, all lining up on one side saying it was not Shockey, and on the other hand you have one Warren Sapp saying it was Shockey and that he is a snitch. I leave it to you to make your own determination on how you want to process that information. My whole point at the beginning of this was in response to people condemning Shockey for taking so long to come out about this and not stepping up when he was on the Saints. My question (which no one answered) was asking, if Shockey is a #### for waiting till he's on another team to report it, what does that say about the guys that didn't report it-ever; including one NFL poster boy Drew Brees.

So to recap...

I say no one knows for sure what happened and who is right.

'joebucsfan.com' says whether this is true or not remains to be seen.

And you say "I definitely understand that I don't know for sure"

And then you say you disagree...makes sense...

Post #151 is where I'm leaving...this is just getting redundant...

you'll be missed!

 

[HughHoney]

"#####es talk #### but snitches get killed." At least that's how Master P sees it. I'm just a peaceful real estate agent.

 

[Pnishthm]

This idea of the Saints "playing within the rules on the field" seems to be contradicted by the statements handing out the punishments that said that the Saints were among the most penalized teams for personal fouls, roughing the passer, etc. during that time period. I believe it said they were in the top 3 all 3 years.So, no, they clearly weren't playing within the rules on the field and the bounty system may have been a reason why.

What's that say about the teams who were more penalized? Should the NFL launch an investigation for each of them?

I just went back and read the info and first I should correct myself. The Saints were in the top 5 in roughing the passer penalties all 3 years, in the top 5 in unnecessary roughness penalties in 2009 and 2011 and 6th in 2010.The league statement doesn't specifically state where among the top 5 in all those years the Saints fell. It could be 1st,4th and 5th; 2nd,2nd, 5th. Whatever. But it's clear that they were among the top 5 teams each year in those categories.As for your concern about "the other 2 teams" (which would be 4 now that I got the info right), I'm not sure where we'd find the information, but I don't think that we can assume that the other 4 teams each year were consistent from year to year. It could be very possible that the Saints were the only team to appear in the top 5 all 3 years. I think you would agree that a team consistently being among the top 5 in roughness penalties would be different than a team just appearing there once, yes?

Could leading the league in blitzes possibly have something to do with the Saints being in the top 5 in roughing the passer penalties?

 

[Deamon]

Has he been fired yet or what

 

[guderian]

You do not snitch on your brotherhood that you were a part of.

The "brotherhood" that encourages and celebrates serious injuries to other members of the brotherhood? (In pre-season games, no less). Some brotherhood that is.

That's football. That's why teams hide injuries to QBs if they can. You think that anything that the players did on the field was unique to the Saints??? Drop the sanctimony. If you want a sport with morals and ethics, watch cricket. The hypocrisy of this thing is amazing. If you don't want injuries change it to touch football.

 

[ldizzle]

this thread is hilarious.

who cares if shockey snitched. if it was him, and no proof shows that it was, it doesnt make a difference if he snitched while on the team or not. i could only imagine what would happen if he "hypothetically" snitched while still playing for the saints, then he is identified as the whistleblower. I could see why a person would want to wait until they left the organization.

bottom line is people were trying to take others out, which could jeopardize someones career. not saying that it couldnt happen without trying, but if someone did that to me and purposely ended my career, id go postal!

j/k id sue the m'fer

 

[bbuster]

This idea of the Saints "playing within the rules on the field" seems to be contradicted by the statements handing out the punishments that said that the Saints were among the most penalized teams for personal fouls, roughing the passer, etc. during that time period. I believe it said they were in the top 3 all 3 years.

So, no, they clearly weren't playing within the rules on the field and the bounty system may have been a reason why.

You're missing the point. If they played "outside the rules", they were penalized according to the NFLs rules by the refs on the field. So how is it a huge "competitive advantage" when the on-field play is monitored by the refs and penalties issued where appropriate???Over that entire period they ranked something like 8th in related penalties.

No reasonable person thinks that the refs make every call correctly. The NFL came out and said that the refs did not penalize the Saints properly. The head of officiating's exact words for one play that was not flagged was that it was "poster-child" evidence of a personal foul.

Posts like these based on so obviously flawed premises do not win any points. I don't care if the Saints had the fewest injuries in the league over those three years. They admitted they ran the bounty program. Before I ever heard about a bounty program I could tell they obviously were trying to injure at least one QB far beyond the violence expected in football. I wasn't the only one, it was obvious enough it sparked the investigation that led to the Saints admitting it.

