Bountygate

[Stranger]

Re: Question for the board

Goodell from the get go wanted to make his NFL legacy player safety, so he'll play that angle to the bitter end.
Problem is, he failed to realize that big hits=big ratings.
This is a great opportunity for him to pull fans back on his side. More and more fans are growing jaded as each season more and more rules are put in place to wrap QBs and WRs in bubble wrap. Now he can allude that big hits have been a result of cheating and bounties...people will feel better about protecting the all-important QB.

In 50 years the NFL will be able to replace existing players with robots, and Goodell will get the player safety that he's supposedly so concerned about. I guess then, the NFL will get it's 20+ game season after all

 

[RamBall]

Re: Question for the board

In one sentence?

It is not about either it is a PR move by Goodell to make the public believe he is interested in player safety, but it has nothing to do with safety as he isnt targeting teams or players that flagarantly delivered illegal hits.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Question for the board

I think he is using the illegality of the "bounty system" and Williams as public enemy #1 as tools in his player safety crusade.

That doesn't make sense to me.

How does saying "we will eliminate coach sponsored bounties that break league rules" change a thing about how the game is played?

I think it's the reverse. In the midst of concern about player safety, you just can't ignore a coach-sponsored illegal bounty system.

But imagine this. Next time a defender launches a late helmet to helmet hit, would it do anything to say "don't do that cause look what we did to Greg Wms on the bounty issue!" The player would rightly say "uh, this has nothing to do with bounties. So why are you bringing that up."

 

[Angry Ram]

Re: Question for the board

It's not about the player safety like the stuff w/ James Harrison or Dunta Robinson, it's about the unethical actions of having cash rewards for targeting players to take out of games.

So it's more an ethics thing for you than a legal issue? Because, of course, it IS illegal in accordance with league rules to even have a bounty, or suggest that you'll pay non-contract bonuses. No matter what they're for. Targeting players, making interceptions, forcing fumbles, etc.

Yeah, for me it goes way beyond the rule book. Rules are there, just like personal fouls or smack talkin refs. But bounties are another issue entirely. I made this analogy before, its like the players gettin these bounties are hunters. Actually, the players are poachers, just like the sickos killing rhinos just for the horns. Yeah I know, one is a football injury and the other is the death of an animal, but the point is clear.

How many times have we heard by former/current players and announcers that the NFL players are in a fraternity, and that they all respect each other. Remember when that Bills player got paralyzed and of course Jason Smith this year? Both times and other serious injuries players from both teams were concerned and prayed together. It's unity. And when players get paid to purposefully endanger one's career and/or life, well it kinda pisses on the whole fraternity thing.

 

[Yamahopper]

Re: Question for the board

When you give Goodell a big F'u by ignoring his orders you get the hammer.

 

[-X-]

Re: Question for the board

I think he is using the illegality of the "bounty system" and Williams as public enemy #1 as tools in his player safety crusade.

That doesn't make sense to me.

How does saying "we will eliminate coach sponsored bounties that break league rules" change a thing about how the game is played?

I think it's the reverse. In the midst of concern about player safety, you just can't ignore a coach-sponsored illegal bounty system.

But imagine this. Next time a defender launches a late helmet to helmet hit, would it do anything to say "don't do that cause look what we did to Greg Wms on the bounty issue!" The player would rightly say "uh, this has nothing to do with bounties. So why are you bringing that up."

I think what 503 is saying is that Goodell is just using the legality of the issue to further his player safety agenda. Goodell, I think, is going to tie the two issues together by using the non-contract bonuses rule as his warrant, and then use the player-safety aspect of it as his gavel.

 

[Stranger]

When you give Goodell a big F'u by ignoring his orders you get the hammer.

my vote for best answer

 

[Selassie I]

First and ONLY thing that I will about this. I truly believe that at least half the teams in the league have some sort of system like this in place. It DOESN'T mean that they are paid to take cheap shots. It's simply an incentive to get them to play and hit hard. From Pop Warner and up, teams try to take the best player out, but very FEW teams actually tell their players to take cheap shots to do it...in fact they don't want to knock players out with cheap shots and they vehemently express that to their teams.

Watergate=Bountygate

If the NFL only fines and suspends the Saints and GW, then that is just bullshit.

Excellant post. So True.

 

[RamFan503]

Re: Question for the board

I think he is using the illegality of the "bounty system" and Williams as public enemy #1 as tools in his player safety crusade.

