Bountygate
- Thread starter bluecoconuts
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
So maybe Gibbs lied? Also, these kinds of stories that come out only help Williams.
The more teams that show that they had a similar program, or reward system, the better. . .
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Report: Joe Gibbs Used to Hand Out $100 Bills For Knocking Down Quarterbacks
Full story: http://tracking.si.com/2012/03/06/repor ... =nfl_t2_a4
George Stark, a former player under Joe Gibbs during his first stint as head coach of the Washington Redskins, said that Gibbs used to give out $100 bills to defenders who knocked down the opposing team’s quarterback, according to DC Sports Bog.
“Let’s be clear: the reason that the Hogs did that Hogs Night Out poster…was, in the meeting after the game, [hil]Joe Gibbs would come in, he’d have a fistful of $100 bills[/hil],” Starke said on ESPN 980, as transcribed by DC Sports Bog. “And if Dexter knocked the quarterback down three times, he would get three hundred-dollar bills. And Joe would pass the money out in the meeting, and we would have to duck.
“Dexter only played probably three plays a game, because he didn’t play the run, all he wanted to do was the rush the passer. So he’s getting three hundred-dollar bills. If Art Monk got two catches…there’s all kind of reasons that guy got these hundred-dollar bills. But offensive linemen, if they had a perfect game — that meant that John [Riggins] ran for 100 yards — he would get some money but we didn’t get anything. That was the whole Hogs Night Out thing. I said screw that, I went out and signed Jack Kent Cooke’s to the check. Everybody knows that story.”
During his second stint as the Redskins head coach, Gregg Williams served as Gibbs’ defensive coordinator. Williams is now being charged with establishing a bounty system while in New Orleans where he would financially reward players for injuring members of the opposing team.
Gibbs denied any knowledge of such a system run by Williams while he was the head coach of the Redskins. However Starke told ESPN 980, [hil]“That’s just too stupid. Of course he knew.”[/hil]
The more teams that show that they had a similar program, or reward system, the better. . .
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Report: Joe Gibbs Used to Hand Out $100 Bills For Knocking Down Quarterbacks
Full story: http://tracking.si.com/2012/03/06/repor ... =nfl_t2_a4
George Stark, a former player under Joe Gibbs during his first stint as head coach of the Washington Redskins, said that Gibbs used to give out $100 bills to defenders who knocked down the opposing team’s quarterback, according to DC Sports Bog.
“Let’s be clear: the reason that the Hogs did that Hogs Night Out poster…was, in the meeting after the game, [hil]Joe Gibbs would come in, he’d have a fistful of $100 bills[/hil],” Starke said on ESPN 980, as transcribed by DC Sports Bog. “And if Dexter knocked the quarterback down three times, he would get three hundred-dollar bills. And Joe would pass the money out in the meeting, and we would have to duck.
“Dexter only played probably three plays a game, because he didn’t play the run, all he wanted to do was the rush the passer. So he’s getting three hundred-dollar bills. If Art Monk got two catches…there’s all kind of reasons that guy got these hundred-dollar bills. But offensive linemen, if they had a perfect game — that meant that John [Riggins] ran for 100 yards — he would get some money but we didn’t get anything. That was the whole Hogs Night Out thing. I said screw that, I went out and signed Jack Kent Cooke’s to the check. Everybody knows that story.”
During his second stint as the Redskins head coach, Gregg Williams served as Gibbs’ defensive coordinator. Williams is now being charged with establishing a bounty system while in New Orleans where he would financially reward players for injuring members of the opposing team.
Gibbs denied any knowledge of such a system run by Williams while he was the head coach of the Redskins. However Starke told ESPN 980, [hil]“That’s just too stupid. Of course he knew.”[/hil]
And yet... I don't feel any worse about Gibbs. I always liked him as a coach and still do. Sure hope more of these stories come out. I think the league will have a little harder time singling Williams out when it is obvious to EVERYONE who is not living under a rock that this stuff has been going on for decades in virtually every sport. Anyone think there's nothing to the goon in hockey or the too high and tight in baseball? Anyone think the 6 foul pine riders in basketball were not on their team for a reason? Or that the hard foul in the lane on the guy that is killing you is not rewarded? Please.
Commish probably won't even mention this in his public statements. And I wonder if the Redskins will suffer any penalty for this? Doubt it, they've got their escape-goat, and my guess is they'll limit the focus to Greg Williams.X said:
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.
Watergate=Bountygate
If the NFL only fines and suspends the Saints and GW, then that is just bullshit.
Absolutely other teams in the league do this. That's already been established through interviews on NFLN with ex-players. I think the Saints are going to get punished because they were already told once to stop, and they kept on doing it. The part that bothers me is, the NFL didn't bother to tip off the Rams (or even Fisher, who's on the competition committee) that the league was about to come down on the Saints and Williams. They just kept their yaps shut, let the Rams hire Williams, and a few weeks later decide to do something about it. We absolutely could have been forewarned.DR RAM said:
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?
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?
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #169
Re: Question for the board
One sentence? Oh man... Okay.
I think publicly the league wants to crack down on player safety, but privately it's all about the Benjamin's.
One sentence? Oh man... Okay.
I think publicly the league wants to crack down on player safety, but privately it's all about the Benjamin's.
Re: Question for the board
Without having an opportunity to see the evidence that the Commissioner has accumulated .... its really impossible to make a decision on that.
Like I've already said a few times ... It will be very interesting to see if Goodell destroys the evidence ,,, AGAIN.
Without having an opportunity to see the evidence that the Commissioner has accumulated .... its really impossible to make a decision on that.
Like I've already said a few times ... It will be very interesting to see if Goodell destroys the evidence ,,, AGAIN.
libertadrocks
Hall of Fame
Re: Question for the board
The NFL cant be continuously stressing player safety, while at the same time allowing a "bounty" system; that's hypocrisy
The NFL cant be continuously stressing player safety, while at the same time allowing a "bounty" system; that's hypocrisy
This is a great soapbox from which to look as if the league is taking action to improve player safety, while privately it is eliminating an avenue for game fixing, satisfying Vegas odds-makers.
PS If the league was really worried about player safety, then the highest fine teams, coaches, etc. would be investigated. But that means Titans, Steeler, Eagles, Jets and a few others. I just dont see that happening.
PS If the league was really worried about player safety, then the highest fine teams, coaches, etc. would be investigated. But that means Titans, Steeler, Eagles, Jets and a few others. I just dont see that happening.
Re: Question for the board
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.
X said:
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.
Re: Question for the board
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.
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.zn said:
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.
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.
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.
Re: Question for the board
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.Angry Ram said:
Re: Question for the board
You want me to sum it up in one sentence? I think that the main problem is that the Saints flouted the authority of the NFL numerous times (particularly with that shady character that Payton and Loomis hung around when the league warned them to stay away from him), and Goodell won't stand for such insubordination anymore.
You want me to sum it up in one sentence? I think that the main problem is that the Saints flouted the authority of the NFL numerous times (particularly with that shady character that Payton and Loomis hung around when the league warned them to stay away from him), and Goodell won't stand for such insubordination anymore.
Warner4Prez
Hall of Fame
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.
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.