New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com

New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com (https://blackandgold.com/community/)
-   Saints (https://blackandgold.com/saints/)
-   -   Jared Allen: Bounties not the cause of loss to Saints (https://blackandgold.com/saints/43326-jared-allen-bounties-not-cause-loss-saints.html)

FinSaint 04-19-2012 10:15 AM

Jared Allen: Bounties not the cause of loss to Saints
 
For all you Jared Allen haters ;-)


Quote:

Barring any fan's close association with an NFC North rival, it's easy to feel sorry for the Minnesota Vikings.

Think about Dennis Green on NFL Network's excellent "The Missing Rings" series, solemnly staring at his hand and wondering how he let Chris Chandler deny him the only jewelry he ever wanted.

How about the mess going on right now in St. Paul, a stadium standoff that could have permanent consequences for fans in Minnesota?

More misery can be mined via the New Orleans Saints' "bounty" program. After all, it was the Vikings and Brett Favre who were unmercifully targeted by Gregg Williams and his charges in the 2009 NFC Championship Game. Favre was pounded, including a nasty high-low hit that became one of the signature plays of the subsequent scandal.

A Vikings fan can argue -- and surely many have -- that Favre's injuries played a central role in keeping the team out of the Super Bowl. Minnesota defensive end Jared Allen isn't buying it, however.

"Yeah, that high-low was pretty vicious, but here's the deal," Allen told KTAR-AM in Phoenix (via SportsRadioInterviews.com). "I think what people get caught up in -- and obviously the Saints were wrong in what they did and they're being punished accordingly -- but the way I look at it, you can't cry over spilled milk. They won the game, we had our shots and we blew it. But their 'bounty'-gate had nothing to do with our five turnovers."

Allen remembers game officials missing clear unnecessary-roughness calls, including the infamous high-low hit by Bobby McCray and Remi Ayodele.

"But I think, you look at those hits on Favre, and you look at that stuff -- all you've got to do is throw a flag," Allen said. "You can hit a guy like -- they didn't put him out of the game, he stayed and finished the game. If the refs called those flags, after about two or three personal fouls and 30, 45 yards of field position, those tend to slow down."

The punishments being doled out by the NFL surely will slow down the dirty play now, but it won't help the 2009 Vikings.

NFL.com news: Jared Allen: Bounties not the cause of loss to Saints

WhoDat!656 04-19-2012 10:22 AM

Who would have thought the lone voice of reason would come from Jared Allen?

halloween 65 04-19-2012 10:44 AM

Only reason I have any dislike for Allen is he doesn't play for us, he's a great DE. If we could only be so lucky.

Tobias-Reiper 04-19-2012 11:23 AM

That is rich coming from Jared Allen.

WhoDat!656 04-19-2012 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by halloween 65 (Post 398812)
Only reason I have any dislike for Allen is he doesn't play for us, he's a great DE. If we could only be so lucky.

Apparently you haven't heard what he said about New Orleans!

I don’t like going to Detroit,” Allen said, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune. “I’ll be honest. It’s gloomy, it sucks. Everything is brown and then there is snow on the ground. There’s like brownstones everywhere and I’m like, ‘Awesome.’ I don’t know, I couldn’t do it. If I had to live in Detroit, I think I’d just drown myself in the river that was across the way.

“I’m not trying to be mean but it’s just depressing when I go there. There’s two cities like I don’t go out to eat or don’t do anything. It’s Detroit and New Orleans. New Orleans looks like I’m driving through a third-world country. Every time I get off the plane, I’m like, ‘Oh, flak jacket.’ I’m trying to get down. I’m like, ‘Ah, crap, I can’t carry my gun here. This sucks.’"

Jared Allen trashes cities of Detroit, New Orleans | National Football Post

halloween 65 04-19-2012 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhoDat!656 (Post 398827)
Apparently you haven't heard what he said about New Orleans!

I don’t like going to Detroit,” Allen said, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune. “I’ll be honest. It’s gloomy, it sucks. Everything is brown and then there is snow on the ground. There’s like brownstones everywhere and I’m like, ‘Awesome.’ I don’t know, I couldn’t do it. If I had to live in Detroit, I think I’d just drown myself in the river that was across the way.

“I’m not trying to be mean but it’s just depressing when I go there. There’s two cities like I don’t go out to eat or don’t do anything. It’s Detroit and New Orleans. New Orleans looks like I’m driving through a third-world country. Every time I get off the plane, I’m like, ‘Oh, flak jacket.’ I’m trying to get down. I’m like, ‘Ah, crap, I can’t carry my gun here. This sucks.’"