If anyone thinks:

* removing the other team's QB is not a competitive advantage

* Greg Williams would have kicked in his own personal money and wasted time over three years running such a program if he didn't think it gave them an advantage

* the Saints would have continued the program after being warned if it didn't give them a competitive advantage

Then they are not being at all reasonable at all. Which is why responses to such posts dried up long ago.

Greg, probably one of the best posts I've seen on the subject. Unfortunately, logic falls on deaf ears in here.

 

[guderian]

This idea of the Saints "playing within the rules on the field" seems to be contradicted by the statements handing out the punishments that said that the Saints were among the most penalized teams for personal fouls, roughing the passer, etc. during that time period. I believe it said they were in the top 3 all 3 years.

So, no, they clearly weren't playing within the rules on the field and the bounty system may have been a reason why.

You're missing the point. If they played "outside the rules", they were penalized according to the NFLs rules by the refs on the field. So how is it a huge "competitive advantage" when the on-field play is monitored by the refs and penalties issued where appropriate???Over that entire period they ranked something like 8th in related penalties.

No reasonable person thinks that the refs make every call correctly. The NFL came out and said that the refs did not penalize the Saints properly. The head of officiating's exact words for one play that was not flagged was that it was "poster-child" evidence of a personal foul.

Posts like these based on so obviously flawed premises do not win any points. I don't care if the Saints had the fewest injuries in the league over those three years. They admitted they ran the bounty program. Before I ever heard about a bounty program I could tell they obviously were trying to injure at least one QB far beyond the violence expected in football. I wasn't the only one, it was obvious enough it sparked the investigation that led to the Saints admitting it.

If anyone thinks:

* removing the other team's QB is not a competitive advantage

* Greg Williams would have kicked in his own personal money and wasted time over three years running such a program if he didn't think it gave them an advantage

* the Saints would have continued the program after being warned if it didn't give them a competitive advantage

Then they are not being at all reasonable at all. Which is why responses to such posts dried up long ago.

Your case about a single blown call involving the only one game and only one player (golden boy Favre) as evidence that the Saints were officiated any differently than any other team is incredibly thin.It amazes me that as big a deal as this is and as many reporters are chasing down stories, that no one has shown other "dirty" hits beyond roughing up his majesty, Favre.

There have been a lot of players on other teams and coaches that have come out and said that this stuff is all normal practice, so unless someone can point me to specific evidence of an on-field impact such as abnormally high penalties or injuries over the entire era (and not just the Vikings game) then there's no evidence that there was an on-field impact.

 

[Vicktimized]

This idea of the Saints "playing within the rules on the field" seems to be contradicted by the statements handing out the punishments that said that the Saints were among the most penalized teams for personal fouls, roughing the passer, etc. during that time period. I believe it said they were in the top 3 all 3 years.

So, no, they clearly weren't playing within the rules on the field and the bounty system may have been a reason why.

You're missing the point. If they played "outside the rules", they were penalized according to the NFLs rules by the refs on the field. So how is it a huge "competitive advantage" when the on-field play is monitored by the refs and penalties issued where appropriate???Over that entire period they ranked something like 8th in related penalties.

No reasonable person thinks that the refs make every call correctly. The NFL came out and said that the refs did not penalize the Saints properly. The head of officiating's exact words for one play that was not flagged was that it was "poster-child" evidence of a personal foul.

Posts like these based on so obviously flawed premises do not win any points. I don't care if the Saints had the fewest injuries in the league over those three years. They admitted they ran the bounty program. Before I ever heard about a bounty program I could tell they obviously were trying to injure at least one QB far beyond the violence expected in football. I wasn't the only one, it was obvious enough it sparked the investigation that led to the Saints admitting it.

If anyone thinks:

* removing the other team's QB is not a competitive advantage

* Greg Williams would have kicked in his own personal money and wasted time over three years running such a program if he didn't think it gave them an advantage

* the Saints would have continued the program after being warned if it didn't give them a competitive advantage

Then they are not being at all reasonable at all. Which is why responses to such posts dried up long ago.

Your case about a single blown call involving the only one game and only one player (golden boy Favre) as evidence that the Saints were officiated any differently than any other team is incredibly thin.It amazes me that as big a deal as this is and as many reporters are chasing down stories, that no one has shown other "dirty" hits beyond roughing up his majesty, Favre.

There have been a lot of players on other teams and coaches that have come out and said that this stuff is all normal practice, so unless someone can point me to specific evidence of an on-field impact such as abnormally high penalties or injuries over the entire era (and not just the Vikings game) then there's no evidence that there was an on-field impact.

