nah, i'm pretty dumb a lot of the time but i'm right on this one

you're exhibiting happy valley esque homerism and denial

So how much of the evidence have you looked at? How many of the links in this thread have you clicked?

People bump this thread when new news about the story comes out. It's not like we're being unreasonable-- the articles are often from places like PFT which have no particular favoritism for the Saints. But then every once in a while you show up to tard up the thread, accuse us of being delusional homers, and generally be a douchebag.

Did anyone else see Drew Brees on David Letterman last night? Totally grunching, but it seemed incredibly weird. Is the standard comeback "we did nothing and there's no proof and sometimes players give out bonuses to other players for buying everybody dinner when there's a punt return touchdown so maybe people misinterpreted (but if you ask me if that could be what's happening I'll dodge answering) and, yes, it was a former defensive coordinator--er, allegedly, and a media conspiracy that we're tired of talking about."?

Totally perplexed look on Dave's face as he's like, "Uh, ok, can we just get ya to come to the Jets, dude?"

Edit: I should point out, my expectation had been for Brees's agent to move mountains to keep Drew from talking about this situation like a Saints' representative while he's in contract negotiations. So to me the statements were like kao-ken x 10 weird!

So I think the prevailing stance of reasonable Saints fans (or at least mine anyway) is that there was obviously a pay for performance scheme of some sort and that it included at least some incentive for big hits and maybe for causing injuries (but also fines for penalties and bad plays). However there's yet to be any actual evidence against any specific player either giving or receiving bounties (ie what they've been suspended for) - the closest is a video released which supposedly is why Hargrove got suspended, which actually is closer to incriminating Ayodele but in reality proves nothing against any specific player.

I think what people have an issue with is that Goodell seems to have exaggerated and made a huge deal out of it without any actual evidence against individual players in an effort to show that he's concerned with player safety.

OK, the way you just put it makes some sense. By that I mean it is a rational, coherent statement consisting of sentences containing ordered groupings of words. That is not what Drew Brees sounded like last night.

Yeah, that wasn't really meant to be a response to the Drew Brees thing. Having not seen it (I'm a Saints fan from the UK) I can't really comment, but Brees's comments throughout the whole thing have been "interesting" to say the least.

That's basically the long and short of it. I don't think anyone is denying that there was some pay-for-performance stuff going on, but the difference between that and a pay-to-injure pool is enormous. And the penalties handed out are only justifiable if the latter is true, and increasingly it seems like the evidence for the latter doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Latest: NFLPA counsel says voice expert supports Hargrove’s position

So what you are saying and from what I have heard Brees say this week is that Saints had a pay for performance program (which is not allowed by the NFL). It was occasionally taken a bit too far in the locker room where sometimes they would have what looked like a pay for injury program except for nobody was ever paid or injured. So it's not really a bounty system.

I agree the players are getting the short stick here, especially Vilma. The coaches and front office pretty much deserve what they got for allowing this program, however how you want to describe it, after being told that it was against the NFL's rules and to knock it off.

Wasnt the report compiled by the league like 18000 documents totalling 50000 pages. Sure there hasnt been anything concrete released yet to prove the bounty program was in full effect but there has sure been alot of circumstantial evidence pointing to it.

I could be wrong but i look at it like any proof of the bounties looks bad for the NFL who dont want to portray their league as one which is played by animals out to cause serious harm to each other. When the initial punishments on the coaches/team was announced they all denied everything and so on and were challenging the ruling right up until that audio of Williams pre-game talk was released right before the appeal hearing.

I wouldnt be suprised if the players keep fighting the nfl and they release something just to prove it once and for all, which im sure even saints fans would like to see just so their some kind of closure on the scandal.

Then why make public statements embellishing evidence to make the bounty system worse than what the evidence shows?

Or why not just sweep the thing under the rug or quietly fine the organization?

You are really good at this "method" of attack, wherein you reduce someone's position from many attributes down to 1 then throw it back in their face. That you don't see that is what makes "arguing" with you so painful. I do not hate on people for accomplishing stuff and showing emotional pride. I can provide you a list of recent athletes who have won stuff that I haven't "hated on", if you like. Try to figure out what the difference might be. Hint: I've already pointed it out itt.

Anyway I didn't see Brees on Letterman last night but I will borrow something Triumph said months ago about someone else (Sheen maybe?) that was actually funny and assume he was coming off very Sam Rothstein-like.

"After the Super Bowl win, Cerullo received “a cubic zirconia Super Bowl ring facsimile rather than a genuine Super Bowl ring, for which Cerullo has strenuously and vehemently expressed his resentment.”

At paragraph 106, Vilma alleges that Cerullo “pledged revenge against the Saints,” and particularly against assistant head coach/linebackers coach Joe Vitt.

At paragraphs 107 and 108, Vilma alleges that the NFL “relied principally upon Cerullo’s statements” during the bounty investigation, and that the disciplinary decisions were based on the results of “multiple interviews” of Cerullo.

At paragraph 109, Vilma claims that Cerullo “retracted his previous claims” during an April 2012 communication with Goodell.

At paragraph 124, Vilma alleges that Cerullo created the notes regarding the persons who pledged money to the Brett Favre bounty “well after the 2009 NFC Championship Game and in an effort to gain revenge against the Saints for terminating his employment.”

If Vilma’s allegations are true, the bounty case against him and the other players has been seriously undermined."

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...whistleblower/

Pretty awesome if true, especially the part about this dude getting cheesed off about getting a fake SB ring.

I didn't even realize Goodell hadn't ruled on the last appeal, just assumed he already upheld everything. What is he doing?

wasnt vilma quoted as saying he expected a 2-8 week suspension

wouldnt that imply guilt?