Jared Allen trashes cities of Detroit, New Orleans | National Football Post

He does have a big mouth!!

sharke 04-19-2012 12:19 PM

very astute observation on his part

Danno 04-19-2012 02:28 PM

I'll take that mullet sportin moron as my DE any day, all day long.

burningmetal 04-19-2012 02:58 PM

I have to say, I'm not getting where this is supposed to sound any different from what any Vikings player has been saying all along.

He's right that bounties weren't the reason they lost, but he's still suggesting there WERE bounties placed on Favre, and that the high-low hit was "vicious". We never did anything illegal in that game. It wasn't just that they failed to throw a flag. There was nothing to throw a flag about. Two guys were pursuing a quarterback at the same time and he got rid of the ball late, resulting in getting hit by both said players...Hmmm... I don't know about anyone else, but that sounds like a pretty normal football play.

So basically, he said he doesn't want to cry over spilled milk, but he cried over spilled milk anyway.

burningmetal 04-19-2012 03:03 PM

This was nothing more than a politically correct way of saying "we got robbed", so he can feel like he's a bigger man. You can say it in as many ways as you want, Jared, but the message is still the same. You have not, and will not ever get over being beat by a better team that day.

Here's a new cup of milk. Drink it this time.

FinSaint 04-19-2012 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by burningmetal (Post 398879)
This was nothing more than a politically correct way of saying "we got robbed", so he can feel like he's a bigger man. You can say it in as many ways as you want, Jared, but the message is still the same. You have not, and will not ever get over being beat by a better team that day.

Here's a new cup of milk. Drink it this time.


I disagree. Allen isn't really the sort of guy who would plant hidden messages within his statements, as clearly evidenced by the quote from him by WhoDat!656 - he doesn't really have a filter when it comes to statements.

And even more so, he clearly states that the penultimate reason for their loss was, in his opinion, the fact that they turned the ball over too many times.

He states the obvious, that according to the league investigation and ruling on the matter - however we might feel about their correctness - the Saints had an illegal pay-for-performance program. But he never says that he thinks that the Saints had bounties on Favre - that is just you molding it into what you want to read.

And if you think that the high-low hit on Favre wasn't vicious then I don't understand your definition of the term, and I do think that they should've thrown a flag on that play, because that combination hit was against the rules no matter what the other variables involved were. If the Vikings would've tackled Brees like that, you can be damn sure I would've been screaming at the refs and I'd probably still be talking about it as a missed call.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on that they were ultimately beaten by a better team that day regardless of the events and circumstances, but there's no shame in showing some grace when you're victorious and toward a guy who came out in defense of the Saints and their win over them - because a lot of Vikes' fans have been crying about how the Saints' bounty program affected the outcome of that conference final, and this was an answer to that false perception by Allen.

GO SAINTS! :bng:

...but also Go Vikes!

Beastmode 04-19-2012 04:29 PM

“I’m not trying to be mean but it’s just depressing when I go there. There’s two cities like I don’t go out to eat or don’t do anything..."

NO can be a danger zone, I admit it, but to visit a city known for it's food and not even consider trying some of their finer dining is beyond me. NO has some of the best chefs in the country! That's like visiting Philly and not even considering a cheese steak or going to NY and saying pizza, no thanks. It's hard for me to take someone seriously with comments like that because NO has some seriously good world class restaurants.

burningmetal 04-19-2012 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinSaint (Post 398888)
I disagree. Allen isn't really the sort of guy who would plant hidden messages within his statements, as clearly evidenced by the quote from him by WhoDat!656 - he doesn't really have a filter when it comes to statements.

And even more so, he clearly states that the penultimate reason for their loss was, in his opinion, the fact that they turned the ball over too many times.

He states the obvious, that according to the league investigation and ruling on the matter - however we might feel about their correctness - the Saints had an illegal pay-for-performance program. But he never says that he thinks that the Saints had bounties on Favre - that is just you molding it into what you want to read.

And if you think that the high-low hit on Favre wasn't vicious then I don't understand your definition of the term, and I do think that they should've thrown a flag on that play, because that combination hit was against the rules no matter what the other variables involved were. If the Vikings would've tackled Brees like that, you can be damn sure I would've been screaming at the refs and I'd probably still be talking about it as a missed call.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on that they were ultimately beaten by a better team that day regardless of the events and circumstances, but there's no shame in showing some grace when you're victorious and toward a guy who came out in defense of the Saints and their win over them - because a lot of Vikes' fans have been crying about how the Saints' bounty program affected the outcome of that conference final, and this was an answer to that false perception by Allen.

GO SAINTS! :bng:

...but also Go Vikes!