"Competitive advantage" is beyond laughable here. Does anyone seriously think going to the Super Bowl wasn't the impetus for trying to knock the stuffing out of Favre?

"That's football" has become cliche to say, but ... sorry, that's football.

 

[CalBear]

You do not snitch on your brotherhood that you were a part of.

The "brotherhood" that encourages and celebrates serious injuries to other members of the brotherhood? (In pre-season games, no less). Some brotherhood that is.

That's football. That's why teams hide injuries to QBs if they can. You think that anything that the players did on the field was unique to the Saints??? Drop the sanctimony. If you want a sport with morals and ethics, watch cricket. The hypocrisy of this thing is amazing. If you don't want injuries change it to touch football.

Let's take a scenario. Let's assume that this kind of bounty program is fairly widespread; half the league or more has something similar in place, at varying levels of discretion. The league starts investigating, and follows up this major penalty with three or four other high-profile, full-year suspensions of coaches, players, and team officials supporting the plans. The penalties put a virtual stop to the practice; 10 years from now, there are no active team-sponsored programs, only a few thugs playing dirty and patting each other on the back.Would the NFL be less interesting to watch? No.Would there be fewer needless injuries? Probably.So what is anyone getting out of this?

 

[massraider]

["That's football" has become cliche to say, but ... sorry, that's football.

Sorry, but its not that simple.Players have talked for years about the an unspoken agreement, not to do the dirty things that lead to careers being ended. That's why when an O-linemen dives at a DE's knees, people go crazy. If a guy can bury a QB, and make him nervous, or knock him out of the game, they will. Bounty or not. I think everyone agrees with that.That doesn't mean that offering monetary bonuses for knocking a guy out of a game is OK. It's quite obvious what that can lead to. Some player taking unnecessary shots in hopes of cashing in. The fact that it may not have happened in one game is meaningless. The NFL would be dumb to wait for a bounty system to end some guys season before it acted. Attempted murder is still a crime, you don't wait till someone hits something before charging them with a crime. The NFL has already drastically changed the culture of the league, you can find a ton of footage of hits from the 70's and 80's where no flag was thrown, but there would be today. And that's a good thing. No one wants to see Sage Rosenfels vs. Curtis Painter in a playoff game because the starting QBs got knocked out the previous week by a cheap shot. By the way, there's nothing manly about taking an extra free shot at a QB you outweigh by 60 pounds, who is extended and defenseless. These QBs take more brutal shots in a season than these defensive linemen see in a career.Allowing a bounty program goes in the exact opposite direction the NFL has gone in for 20 years, it's quite obvious getting the dirty play out of the league was a priority, running a program like this was really dumb, surpassed in stupidity only by the Saints decision to lie about it.

 

[Abrantes]

Your case about a single blown call involving the only one game and only one player (golden boy Favre) as evidence that the Saints were officiated any differently than any other team is incredibly thin.It amazes me that as big a deal as this is and as many reporters are chasing down stories, that no one has shown other "dirty" hits beyond roughing up his majesty, Favre. There have been a lot of players on other teams and coaches that have come out and said that this stuff is all normal practice, so unless someone can point me to specific evidence of an on-field impact such as abnormally high penalties or injuries over the entire era (and not just the Vikings game) then there's no evidence that there was an on-field impact.

You make a strange argument. On one hand, you use the testimony of others to suggest that the kind of bounty system the Saints had in place is widespread, so one should assume that the Saints were involved in it, and that it's to be considered within the bounds of "football". On the other hand, you suggest that there's little tangible evidence that the Saints did anything of the sort.

 

[footballnerd]

I'm genuinely at a loss as to why this would be something that Sapp should not report. This isn't like a witness against the mafia, can someone explain to me why this is such a bad thing?

exactly, someone in the Saints org leaked the info that reached Sapp. Isn't he just repeating info he received? Sounds like the Saints are gonna get hit with another penalty.....man....

 

[roadkill1292]

I'm genuinely at a loss as to why this would be something that Sapp should not report. This isn't like a witness against the mafia, can someone explain to me why this is such a bad thing?

exactly, someone in the Saints org leaked the info that reached Sapp. Isn't he just repeating info he received? Sounds like the Saints are gonna get hit with another penalty.....man....

Because of his employment situation, because he subjects the whistleblower to possible retribution and because he didn't bother to get his information independently confirmed.No, there isn't going to be a hit put out on Shockey if he is the guy (evidence piling up to the contrary) but if you're going to allege actions that have fairly serious ramifications, then you better get the story right. Sapp referred to his source in a singular manner and told Rich Eisen that he did not contact the league seeking confirmation. That's not good enough. And it wouldn't be good enough reporting even if he turned out to have the right guy.At least I don't think we've gotten to that point yet.

