Breaking the locks of "Bountygate."
 

Bounties NFL wide problem; Breaking the locks off Saints "Bounty Gate""

Opinions?

What I believe is that the league coerced people into revealing things about this crap. Not all, but probably many.

PLEASE let this come out if so! Let this witch hunt be exposed for what it is!

Great read, I think you were able to objectively put the matter in the right perspective. It should really be a read for the rest of the NFL and for those who are quick to point fingers at the Saints.

The glaring fact in all these incidents being reported to me is their association with Greg Williams.

- Williams was a linebacker under Buddy Ryan, after the infamous "Bounty Bowl".
- Williams was the defensive coordinator at Washington when Peyton Manning was initially injured.
- Williams was the previous defensive coordinator at Tennessee during the period Tony Dungy claims there was a 'bounty' on Peyton Manning.

Every time a claim comes up about a 'bounty' incident, there's a trail back to Williams. Greg Williams is at the center of all this.

Appreciate it. You're right, Gregg Williams should be the person punished most.

And he probably will be punished big time, but it's not specific to Williams. The players themselves have said this is league-wide. OF COURSE it's league-wide. This stuff has been going on since the merger and probably before.

What's happening now is a very public attempt to posture for its own benefit...the league I mean. Greg Williams is no more to blame than Buddy Ryan or a hundred other defensive coaches over the past 30 years. The whole thing is crap on a stick.

What about the Forty Whiners and that hit on Pierre Thomas... was that a bounty hit?

Point is every team does it to some degree.

You don't have to coerce anyone when you have the Undisclosed Source on the team and every team has that Undisclosed Source (snitch)

What's funny is people in sports groups want to act like the Ravens, Steelers, etc etc are innocent.. When in fact, they're probably guilty too.

IDK, player incentives have always been around, but I think you have to hold coaches like Greg Williams and/or Buddy Ryan a little more accountable when they elevate the incentives to include injuring another player.

It's a sport where a player can be injured on any legitimate, legal play anyway. The whole 'bounty' thing was just Williams' way of motivating the troops and appealing to a player's most basic instincts in order to get them to focus.

Was it right? No. That's what I don't understand, most defensive players would gladly send on opponent off an a stretcher without any monetary incentive, why even offer it?

I'm going to just make an assumption Williams had no part of the "injury" aspect just of the "big hit" one. He doesn't acknowledge it in his apology, and the NFL cites only Vilma saying he would pay directly for injury.

I'm thinking this was a players pool for the injuries.

This league is soooo shook, the hit on Pierre in the 49ers game was clearly helmet to helmet hit and was not called and when it’s a receiver they get the call, once a player gets the ball in which he’s actually defenseless during the act off catching/securing the ball but once done and the football move is made than he’s a runner. PT got hit in the head and it was not called. These rule are not clear

I just watched a good video in this thread posted by Rickh: http://blackandgold.com/saints/41762...oint-view.html ... it really gives a good perspective from some former player's point of view, Mike Golic in particular.

As this goes forward, I would just recommend people read your blog & watch this video. It sheds quite a bit of light on the subject.

The Saints are gonna' get fined, but they'll be Ok. This too will pass.

bump.

Ty. Bump.

The one thing that bothers me the most is how much of a head case players are. They make millions in salary yet get all lathered up over a $1,000 bonus? I have an idea for a new league the IBFL incentive based football league. The base pay is $0 you "earn" you money based on how you play. The statement "It isn't about the money" seems to be true. A million a year to play, well ok. What's that? a bonus of $300.00 for a good hit. YAHOO!!!!! now you're talking money!!!!

I look to it as a 9-5 job. You get paid hourly, but the extra cash in your pocket for a good sale, being top employee of the week etc is extra motivation. Everyone likes a little extra cash even if you're a millionaire. Or else they'd never want another contract. >_<

I don't think they get all 'lathered' up about the payments either, it's been pretty well acknowledged that the average defensive player's mindset is to annihilate their opponent wether they're getting a bonus or not.

It's a simple reward/recognition system. In college, it's putting stickers on a helmet for a good play. You make a good play or the big hit, you come up in front of your peers when the team's reviewing film and get recognized. Your teammates applaud, you feel good about yourself, you play harder the following week. We're all attention-whores.

But these guys are 'pros' in a violent sport, so you have to raise it to another level in order to motivate them. You have to offer cash, you have to escalate the rhetoric to include, "knockout", "cart-off".

Doesn't make it right, but it might help explain why it happens.

I don't quite understand why the original article spends 4 pages on why there's nothing wrong with the bounty system and it's all in the game, and then on page 5 says

"If you’re told you can get paid $2,000 dollars for an interception, that gives you motivation to go out and get that interception."

Doesn't that shoot his entire argument down? Because if it's true of interceptions, it's also true that if you tell a player he can have $2,000 for a game-ending injury, he's more likely to go out and cause that injury.

They were paid for interceptions and big hits, no different than college football with helmet stickers. They've admitted that and there's 0 wrong with it.

If you've read it specifically, you'll also note that I said EVERY NFL player hits with the intent to injure and opponent, make him fumble, rattle him, etc. If the hit is within the rules there's 0 wrong with that also.

Paid or not.