You can disagree with me if you'd like, but I stand behind my comments. When two guys are trying to get to a quarterback as fast as they can and the quarterback throws the ball late, in an instant that fast you're going to take a big hit, and he did. But to call that play "vicious" is to suggest that there was Ill intent. You can say whatever about it being against the rules, but I don't know how guys are supposed to avoid those kinds of collisions. The term "vicious" is used to describe malice intent, which I don't see how anyone could possibly prove that.

I recognize that he isn't saying that's why they lost, and I pointed that out in my previous post. It was really only Vikings fans who were blaming the loss on the so called "missed calls", other than maybe a player or two. But, the majority of the players just kept whining about the hits on Favre instead of tipping their cap to the Saints for doing what it took to win. It's not that they said those non calls cost them, but they still wouldn't shut up about it.

I especially don't appreciate the notion that I molded Allen's words into what I wanted them to be. He most certainly believes the Saints had a bounty on Favre by saying "Obviously the Saints were wrong in what they did and they're being punished accordingly". Are you going to tell me that he isn't talking about what they supposedly did to Favre as much as anyone else? It isn't a hidden message, it's a politically correct message, as I said before.

Just because Roger said so, doesn't mean we are guilty. But Jared Allen took an opportunity to say the Saints were wrong, when he hasn't presented any more proof than the NFL has.

burningmetal 04-19-2012 05:05 PM

And, to show what a hypocrite Allen is, here is video I saw of he and a teammate doing the same high-low he calls vicious.


It's football, and if you want to call out the Saints, you better shut down the whole league.

FinSaint 04-19-2012 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by burningmetal (Post 398918)
I especially don't appreciate the notion that I molded Allen's words into what I wanted them to be. He most certainly believes the Saints had a bounty on Favre by saying "Obviously the Saints were wrong in what they did and they're being punished accordingly". Are you going to tell me that he isn't talking about what they supposedly did to Favre as much as anyone else? It isn't a hidden message, it's a politically correct message, as I said before.

Just because Roger said so, doesn't mean we are guilty. But Jared Allen took an opportunity to say the Saints were wrong, when he hasn't presented any more proof than the NFL has.


Obviously our perceptions differ, I understood that passage you quoted as him recognizing the verdict given by the league that the Saints had an illegal program going on at the time, but I certainly didn't interpret that as him saying that the Saints specifically had bounties on Favre.

Furthermore, that recognition was essential for his statement as a whole, because he makes it clear that he understands that such a program existed, but at the same time he states that the outcome of that game had nothing to do with the existence of such a program.

I just can't read that statement in a way that would support your claim that Allen went out of his way to say that the Saints were wrong, because he mentions the bounty program because it's essential to the overall contextualization and he simply refers to the judgment passed down by the league - he couldn't say publicly that the league is wrong and that the investigation was a joke even if he felt that way. At the end of the day he is an employee of a team, which functions within the greater infrastructure of the league, so it wouldn't really be in his best interest to question the league's ruling on this matter.

As for the the term vicious, it has numerous meanings which bore down to semantics. It can mean like you said an action that has a malicious intent behind it, but it can also mean an action which is characterized by violent or destructive behavior - or simply that the action was severe or intense in nature. And that is how I understand that term in general, but it might be a faulty disposition caused by the fact that English is not my native language.

But I do think that that hit was a violent hit, and that is what I was referring to. And I bet you would see that hit getting a flag probably 8 times out of 10, so I think Allen was correct in stating that the refs should've maybe thrown a flag at that juncture. I'm not saying the rules are correct or that it's easy to interpret them during the game and based on an instance which last maybe 2 seconds in real-life, but that is how the game is called nowadays. I don't think even Allen himself would argue against getting flagged if he was one half of the party committing that hit - he just doesn't seem like that type of a guy based on the numerous games I've seen him play in and he certainly brakes and/or bends the rules himself occasionally.

But I didn't mean to make this into a big deal, and I apologize if I made you feel like I was attacking you, because that was never my intention.

:bng:

burningmetal 04-19-2012 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinSaint (Post 398936)
Obviously our perceptions differ, I understood that passage you quoted as him recognizing the verdict given by the league that the Saints had an illegal program going on at the time, but I certainly didn't interpret that as him saying that the Saints specifically had bounties on Favre.

Furthermore, that recognition was essential for his statement as a whole, because he makes it clear that he understands that such a program existed, but at the same time he states that the outcome of that game had nothing to do with the existence of such a program.

I just can't read that statement in a way that would support your claim that Allen went out of his way to say that the Saints were wrong, because he mentions the bounty program because it's essential to the overall contextualization and he simply refers to the judgment passed down by the league - he couldn't say publicly that the league is wrong and that the investigation was a joke even if he felt that way. At the end of the day he is an employee of a team, which functions within the greater infrastructure of the league, so it wouldn't really be in his best interest to question the league's ruling on this matter.