 

[footballnerd]

I'm genuinely at a loss as to why this would be something that Sapp should not report. This isn't like a witness against the mafia, can someone explain to me why this is such a bad thing?

exactly, someone in the Saints org leaked the info that reached Sapp. Isn't he just repeating info he received? Sounds like the Saints are gonna get hit with another penalty.....man....

Because of his employment situation, because he subjects the whistleblower to possible retribution and because he didn't bother to get his information independently confirmed.No, there isn't going to be a hit put out on Shockey if he is the guy (evidence piling up to the contrary) but if you're going to allege actions that have fairly serious ramifications, then you better get the story right. Sapp referred to his source in a singular manner and told Rich Eisen that he did not contact the league seeking confirmation. That's not good enough. And it wouldn't be good enough reporting even if he turned out to have the right guy.At least I don't think we've gotten to that point yet.

True. If we are talking about poor journalism he def should be hit for that with a law suit, see Scottie Pippen. If it does turn out he was right, hes not the only one to penalize for leaking as an NFL employee, his source who let it out of the Saints org should take the brunt of the penalty.

 

[Short Corner]

I'm genuinely at a loss as to why this would be something that Sapp should not report. This isn't like a witness against the mafia, can someone explain to me why this is such a bad thing?

exactly, someone in the Saints org leaked the info that reached Sapp. Isn't he just repeating info he received? Sounds like the Saints are gonna get hit with another penalty.....man....

Because of his employment situation, because he subjects the whistleblower to possible retribution and because he didn't bother to get his information independently confirmed.No, there isn't going to be a hit put out on Shockey if he is the guy (evidence piling up to the contrary) but if you're going to allege actions that have fairly serious ramifications, then you better get the story right. Sapp referred to his source in a singular manner and told Rich Eisen that he did not contact the league seeking confirmation. That's not good enough. And it wouldn't be good enough reporting even if he turned out to have the right guy.

At least I don't think we've gotten to that point yet.

True. If we are talking about poor journalism he def should be hit for that with a law suit, see Scottie Pippen. If it does turn out he was right, hes not the only one to penalize for leaking as an NFL employee, his source who let it out of the Saints org should take the brunt of the penalty.

As a journalist and an employee of the NFL, Sapp is held to a higher standard. He is screwed whether he got it right or not.

 

[footballnerd]

True. If we are talking about poor journalism he def should be hit for that with a law suit, see Scottie Pippen. If it does turn out he was right, hes not the only one to penalize for leaking as an NFL employee, his source who let it out of the Saints org should take the brunt of the penalty.

As a journalist and an employee of the NFL, Sapp is held to a higher standard. He is screwed whether he got it right or not.

this could be Sapp-gate. be in the NFLs best interest to discredit Sapps report and can him.

 

[Phenix]

You do not snitch on your brotherhood that you were a part of.

The "brotherhood" that encourages and celebrates serious injuries to other members of the brotherhood? (In pre-season games, no less). Some brotherhood that is.

That's football. That's why teams hide injuries to QBs if they can. You think that anything that the players did on the field was unique to the Saints??? Drop the sanctimony. If you want a sport with morals and ethics, watch cricket. The hypocrisy of this thing is amazing. If you don't want injuries change it to touch football.

ditto

 

[roadkill1292]

I'm genuinely at a loss as to why this would be something that Sapp should not report. This isn't like a witness against the mafia, can someone explain to me why this is such a bad thing?

exactly, someone in the Saints org leaked the info that reached Sapp. Isn't he just repeating info he received? Sounds like the Saints are gonna get hit with another penalty.....man....

Because of his employment situation, because he subjects the whistleblower to possible retribution and because he didn't bother to get his information independently confirmed.No, there isn't going to be a hit put out on Shockey if he is the guy (evidence piling up to the contrary) but if you're going to allege actions that have fairly serious ramifications, then you better get the story right. Sapp referred to his source in a singular manner and told Rich Eisen that he did not contact the league seeking confirmation. That's not good enough. And it wouldn't be good enough reporting even if he turned out to have the right guy.

At least I don't think we've gotten to that point yet.

True. If we are talking about poor journalism he def should be hit for that with a law suit, see Scottie Pippen. If it does turn out he was right, hes not the only one to penalize for leaking as an NFL employee, his source who let it out of the Saints org should take the brunt of the penalty.