If you're paying someone lets say $2,000 for an unsportsmanlike conduct call, when you blasted a QB well past the play with a helmet to helmet shot, then there's something wrong with it. Then again, as I stated, the NFL would likely slap you with a suspension for games and a $20k fine.

There's ways of "injuring an opponent" within the whistles, which I'm okay with. If you know Adrian Peterson has a bummed knee, wouldn't you want to land every hit you could on that knee as a player? You're damn straight you would. Your coaches would even tell you too.

Why else do you think coaches tell you to hit a QB every chance you can?

The NFL has rules for a reason and as long as you follow those rules, whether you have the intent to injure or not, that's not your problem. You played within the whistles and rules of the NFL.

The only thing the Saints have done wrong is getting "paid for performance" which is against the CBA.

Does that clarify it?

Spot on...

I feel like I been banging the drum on this that its not just paid to hurt someone... the rule is that there can't be any paid incentives for performance. You can not have money change hands between players or whoever for INT's, fumbles ANYTHING. Basically NO OFFICE POOLS.

That is what he Saints are guilty of just so happens the words were used to take someone out.

What is funny about this is that EVERY player who has played the game has acknowledge that there was always some sort of incentive for play except
Sharper, Lynch and now Bree's lol.

In a sense, I believe Brees. When I first heard Turley's remarks I was like, well, okay, sure. I get why you want to hear his side but I doubt he knew.

Offensive and defensive meetings are separate from one another and even during practice, as you should know, offense is with their coaches and players, defense is with theirs unless it's a team scrimmage or drill of some sort.

A team meeting or during the team scrimmage would likely be the only time he would have heard about it. A team meeting would be doubtful because that's when they'd review the tape and game plans with one another. Don't see it happening there unless it's the "hit the quarterback every time."

This is clearly a defensive issue because no one on the offense seems to know about it. Furthermore this is likely not even discussed at defensive meetings. Why? Only 22-27 people know about this. If it was discussed then, I'd think that more than 22-27 would be named considering some of them are Dennis Allen, Fujita, Hargrove, etc. Don't you? This is clearly a group of friends, like how lets say Jenkins, Harper, Vilma, and Smith hang out.

Did Williams have a part in bounties? In his statement he mentioned he acknowledged the pay for performance aspect, but not the bounty if I remember correctly. So I'd say no. The only person who they've mentioned specifically as far as a bounty is Vilma and Favre. (As my article states, no flags/fines were handed out for the unsportsmanlike conduct penalties so they were fine there.) If the NFL thought this was an issue before the investigation, they surely would be fined more.

It isn't like the Saints walked around and announced that they were paying players for hurting someone. Don't you think every time a player hits Brees, Rodgers, Brady, they'd love nothing more than to knock the star player out of the game?

I stand by Brees comments saying he knew nothing of the "real existence." -Real- existence? Well, the NFL set out notes to all 32 teams each season about this issue. So to him, he knew of it, but didn't know it exactly existed. I bet that's true. Also, if Brees knew something I'm sure the NFL would LOVE to include his name in their report due to im being a member of the NFLPA committee. I bet his knowledge was one of the first things they looked at.

Sorry for the wall of text.

Yes, I see all that - and I agree that there don't seem to have been all taht much of a difference in NO's play compared with other teams - but that isn't the whole point. The way the NFL sees it, especially as they're obsessed with player safety, is that your coaches were sending out players instructing them in so many words to deliberately injure opponents - and unless your coaches put a disclaimer in there specifically stating "but if you do it and get flagged you're out of the game" or some such disclaimer to ensure the players know foul play is frowned on, the BFL will assume it's encouraging foul play. And they'll hit you hard. Regardless of whether other teams are doing the same thing and aren't stupid enough to do it in writing.

We will survive & thrive.

The point is you can't have an incentive program what so ever.

Forget the taking a player out or carting him off bounty's take all that out of the equation.

The Saints will still be GUILTY.

By the NFL/CBA rules... YOU CAN NOT HAVE AN INCENTIVE PROGRAM THAT REWARDS PLAYERS ON THEIR PERFORMANCE DURING A GAME.

The rule includes everything from a INT, A TD, A Fumble the rule is for ANYTHING. Players can't do it without team officials or with team officials. The Saints are way guilty of this.

BUT here is the kicker so is EVERY other team and most every player who has ever played the game if you listen to them on the ESPN panels they have had on this Everyone admitted especially Mike Golic.

Also lets not fool ourselves that Bree's would or wouldn't know about it.

It is true that for example I was in Saints training camp as a RB back in 97. Yes we were in film study and meetings just the RB's. We had Offensive meetings as a unit as well but none included the D that is true.

But it is also true that you do have TEAM MEETINGS, you also have weight room training, dinners, ect with the whole team. You do mingle together.
So its not impossible to know some of these things going on. Especially when Vilma carries 10K into the locker room, that word would spread and I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't go look at it if nothing else.

A good portion of the poo that the media is spewing is "test-balloon" journalism. You write an article or provide a soundbite and see how the public reacts.

Some media folks "carry water" for the NFL in exchange for access. If enough chatter is released about a certain thing with a certain tone? The public gets desensitized. When the outcome is released? It's no surprise.

Marketing 101. The real test is how much do the cabal, excuse me, the owners as a collective group, want to set an unenforceable precedent?