That doesn't make sense to me.

How does saying "we will eliminate coach sponsored bounties that break league rules" change a thing about how the game is played?

I think it's the reverse. In the midst of concern about player safety, you just can't ignore a coach-sponsored illegal bounty system.

But imagine this. Next time a defender launches a late helmet to helmet hit, would it do anything to say "don't do that cause look what we did to Greg Wms on the bounty issue!" The player would rightly say "uh, this has nothing to do with bounties. So why are you bringing that up."

In a few words... It doesn't. Where did I say or hint towards that?

I'm not sure where you are coming from here. I think Warner4 hits it on the head as well. He [W4Prez] uses the term legacy and that is IMO much of what this is really about.

Much like Rozelle had the formation of the current NFL, Monday Night Football, and Superbowl, Tagliabue's legacy was expansion and enhanced TV revenue... Goodell views his legacy as safety and the 18 game season IMO. Safety is his crusade - and a legacy he hopes to leave.

I'm not saying that player safety is a bad thing - far from it. What I'm saying is that every crusade or campaign needs a poster child - I give you Greg Williams.

No matter what the NFL does to Williams, I can never imagine a player giving him a first - let alone a second thought when he is ready to lay down the hammer on a QB or any other player. That's part of what makes this whole thing so ludicrous. And also why I think it is almost entirely about legacy and a crusade and not about the idea that Williams did something abhorrent. The NFL and Goodell is pushing an agenda here and as a fan, I am not fooled.

 

[RamFan503]

First and ONLY thing that I will about this. I truly believe that at least half the teams in the league have some sort of system like this in place. It DOESN'T mean that they are paid to take cheap shots. It's simply an incentive to get them to play and hit hard. From Pop Warner and up, teams try to take the best player out, but very FEW teams actually tell their players to take cheap shots to do it...in fact they don't want to knock players out with cheap shots and they vehemently express that to their teams.

Watergate=Bountygate

If the NFL only fines and suspends the Saints and GW, then that is just bullshit.

Excellant post. So True.

gunna second that.

 

[-X-]

Re: Question for the board

Much like Rozelle had the formation of the current NFL, Monday Night Football, and Superbowl, Tagliabue's legacy was expansion and enhanced TV revenue... Goodell views his legacy as safety and the 18 game season IMO. Safety is his crusade - and a legacy he hopes to leave.

I'm not saying that player safety is a bad thing - far from it. What I'm saying is that every crusade or campaign needs a poster child - I give you Greg Williams.

No matter what the NFL does to Williams, I can never imagine a player giving him a first - let alone a second thought when he is ready to lay down the hammer on a QB or any other player. That's part of what makes this whole thing so ludicrous. And also why I think it is almost entirely about legacy and a crusade and not about the idea that Williams did something abhorrent. The NFL and Goodell is pushing an agenda here and as a fan, I am not fooled.

I agree with that. There's really no reading between the lines here either. Goodell came right out and said that there are two issues with this investigation, and one of them is absolutely player safety. Specifically:

"The payments here are particularly troubling because they involved not just payments for 'performance,' but also for injuring opposing players," Commissioner Roger Goodell said Friday in a statement. "The bounty rule promotes two key elements of NFL football: player safety and competitive integrity."

Also, league rep Greg Aiello said in an email to The Associated Press that the NFL will be "addressing the issues raised as part of our responsibility to protect player safety and the integrity of the game." When further asked if they would be looking at other teams that Williams was with, or any other teams in general, he added that the NFL will look at "any relevant info regarding rules being broken," saying that is "standard procedure." So to me it sounds like investigating rules being broken is "standard op", but claims of intentionally trying to injure other players is a bit more important to the league.

 

[-X-]

Rams Say Gregg Williams Has Been Cooperative With NFL Investigation

http://tracking.si.com/2012/03/09/rams- ... stigation/

St. Louis Rams defensive coordinator Gregg Williams is headed for a serious penalty after admitting to running a bounty program during his time with the New Orleans Saints, but maybe he’ll get some time off for good behavior. The Rams say that Williams is cooperating with the NFL’s investigation, according to the Associated Press.

“Coach Williams has shown contrition for his actions and continues to cooperate with the NFL in this investigation,” Rams chief operating officer Kevin Demoff said in a statement to the AP today. “Out of respect for the NFL’s ongoing process, we will refrain from commenting until the league has come to a final decision on all aspects of this matter.”

