Man, Goodell and the NFL really botched this Bounty Scandal...

**srobert96** · 06-21-2012, 09:48 AM

What has happened in the time that has passed since the bounties were first announced? When they first disclosed that the Saints had continued to use a bounty program after being warned the fans and sports writers were calling for harsh penalties for all involved. The coaches and GMs received harsh punishments and there were few if any people calling those penalties harsh. Now the players who played key roles are punished in a similar fashion and people are acting like this should be treated as if it was a criminal case being tried in court. The owner of the Saints and coaches apologized for wrong doing and took their punishment. They were all interviewed at length. Does anyone really thing that these players were not implicated by multiple people? How does it benefit Goodell to arbitrarily pick out a couple of players and suspend them?

**JAB1985** · 06-21-2012, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by darb72

The Saints were flagged for roughing Favre twice in that game, and the league later said they should have received another penalty for a brutal high-low hit from Remi Ayodele and Bobby McCray that hurt Favre's ankle. He was able to finish the game, but the Saints won in overtime en route to the NFL title.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/78...s-bounty-roles

Well there goes your credibility. It seems that at least three hits on Farve were illegal which pretty much makes the rest of your statement wrong. Two, possibly three, roughing the passer penalties in one game is quite a bit above the average, considering there were only 84 roughing-the-passer penalties in 2010.

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2011/...ick-romo-brees

I think youre missing the point. They tackled legally. RTP, in this case most being bang bang even in slo-mo, is within the game. its penalized in the game (and off by fines). I didnt see any helmet to helmet hits or guys twisting and purposely trying to injure somebody, like "putting a little extra hot sauce on it". Even the "brutal high low tackle" you speak of was kind of BS, which is why it probably wasnt called on the field. Ayokele pulled up and his momentum hit Favre after his teammate tripped him when he tackled Favre into him. If it was an OL that was in that area the same result would have happened. It may have been technically and therefore should have been called but the intent wasnt there or he would have drove him into the ground, which he didnt, imo, so i dont deem that as malicious.

im not against the punishment at all, lets clear that up. I just dont think they should be punished without evidence as nobody should be in the US. if they failed to submit their evidence or its lacking in general then they dont have enough to convict them, period. technicality or not, we cant just start punishing people on whims. If were going to look at any one game and say "they must have had a bounty" because they got a RTP, we can look at some of our own games. against Pitt subjectively looking at it we could come to similar conclusions. 7-9 sack games where we were relentless and drove him into the ground (bart scott comes to mind), Haloti breaking Ben's nose with an illegal hit to helmet, etc. Where do we draw the line, if there isnt evidence? Thats my only problem with it. as far as the coaches and owners go, if they testify, that should be enough if they say they did and witnessed it, but i highly doubt they would testify against their players.

**srobert96** · 06-21-2012, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

I think youre missing the point. They tackled legally. RTP, in this case most being bang bang even in slo-mo, is within the game. its penalized in the game (and off by fines). I didnt see any helmet to helmet hits or guys twisting and purposely trying to injure somebody, like "putting a little extra hot sauce on it". Even the "brutal high low tackle" you speak of was kind of BS, which is why it probably wasnt called on the field. Ayokele pulled up and his momentum hit Favre after his teammate tripped him when he tackled Favre into him. If it was an OL that was in that area the same result would have happened. It may have been technically and therefore should have been called but the intent wasnt there or he would have drove him into the ground, which he didnt, imo, so i dont deem that as malicious.

im not against the punishment at all, lets clear that up. I just dont think they should be punished without evidence as nobody should be in the US. if they failed to submit their evidence or its lacking in general then they dont have enough to convict them, period. technicality or not, we cant just start punishing people on whims. If were going to look at any one game and say "they must have had a bounty" because they got a RTP, we can look at some of our own games. against Pitt subjectively looking at it we could come to similar conclusions. 7-9 sack games where we were relentless and drove him into the ground (bart scott comes to mind), Haloti breaking Ben's nose with an illegal hit to helmet, etc. Where do we draw the line, if there isnt evidence? Thats my only problem with it. as far as the coaches and owners go, if they testify, that should be enough if they say they did and witnessed it, but i highly doubt they would testify against their players.

If there was no evidence why did the coaches take their punishment and apologize? Why did the Saints pay a hefty find and apologize? Several of the reporters said that the evidence against the players was compelling. They interviewed all of the coaches. There were corroborating reports on which players were involved. My guess on why the NFL did not want to release all of the evidence in public was to prevent the backlash from players and fans against the coaches and other people who provided the information.

This is not a court of law and can't be compared to a court of law. This is an ethics violation in an employment situation. There is a code of conduct in which they agreed to in their contract. People in a work environment are put on administrative leave or suspended without pay for behavior that is inappropriate or unethical. It does not mean that they broke any laws or that it needs to be proven in such a manner. It could be as simple as multiple people confirming with HR or legal.

