Saints Player Suspensions Announced

[HoustonRaven]

This thread just goes around and around in circles.

:word

[Haloti92]

So am I.

The United States Attorney signed off on the entire investigation -- coaches AND players.

What exactly does that ("signing off") mean?

And from what I have seen, Vilma wasn't the one accused of covering up, Hargrove was.

[HoustonRaven]

And by the way, the NFLPA was offered to view the evidence to which they refused.

So this whole "lets see the evidence" is bunk. If they cared that much, they would have at least took a look at what the league found out. Instead, they refused so they can posture themselves into a "the coach told me to do it" / "he said, she said" type of denial.

[festivus]

Of course it is the main issue regarding Vilma. How about you answer the question. Is it acceptable to attempt to knock a guy out with a legal hit? Yes or no?

And how does mistyping his name mean what I said is less important? Or were you being cute?

What "facts" am I changing by asking that question?

What is it with this thread, indeed? Some people get a little too sensitive when it comes to differing opinions/points. That is for sure.

Dial back the sarcasm. You are the one who didn't read the thread or think about the issue before you posted, so pump the brakes a little, ok?

And "mistyping" is the C and V, or the E and the R. You don't "mistype" Vilma to Wilma, you screwed up the guy's name. Own it, move on.

Here is how I explained it a couple of pages back to blah3.

In the context of criminal law, a conspiracy exists when there is an agreement to violate the law. You do not need to show an *actual* murder in a prosecution for conspiracy to commit murder. Just the agreement to break the law, and some action taken as part of the conspiracy.

If you conspire to circumvent the salary cap, and conspire to injure players, and conspire to obstruct an investigation, and conspire to be a p.o.s. of a human being, there does not need to be a demonstration that a single hit or a single group of hits was legal or illegal.

It's enough that there was a conspiracy.

You are assuming there was not enough evidence, which is quite a startling and unreasonable assumption. There was no public trial and none of these clowns is entitled to a public trial. I will not, though, assume it didn't happen just because I never received a personal invitation from Goodell to observe the meetings and read the memos.

It's not about playing hard, as you suggest.

It's about (a) circumventing the salary cap with (b) outside money to (c) enter into an agreement (d) with other players (e) and coaches (f) and others (g) to supplement a player's pay (h) by rewarding the player for injuring other players (i) specifically targeting *specific* players with *specific* injury concerns (j) including head injuries.

And then (k) lying their asses off and pretending it didn't happen when the league came knocking.

Playing hard, as you suggest, is not what they were being punished for.

There. I reposted it from two pages ago and explained it again.

Now do you understand?

[HoustonRaven]

What exactly does that ("signing off") mean?

And from what I have seen, Vilma wasn't the one accused of covering up, Hargrove was.

This ....

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...unty-evidence/

[Haloti92]

Dial back the sarcasm. You are the one who didn't read the thread or think about the issue before you posted, so pump the brakes a little, ok?

More cuteness? You could have saved some keystrokes here.

And "mistyping" is the C and V, or the E and the R. You don't "mistype" Vilma to Wilma, you screwed up the guy's name. Own it, move on.

Phonetically a "w" works for me. I own it. And you should own up to ignoring my point and focusing on an irrelevant strawman. Own it? You should.

Here is how I explained it a couple of pages back to blah3.

Please spare me the "conspiracy" nonsense. I already brought up the point that almost all (except for what I pointed to as "the issue") would be true if the Saints were rewarding touchdowns and sacks, etc. And there is no way I would support a 1 year suspension if that was the case. Perhaps you would? It sounds like it with the "conspiracy" drama you mention.

I am not assuming there was no evidence, in terms of the money pool for hits. I am saying that the penalty reflects the fact that the league is assuming/claiming that the money was being rewarded for in-game illegal behavior (illegal hits). In the case of Williams I think that is the case (from his speeches). I have yet to see anything comparable from Vilma. Again, if you would support the 1 year suspension if he had contributed to a pool rewarding TDs, then I would just say I would not support it, and we would be done.

It's not about playing hard, as you suggest.

It's about (a) circumventing the salary cap with (b) outside money to (c) enter into an agreement (d) with other players (e) and coaches (f) and others (g) to supplement a player's pay (h) by rewarding the player for injuring other players (i) specifically targeting *specific* players with *specific* injury concerns (j) including head injuries.

And then (k) lying their asses off and pretending it didn't happen when the league came knocking.

Playing hard, as you suggest, is not what they were being punished for.

There. I reposted it from two pages ago and explained it again.

Now do you understand?

a) already addressed that (minor); b) ditto, c) ditto, d) ditto, e) ditto, f) ditto, g) ditto, h) here is the crux, as I said and you poo-pooed. As for Vilma, and that is ALL I am talking about, I see no evidence he wanted anyone illegally "injured." To the extent the NFL is a violent game, my original question is very important, and I see you have yet to answer it. Forgetting the illegal reward mechanism, is it acceptable to try to knock the opponent out of that game with legal hits? As for specific players with specific injuries, this also is important, and as far as Vilma, I haven't seen any claim he mentioned specific injuries (like Williams and his ankles, knees, etc speech), and in terms of specific players (Warner) it was the QB, the most important player on the field (not personal as far as I have seen).

Obviously "playing hard" is not what they were punished for. And if you think that is what I am saying you need to concentrate a bit more when you read my posts. Nowhere did I say they shouldn't be punished. Nowhere did I say the extra salary-cap-circumventing pools are legal. In fact, if you read my posts, I say the exact opposite. I said, simple, that a 1 year suspension for such a pool, if it had been constructed to reward TDs, would be too high. If you disgaree then we are done. In which case, there has to be somethig more than the pool itself to warrant such a severe penalty. And again (and again), I am not talking about Williams or Payton, just Vilma (the players). In Vilma's case, I have yet to see where he was trying to reward an illegal in-game tactic.

Yeah, I understand perfectly, and have from the beginning. Do you?

[Haloti92]

This ....

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...unty-evidence/

Yeah, I read that. It has nothing to do with the argument over Vilma's suspension. It just means this attorney backs the evidence the NFL found (through witness testimony, etc), i.e. the NFL isn't making stuff up. But this doesn't tell me what the evidence is regarding Vilma, nor does it address the fairness of any penalties.

[festivus]

Yes, now that I see your "minor" and "dittoes" I understand where you are wrong. So yeah, you could say I get it.

edit: Again someone with this attitude that he's entitled to know what all the evidence is?

[NCRAVEN]

Yes, now that I see your "minor" and "dittoes" I understand where you are wrong. So yeah, you could say I get it.

edit: Again someone with this attitude that he's entitled to know what all the evidence is?

And because we can't provide it they can claim what ever they want to stir up an argument.

[festivus]

Bingo. An excellent explanation for why this thread is attracting these circular conversations.

Foolish me for participating.

[wickedsolo]

Any money awarded as a result of a team function outside of a written contract (be it for illegal hits or touchdowns) is and should be considered fraudulent earnings, no? I mean, I'm no brain surgeon, but I can probably deduce that whoever the recipient(s) were of said "bounty money" didn't claim it on their tax returns. :)

That in and of itself is deserving of punishment in one form or another.

[wickedsolo]

And because we can't provide it they can claim what ever they want to stir up an argument.

And we'll never be privy to that evidence, whatever it may be.

It doesn't matter though. Perception is reality and the current state of things - based on whatever evidence Goodell received and was presented - was that Vilma participated and went even so far as to facilitate these "bounties".