LOLSAINTS Bounty Program - Pair of Pliers and a Blowtorch - Page 73 - Sporting Events and Fantasy Sports

A-Rod's Cousin · 06-07-2012, 12:55 PM

They never did that?

Noze · 06-07-2012, 01:24 PM

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

Quote:

Latest bounty report exposes another flaw in bounty evidencce
Posted by Mike Florio on June 7, 2012, 1:32 AM EDT

On Wednesday, Sean Pamphilon handed another bounty baton to Mike Silver of Yahoo! Sports, and Silver in turn reported that a pair of Saints defenders received payment for “whacks” in the wild-card playoff win over the Lions. What wasn’t reported could be a bigger problem for the league’s stubborn insistence that the Saints used a bounty system.

As Silver explains it, the NFL believes that cash paid to safety Roman Harper and linebacker Jo-Lonn Dunbar constitutes more evidence of a pay-for-injury system. An unnamed Saints source tells Silver that “whack” was simply the term former Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams used for a good, clean hit.

Linebacker Jonathan Vilma elaborated on Twitter, in response to Silver’s report. “A whack is a legal low tackle,” Vilma said.

But the primary purpose of this insomnia-driven post is to shine a light on something that apparently wasn’t recorded by Pamphilon the night before the Saints faced the 49ers in the divisional round. When Williams was handing out envelopes full of cash from the prior weekend’s game, no one got paid for a “cart-off,” which loosely has been interpreted as a hit that inflicts an injury that causes an offensive player to leave the game, regardless of whether a cart was involved.

But in the win over the Lions, Detroit tackle Jeff Backus suffered a torn biceps, and he left the game.

“A guy made an inside move and I went to hook him with my arm and my bicep popped,” Backus said at the time.

Thus, under the NFL’s narrative regarding the three-year bounty program, the guy who made the inside move should have received before the 49ers game payment for inflicting an injury on Backus that knocked him out of the game. But Pamphilon’s tape doesn’t reflect any payment to whoever was responsible for the Backus absence.

One explanation would be that, with the NFL once again investigating the Saints, Williams ditched the “cart-off” prizes. Then again, handing out cash for “whacks” and strongly hinting (at a minimum) that more cash would be available whoever knocked quarterback Alex Smith out of the next game, all while a microphone was capturing everything Williams said, suggests that Williams didn’t succumb to an uncharacteristic burst of discretion.

The logic is fairly simple. If the Saints were paying players who injured opponents, whoever injured Backus should have been paid. If, as it appears, whoever injured Backus wasn’t paid, it’s possible that players were paid for something other than inflicting injuries.

A-Rod's Cousin · 06-07-2012, 01:39 PM

lol. A tackle hurts his own bicep by trying to grab a Saints player. Why would they be paid for that?

Also 1 guy not getting paid 1 time doesn't disprove anything.

You also are not omniscient and thus don't know that the Saints "never did that [paid out a bounty]."

LOL @ "The logic is fairly simple".

Noze · 06-07-2012, 01:50 PM

If the Saints put a specific bounty on a player and then paid it out it has yet to be proven. That's the difference between a bounty and a dumb motivational ploy. And considering that the whole "bounty" and "pay for injury" thing got sooooooooo much play you think it would be pretty easy to prove. Instead we're left with a still illegal, yet much tamer and much less ethically horrendous low-rent pay for performance system that includes big, legal hits amongst other things like interceptions, forced fumbles, etc. Hell, that system theoretically would cost the players money for illegal hits and penalties.

lol at players going out of their way to injure people with late hits and stuff when it will not only cost them game equity, money from the league due to fines, and also money from the system that supposedly gave incentive to said hits.

And I figure I might as well write for the 124123th time, I know part of the punishment is for not stopping or coming clean to Goodell or whatever. It's still way excessive, especially on the player end.

nath · 06-07-2012, 02:23 PM

But Goodell said it was a bounty and Riverman and PHB say "lol Saints"! What more evidence do you need?

Sluss · 06-07-2012, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noze

If the Saints put a specific bounty on a player and then paid it out it has yet to be proven. That's the difference between a bounty and a dumb motivational ploy. And considering that the whole "bounty" and "pay for injury" thing got sooooooooo much play you think it would be pretty easy to prove. Instead we're left with a still illegal, yet much tamer and much less ethically horrendous low-rent pay for performance system that includes big, legal hits amongst other things like interceptions, forced fumbles, etc. Hell, that system theoretically would cost the players money for illegal hits and penalties.

lol at players going out of their way to injure people with late hits and stuff when it will not only cost them game equity, money from the league due to fines, and also money from the system that supposedly gave incentive to said hits.

And I figure I might as well write for the 124123th time, I know part of the punishment is for not stopping or coming clean to Goodell or whatever. It's still way excessive, especially on the player end.

I agree the Vilma suspension is really excessive. There is a pretty good shot that guy either never plays or gets only a veteran minimum contract for the 1 or 2 seasons left of his career. That's pretty harsh.