**HoustonRaven** · 06-21-2012, 10:41 AM

To claim there is no evidence means you've simply not been paying close attention or you're willfully ignoring what's out there.

You have admissions / apologies from Loomis, Peyton and Williams. There is also the leaked ledgers and other documents. Then you have Hargrove on tape, after hearing Favre was out of the game, telling his teammates to "pay me my money".

That alone would convict in a court of law (not that this is the standard in this case). Yet, there are still numerous other items of evidence we have not see yet, including testimony from players who cooperated with the investigation.

What did or did not happen during any one particular game is not the least bit relevant. You don't need the intended outcome to prove a conspiracy and that's what this case is all about.

**Haloti92** · 06-21-2012, 11:08 AM

The situation is way more complicated and subjective than most people make it out to be. There are a number of grey aspects being declared black or white.

But even so, the controversy would have been greatly diminished had Goodell focused his efforts on severely punishing the team instead of the players. Goodell stands on much firmer, less-controversial ground when he hands out harsh penalties to organizations than he does when he severely punishes players. And in terms of the end-goal, which is to prevent this from happening again, there was nothing gained from punishing the players as harshly as he did vs. for example, taking a couple draft picks from the Saints, etc. And of course, considering the very contentious relationship between the players and the league at this time, there is likely something lost in punishing these handful of players so harshly rather than simply punishing the team even more.

When you punish the players so much you increase the amount of effort they are willing to expend on fighting, defending, attacking, stirring the muck. In short, you prolong the controversy. You also increase the amount of evidence or infraction needed to justify the penalties. And as I said, I don't think you reduce the chances of this happening again any more than you would have had you penalized a draft pick or two on the Saints, which also avoids most of the player vs league element.

In terms of the subjectivity of the issue as it relates to standard discussions, I think people have very different ideas of what exactly went on or what was being incentivized, different ideas about what a fair penalty would be for what went on (even assuming they agreed on what went on), and different ideas about the evidence that exists as to what went on. Each of these sub-topics (and there are others) could be debated/discussed on their own for pages and pages. And without settling them separately, it is impossible to determine why or how people are coming to different overall conclusions.

**moose10101** · 06-21-2012, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by darb72

Well there goes your credibility. It seems that at least three hits on Farve were illegal which pretty much makes the rest of your statement wrong. Two, possibly three, roughing the passer penalties in one game is quite a bit above the average, considering there were only 84 roughing-the-passer penalties in 2010.

If the Saints had roughed Flacco three times (instead of just the one time when they kneed him on the ground) and damaged his ankle, and we later found out that Vilma had put up $10k for a bounty, all the hypocrites on this board would want to know why Vilma and the others weren't being summarily executed.

The Saints were, without question, the dirtiest team in the NFL for several years, and the bounties contributed to that behavior. I have no sympathy for any of them.

**JAB1985** · 06-21-2012, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by srobert96

If there was no evidence why did the coaches take their punishment and apologize? Why did the Saints pay a hefty find and apologize? Several of the reporters said that the evidence against the players was compelling. They interviewed all of the coaches. There were corroborating reports on which players were involved. My guess on why the NFL did not want to release all of the evidence in public was to prevent the backlash from players and fans against the coaches and other people who provided the information.

This is not a court of law and can't be compared to a court of law. This is an ethics violation in an employment situation. There is a code of conduct in which they agreed to in their contract. People in a work environment are put on administrative leave or suspended without pay for behavior that is inappropriate or unethical. It does not mean that they broke any laws or that it needs to be proven in such a manner. It could be as simple as multiple people confirming with HR or legal.

Though the NFL’s in-house appeal process doesn’t amount to a full-blown legal proceeding, the players accused of participating in the Saints’ bounty program could escape responsibility on the same basis that plenty of criminal defendants do.

well thats the issue, im comparing it to a court of law, because the article is. If my work wanted to suspend my pay for a year, id like to have the evidence given to me. If this article is right and they cant submit the evidence now than i dont feel its right to suspend them, even if it is unjust. If there is no evidence of funds being transferred, no "crime" was commited, even if the coaches and owners say there was one.

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

To claim there is no evidence means you've simply not been paying close attention or you're willfully ignoring what's out there.

You have admissions / apologies from Loomis, Peyton and Williams. There is also the leaked ledgers and other documents. Then you have Hargrove on tape, after hearing Favre was out of the game, telling his teammates to "pay me my money".

That alone would convict in a court of law (not that this is the standard in this case). Yet, there are still numerous other items of evidence we have not see yet, including testimony from players who cooperated with the investigation.