Williams is facing a possible suspension and fine after admitting that he ran a bounty pool of up to $50,000 with the Saints. Meanwhile, he’s keeping busy in his new role with the Rams, preparing for free agency next week, followed by pre- and post-draft minicamps.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Question for the board

If you had to sum it up in one sentence, what do you think the MAIN issue is with regard to this investigation into the Saints (and Loomis, Payton, Williams)? Is it the fact that they broke the rule pertaining to non-contract bonuses? Or do you think it's more an effort to increase player safety? Seems there are two intertwined issues here, but only one of them is a legal issue. Specifically, implying (or even offering) monetary compensation for performance benchmarks. Which of the two do you think is the one the league office is trying to crack down on more?

I'm not sure you can separate them. Absolutely the fact that it was a rule violation matters, but the fact that the rule violation included bounties just drives the whole issue to another level.

My experience in discussing this made me realize a whole bunch of people--more than you would expect--don't even realize there was a rule involved.

So,for example, if someone says "but the Saints did not have an inordinate number of penalties," it's beside the point---according to the rule, merely offering a reward for an injury hit is illegal.

Sure you can separate them. For the purpose of this discussion, anyway. What I was asking is, basically, what's the biggest issue for the league office in this whole investigation. Rule-breaking, or player safety? There might be a few people who don't know there's a rule involved, but I haven't run across them yet.

On the one hand you have the bounty 'rule', and on the other hand you have the specifics of those bounties that are causing all the commotion. If there was no mention of taking a player out of the game, or getting one carted off, this wouldn't have nearly the legs it has now. It would still be a rule violation, but nobody would care as much. "Hey, no fair! They're paying their players for interceptions!" Pshhh. Nobody cares. That's just an infraction that warrants a fine or something. But now that we KNOW what some of those specifics are, the story has legs, and player safety comes to the forefront. "Hey! Uncool! They're paying players to injure other players!" Sure it happens a lot, has happened for a long time, and will probably continue to happen, but not everyone knew about it. And with the rise of concussions, onset dementia, suicides, etc., it's a VERY big deal to not only the league, but with players, players' families, lawyers, you name it.

So that makes me believe that the rule-breaking isn't the part of this that is going to determine the size of the penalty. It's going to be directly tied to the "head-hunting" (literal meaning) of the bounty system. IMO.

I've read threads where people didn't know there was a rule.

BUT while the safety issue may drive the penalty, and who knows, there is nothing to investigate without the rule-breaking.

Without the rule-breaking all you've got is...some football games.

And with the rule-breaking you have coaches offering bounties on injury hits.

That can't be tolerated under any conditions, whether there's a safety drive on or not.

I mean think about it. Yes the 2009 playoffs started this, with the way Saints players went after Favre. But without a bounty rule, what do they have to investigate? Then add to that the fact that if that kind of hitting is attributed to a coach's bounty, it goes over the top in terms of how seriously you take it.

Though, again, without a bounty rule, all they have on the Saints/Vikes game is some fines for late hits and no coaching suspensions.

 

[RamFan503]

Re: Question for the board

And with the rule-breaking you have coaches offering bounties on injury hits.

That can't be tolerated under any conditions, whether there's a safety drive on or not.

On that - I can't agree more.

I mean think about it. Yes the 2009 playoffs started this, with the way Saints players went after Favre. But without a bounty rule, what do they have to investigate? Then add to that the fact that if that kind of hitting is attributed to a coach's bounty, it goes over the top in terms of how seriously you take it.

Though, again, without a bounty rule, all they have on the Saints/Vikes game is some fines for late hits and no coaching suspensions.

I'd agree with that as well. I don't buy the idea that there are that many out there that don't know there was a rule violation - I suppose you can always find some ostriches out there somewhere.

But it is pretty much what I am saying. Without the possible quest for injuries, there is no story and no reason to hang him for all to see. Without the possible rule violation, there is no recourse.

So tell me... what drives the truck?

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Question for the board

And with the rule-breaking you have coaches offering bounties on injury hits.

That can't be tolerated under any conditions, whether there's a safety drive on or not.

On that - I can't agree more.

I mean think about it. Yes the 2009 playoffs started this, with the way Saints players went after Favre. But without a bounty rule, what do they have to investigate? Then add to that the fact that if that kind of hitting is attributed to a coach's bounty, it goes over the top in terms of how seriously you take it.