Plus there is a good shot the players were never told by the NFL to knock off the program.

camz2895 · 06-13-2012, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForumWithdrawal

They don't have a quarterback at the moment.

ok with our QBless team i'm willing to bet we get over 9.5 wins this season. Want to wager?

nath · 06-17-2012, 04:29 PM

It would be easy for NFL to prove player involvement in bounties, if proof exists

Quote:

If the NFL has “smoking gun” evidence to prove that four suspended players participated in a bounty program with the Saints, the NFL has opted not to use it in Monday’s appeal hearings, because the NFL has not produced it three days in advance of the hearings, as required by the labor deal.

Hargrove’s agent questions whether NFL has “concrete evidence”

Quote:

Agent Phil Williams asked in a statement to the league office — and shared with the media — whether the 200 pages of evidence the NFL showed to the NFL Players’ Association are really enough to constitute real evidence of wrongdoing.

...

The NFL’s attitude, however, seems to be that it doesn’t need to produce concrete evidence.

Verbatim: Anthony Hargrove agent speaks

Riverman · 06-17-2012, 06:04 PM

Wahhhhhhhhhhhhh

aggo · 06-17-2012, 08:21 PM

goodell needs to protect a 10+ billion dollah business.

can't have anymore injury lawsuits that denigrate the game

him not showing incorrigible proof is really immaterial. nothing that he's done should be considered exessive if we are to believe what's been so far reported as true. this isn't a mafia where you plunk down 10k on tge dinner table and declare that there's a price on somones head.

ffs people get over it. goodell shouldve banned vilma for life and anyone/everyone else who facilitated a player hit list on the saints.

bigdottawa · 06-18-2012, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aggo

ffs people get over it. goodell shouldve banned vilma for life and anyone/everyone else who facilitated a player hit list on the saints.

Amazing, for life!

Lifetime ban for playing football is awesome.

Noze · 06-18-2012, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aggo

goodell needs to protect a 10+ billion dollah business.

can't have anymore injury lawsuits that denigrate the game

him not showing incorrigible proof is really immaterial. nothing that he's done should be considered exessive if we are to believe what's been so far reported as true. this isn't a mafia where you plunk down 10k on tge dinner table and declare that there's a price on somones head.

ffs people get over it. goodell shouldve banned vilma for life and anyone/everyone else who facilitated a player hit list on the saints.

Yeah this is the whole point. Hardly anything reported in this has been entirely true. It's all been incredibly manipulated. There were no bounties. There was no hit list. There was side betting on pay for performance stuff, but that's not a huge story.

FFS the NFL just had a hearing where they showed players the evidence against them. Remember when Goodell said he had 50k pages of evidence and like 24 players were involved? He produced only like 150 pages of documents, including a powerpoint presentation featuring a newspaper interview and a blog post from a guy who had locker room access that were published literally about 2 weeks ago. Read:

Quote:

Surprisingly, the “evidence” produced by the NFL includes things that clearly aren’t evidence. For example, the league’s submission includes the rambling 10,000-plus word online manifesto posted on May 31 by Sean Pamphilon, and a June 6 article by Mike Triplette of the New Orleans Times-Picayune, in which he interviews linebacker Scott Shanle.

Per a source familiar with the information produced by the NFL, the packet contains no obvious smoking gun. ”It’s a water gun,” the source said.

That said, the source cautioned that review of the materials is ongoing. Initial scrutiny of the information reveals evidence of salary cap violations, but it includes no evidence of players being paid to inflict injury, players paying others to inflict injury, or players offering money to others to inflict injury. For example, the NFLPA has yet to locate in the packet any evidence establishing that linebacker Jonathan Vilma offered $10,000 to anyone who inflicted injury on Brett Favre or Kurt Warner during the 2009 playoffs.

Perhaps most significantly, the submission doesn’t include the bounty ledger about which Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports reported a couple of weeks ago.

The source said that the package of information also contains no list of witnesses to be called by the NFL, which reinforces the perception that Commissioner Roger Goodell will simply give the players the opportunity to explain their side of the story.

With such a limited compilation of evidence and no apparent plan to call witnesses — and no likely inclination to make witnesses available to be questioned by the players — it wouldn’t surprise us if linebacker Jonathan Vilma, who has sued Commissioner Roger Goodell, refuses to proceed. Or if, at a minimum, Vilma refuses to say anything until the NFL produces real evidence showing that Vilma offered money for injury to be inflicted on another player.

from this: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...n-bounty-case/

camz2895 · 06-18-2012, 11:12 AM

all this and yet there is no way to recoup our lost draft pick this year and we are still without our head coach

nath · 06-18-2012, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

Wahhhhhhhhhhhhh

Thanks for providing your usual level of insight and analysis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aggo

him not showing incorrigible proof is really immaterial. nothing that he's done should be considered exessive if we are to believe what's been so far reported as true.

He hasn't shown any proof that what he actually said happened happened. And he hasn't provided evidence for the supposed guilty parties to review and defend themselves against. You seem to think we should believe him just because he says so.

ForumWithdrawal · 06-18-2012, 05:45 PM

We'll see I guess.