What did or did not happen during any one particular game is not the least bit relevant. You don't need the intended outcome to prove a conspiracy and that's what this case is all about.

Im not ignoring, im going by this article saying its no longer admissible. it doesnt matter if we KNOW it or not, its not or could not be part of this process now. so eventhough they did admit it, and they may have more information than weve even seen, damning evidence, if its not admissable, its not existent. If they had audio, video, money exchanges from bank accounts, signatures, and eye witnesses, thats great, good for them, but they just blew it and its not admissable its as if they never did in the first place.

Ill admit im not 100% sure where this appeal lies within the rules of CBAs, but going by the article if you can get out of it possibly by the same way as a criminal trial mistrial, than it seems comparing it to a criminal trial would be alright at this point.

Originally Posted by moose10101

If the Saints had roughed Flacco three times (instead of just the one time when they kneed him on the ground) and damaged his ankle, and we later found out that Vilma had put up $10k for a bounty, all the hypocrites on this board would want to know why Vilma and the others weren't being summarily executed.

The Saints were, without question, the dirtiest team in the NFL for several years, and the bounties contributed to that behavior. I have no sympathy for any of them.

the hit on Flacco was nothing. seriously? smith laid off and patted him on the back and people act like he was out there trying to rip his head off. Its pretty obvious to me he could have hit him late and full on but tried to lay off. If our OL played as poorly as the did in Minnesota, wed be screaming about Oher and McKinnie, not bounties. Flacco has been hit with worse that wasnt called by team that apparently didnt have bounties. calling that a dirty play and evidence of the saints wrong doing is ignoring any other game as evidence to the contrary.

I dont get how you can have two 200+lb men running into each other at full speed the exact same way, one is dirty and malicious because he got paid by players but the other isnt because he got paid by the owners. Its a violent game that we all are entertained by. this had very little to no effect on what we saw on the field. the issue is that the exchange of money by players is illegal, which nothing in the media has proved "without a doubt". if they have a smoking gun, i hope it was submitted before the deadline and justice is served.

**HoustonRaven** · 06-21-2012, 11:22 AM

If there is indeed a poison pill provision and the union felt it was violated, you'd be hearing about it other than Florio speculating about it.

Not a peep from the NFLPA or Vilma et all.

This tells me nothing has been violated. More than likely both parties agreed to moving the meeting time.

**The Excellector** · 06-21-2012, 11:22 AM

Doesn't the excerpt from the CBA specifically say, "three calendar days?". If that is true, they did not submit the evidence late. The NFLPA just needs to be reminded of what the true definition for three calendar days is.

**GOTA** · 06-21-2012, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

To claim there is no evidence means you've simply not been paying close attention or you're willfully ignoring what's out there.

You have admissions / apologies from Loomis, Peyton and Williams. There is also the leaked ledgers and other documents. Then you have Hargrove on tape, after hearing Favre was out of the game, telling his teammates to "pay me my money".

That alone would convict in a court of law (not that this is the standard in this case). Yet, there are still numerous other items of evidence we have not see yet, including testimony from players who cooperated with the investigation.

What did or did not happen during any one particular game is not the least bit relevant. You don't need the intended outcome to prove a conspiracy and that's what this case is all about.

Unless they have it on video there are people who just won't, or choose not to, believe it.

**blah3** · 06-21-2012, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by moose10101

The Saints were, without question, the dirtiest team in the NFL for several years, and the bounties contributed to that behavior. I have no sympathy for any of them.

Based on what measure? Were they pnealized a lot more than other teams during the 'bounty era'? Were they fined more during the 'bounty era'. That may even be a better measure since the NFL can and does look back at film.

Perhaps you did not see the Giants target Kyle Williams in the NFC Championship game. That seems to be a pretty good example of dirty.

**Haloti92** · 06-21-2012, 11:47 AM

Just to stir the pot:

How would you rank from 0-10 the following situations in terms of punishments warranted, where 0 is no punishment and 10 is max:

A) System (outside of cap) that provided money rewards for TDs

B) System (outside of cap) that provided money rewards for hard hits

C) System (outside of cap) that provided money rewards for non-flagged hits that resulted in opponent leaving field for 1+ plays

D) System (outside of cap) that provided money rewards for any action that resulted in opponent leaving field for 1+ plays

E) Pre-game team presentations that included the words: bounty, target, hunt, trophy, all corresponding to specific opponents (i.e. opponent headshots with targets on them, etc) without any monetary rewards being offered

F) Pre-game team presentations that included lessons on how to get away with cheap shots or illegal conduct (how to eye gouge, step on hands or feet, punch under the pile or on line, etc)

G) Pre-game speeches that include language such as "kill", "destroy", "knock out", "hurt", "pain", "punish" the opponent