Though, again, without a bounty rule, all they have on the Saints/Vikes game is some fines for late hits and no coaching suspensions.

I'd agree with that as well. I don't buy the idea that there are that many out there that don't know there was a rule violation - I suppose you can always find some ostriches out there somewhere.

But it is pretty much what I am saying. Without the possible quest for injuries, there is no story and no reason to hang him for all to see. Without the possible rule violation, there is no recourse.

So tell me... what drives the truck?

I responded regularly to people who did not know there was a rule OR didn't get the rule. And got tired of it. Believe me there not only were people who were oblivious to the existence of a rule, there were people who actually said "there's a rule? what rule?" And the reason for that is simple. The reporting tended to downplay the existence of a rule. Had nothing to do with being an "ostrich." It had to do with how people responded.

I am talking about the entire Rams net now. You remember all the posts about how fans just don't want to see big hits but violence was part of the game? That stuff was all completely rule-ignorant. Then there were people, including Bernie, who tried to argue that this was no big deal because if you look at the Saints they didn't have an inordinate record for illegal hits. Doesn't matter. It's irrelevant. The offer of a non-contractual reward alone breaks league rules, whether or not it ever results in anything.

Nothing about the game will change if this rule is enforced. Players will be players. BUT the league cannot tolerate coaches offering non-contractual rewards, up to and including bounties--and, again for emphasis, there doesn't have to be an injury or a pay-out for the rule to be violated. The offer alone suffices.

And I reverse your formula. Injuries didn't drive this. Breaking the rule drove this. In fact the release that the league put out initially focused on the illegal nature of the bounty system, not on illegal hits or players being carted off.

The league knows it can legislate improper hits in other ways (as it has been doing). The problem with coaches getting involved in non-contractual rewards is an entire problem in its own right and the league approached it as an entire problem in its own right.

 

[Yamahopper]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... -bounties/

Rams’ Brady Poppinga rips Gregg Williams over bounties

Posted by Michael David Smith on March 9, 2012, 4:04 AM EST

Reuters
Linebacker Brady Poppinga and defensive coordinator Gregg Williams are both currently under contract to the Rams, although it’s not clear whether either one of them will be with the team for much longer. That’s just as well, because Poppinga doesn’t have much respect for Williams.

Poppinga, who becomes a free agent next week, says that Williams, who may be suspended for running a bounty program with the Saints, did something “degrading,” “animalistic” and “repulsive” in orchestrating bounties in New Orleans.

“I just can’t sit there and be silent,” Poppinga told Alex Marvez of FOXSports.com. “I look at this as an opportunity to share with the public that we, as football players, are not barbaric and out to try and destroy everything in our path. Football is my profession and I take it seriously. It’s an art form. It’s technical, strategic and takes a lot of intelligence to play. When this came out, it started to confirm the idea that football guys are idiots. That’s not who we are. Ninety-five percent of the guys are very intelligent. It’s just guys who love to go out and play a physical game.”

Poppinga said he doesn’t like the message that the bounty scandal sends.

“It’s a huge problem in society not knowing how to compete with the right perspective,” Poppinga said.

As for whether Poppinga has any future on the Rams’ defense, where he started 12 games last season, Poppinga said he’s not worried about that.

“If they’re not going to want me on the team because of that, that’s fine,” Poppinga said.

==============================================================================

So I guess the SAM will be up for grabs in training camp.

 

[Selassie I]

Poppinga is such a Kook .

 

[RamFan503]

Re: Question for the board

Refer to the quote by Goodell as stated in X's post directly above.

 

[bwdenverram]

Re: Question for the board

Safety.. BUT can someone please school me on the whole "legal" issue because that part I don't get. I keep hearing everyone say it's a legal issue. I understand in the NFL rules and guidelines were broke. It's been stated compensating any player outside of contracts is not allowed but when people say it's illegal I think the law or government. Since the NFL in essence is a corporation, what they did was violate company rules. So although the NFL can fine, suspend or maybe even fire for these violations, to my knowledge they can't go to jail for what they did. So I ask, how is it illegal then? I'm not a lawyer so I'm really asking this. Is it just words everyone is using or how is it really illegal? If it was truly "illegal" wouldn't this be beyond just an NFL investigation? Roger Goodell isn't working for the USDA office last I checked.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Question for the board

Refer to the quote by Goodell as stated in X's post directly above.

I did. Then wrote what I wrote.