As a journalist and an employee of the NFL, Sapp is held to a higher standard. He is screwed whether he got it right or not.

In defense of Sapp, he could be really stupid and not even realize that he crossed the line into a reportorial role, even though he was cognizant enough not to name his source. Maybe he's gotten the impression from other news providers that "first" is more important than "right," though, again, I hope we haven't reached that stage in news reporting where that kind of value system takes precedence.As for the source himself, there are rarely ramifications if he remains protected by the reporter. Which is one of the main reasons why you get multiple sources to validate your information if you're not gonna name them. It's one thing to say, "Sean Payton told me yesterday that ......" but it's quite another thing to say that "some guy I trust told me .......". In the first instance, Sean Payton takes responsibility for what is said. In the second, the reporter does. So the technique that has evolved over the years is to get independent confirmation. A reporter who doesn't do this is wrong even if he gets it right. Because if he persists in taking shortcuts, he'll be wrong often enough to kill his and his employer's credibility.

 

[fatness]

And I don't know what sources Sapp has...but you do...

Sapp's source definitely isn't in the league office.

Sapp didn’t name his source and acknowledged that he hadn’t asked the league office if his source was correct.

link

 

[fatness]

You do not snitch on your brotherhood that you were a part of.

Let me guess: you're a Shriner or in a sorority.

 

[SWC]

where i come from you stand by your brohans just like i stand buy all the guys from the floor even if they are in a different department and you dont pay to see them get hurt thats just fn dumb and anyone who is saying snitches get stitches f you too bet most of you are jellywaistes who cant wait to get home and eat another pizza but when you get behind a keyboard its time to pretend your all street and hood and tough well just because you blow out the speakers on your toyota tercel playing little wayne it doesnt make you anything but a poser just like trying to be tough out it here does it took a bigger pair of stones for whoever turned this out to do it than it took to have the system and encourage injuries thats for damned sure and if you disagree then either head to church on sunday and try to figure it out or head to a wood chipper and take a dive because you dont do anything good for the planet take that to the bank brohans but dont take it to the bank if you are a wanna be toughguy with spinners on your corolla

 

[Avery]

where i come from you stand by your brohans just like i stand buy all the guys from the floor even if they are in a different department and you dont pay to see them get hurt thats just fn dumb and anyone who is saying snitches get stitches f you too bet most of you are jellywaistes who cant wait to get home and eat another pizza but when you get behind a keyboard its time to pretend your all street and hood and tough well just because you blow out the speakers on your toyota tercel playing little wayne it doesnt make you anything but a poser just like trying to be tough out it here does it took a bigger pair of stones for whoever turned this out to do it than it took to have the system and encourage injuries thats for damned sure and if you disagree then either head to church on sunday and try to figure it out or head to a wood chipper and take a dive because you dont do anything good for the planet take that to the bank brohans but dont take it to the bank if you are a wanna be toughguy with spinners on your corolla

 

[roadkill1292]

where i come from you stand by your brohans just like i stand buy all the guys from the floor even if they are in a different department and you dont pay to see them get hurt thats just fn dumb and anyone who is saying snitches get stitches f you too bet most of you are jellywaistes who cant wait to get home and eat another pizza but when you get behind a keyboard its time to pretend your all street and hood and tough well just because you blow out the speakers on your toyota tercel playing little wayne it doesnt make you anything but a poser just like trying to be tough out it here does it took a bigger pair of stones for whoever turned this out to do it than it took to have the system and encourage injuries thats for damned sure and if you disagree then either head to church on sunday and try to figure it out or head to a wood chipper and take a dive because you dont do anything good for the planet take that to the bank brohans but dont take it to the bank if you are a wanna be toughguy with spinners on your corolla

I wish I'd said this.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

where i come from you stand by your brohans just like i stand buy all the guys from the floor even if they are in a different department and you dont pay to see them get hurt thats just fn dumb and anyone who is saying snitches get stitches f you too bet most of you are jellywaistes who cant wait to get home and eat another pizza but when you get behind a keyboard its time to pretend your all street and hood and tough well just because you blow out the speakers on your toyota tercel playing little wayne it doesnt make you anything but a poser just like trying to be tough out it here does it took a bigger pair of stones for whoever turned this out to do it than it took to have the system and encourage injuries thats for damned sure and if you disagree then either head to church on sunday and try to figure it out or head to a wood chipper and take a dive because you dont do anything good for the planet take that to the bank brohans but dont take it to the bank if you are a wanna be toughguy with spinners on your corolla

I tried to read this as it's written....the bold is where I got before being totally out of oxygen. How'd everyone else do?