As for the the term vicious, it has numerous meanings which bore down to semantics. It can mean like you said an action that has a malicious intent behind it, but it can also mean an action which is characterized by violent or destructive behavior - or simply that the action was severe or intense in nature. And that is how I understand that term in general, but it might be a faulty disposition caused by the fact that English is not my native language.

But I do think that that hit was a violent hit, and that is what I was referring to. And I bet you would see that hit getting a flag probably 8 times out of 10, so I think Allen was correct in stating that the refs should've maybe thrown a flag at that juncture. I'm not saying the rules are correct or that it's easy to interpret them during the game and based on an instance which last maybe 2 seconds in real-life, but that is how the game is called nowadays. I don't think even Allen himself would argue against getting flagged if he was one half of the party committing that hit - he just doesn't seem like that type of a guy based on the numerous games I've seen him play in and he certainly brakes and/or bends the rules himself occasionally.

But I didn't mean to make this into a big deal, and I apologize if I made you feel like I was attacking you, because that was never my intention.

:bng:

It's nothing personal, FinSaint, I just wanted to make it clear that I wasn't making something up. You and I see this differently, so I won't beat this subject to death, when it would serve no further purpose.

I will add for clarification purposes that, again, I am not saying Allen is blaming the loss on officiating, just that he is belaboring an issue he and his teammates have been on since that game. It's nice that he will admit that the refs didn't lose the game, but I'm sick of hearing about a high-low hit that happens just about every game. That hit is what other people think is their "hard evidence" that there was a bounty on Favre.

This is why I posted that video below, to show that a big, or illegal hit doesn't mean a bounty was on anybody.

I know he wasn't speaking directly about bounties at first, but as usual it shifted that way. It burns my butt anytime people say, or suggest we were out to injure Favre . If he thinks we deserve this punishment then he and his team need to be punished for doing the same things. It just goes back to the league failing to investigate other teams.

So I took this statement by Allen as an underhanded shot at the Saints. Because clearly the refs were not what cost them that game, so why did we need to hear him confirm that? The only reason they bring this up over and over, is to talk about the bounties. That's why I didn't think his comments were anything new.

NOLA54 04-19-2012 07:57 PM

It looks like a 3rd world country because of Katrina & a government that abandoned it.

ChrisXVI 04-19-2012 08:39 PM

No... it's always looked a little rough. 3rd world country is absolutely an absurd statement because Allen apparently has never been to a 3rd world country and I've been to many. But to say that going to the Superdome is dangerous is insane.

QBREES9 04-19-2012 11:46 PM

I've been to two. 3rd world Countrys.

FinSaint 04-20-2012 03:43 AM

I think that the politically correct term is "underdeveloped" countries nowadays. ;-)

sharke 04-20-2012 06:06 AM

why worry on the thoughts of someone who thinks a mullet is a good idea?

FinSaint 04-20-2012 06:59 AM

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b6...vational16.jpg


Unfortunately - I guess depending on the perspective - Allen no longer sports a mullet.

halloween 65 04-20-2012 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sharke (Post 399024)
why worry on the thoughts of someone who thinks a mullet is a good idea?

That was funny!

SloMotion 04-20-2012 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beastmode (Post 398904)
“I’m not trying to be mean but it’s just depressing when I go there. There’s two cities like I don’t go out to eat or don’t do anything..."

NO can be a danger zone, I admit it, but to visit a city known for it's food and not even consider trying some of their finer dining is beyond me. NO has some of the best chefs in the country! That's like visiting Philly and not even considering a cheese steak or going to NY and saying pizza, no thanks. It's hard for me to take someone seriously with comments like that because NO has some seriously good world class restaurants.

Exactly, you go to a town like New Orleans and you can't find something to eat? Or do? They don't have room-service? Detroit has three casinos for crissake, they don't have cabs where Allen comes from? Man, I'd even volunteer to take the dumb son-of-a-***** out for some local fare and keep everyone off his mullet-wearing behind if he's that depressed when he comes here ... the guy is just a loud-mouthed jerk ... what's he expect? Columbian prostitutes? ... all that being said, I wouldn't mind having him on my team either ... providing he attends a Dale Carnegie course and learns how to act in public ... :) ... m'fers like that ever took the time to hang out in cities like New Orleans/Detroit and find out what the hell they're talking about it'd be a fricken' miracle ...

http://www.dalecarnegie.com/cms/images/logo-ftr.png

Rugby Saint II 04-21-2012 03:40 PM

You've got to be from NO to really appreciate it.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:32 PM.


Copyright 1997 - 2020 - BlackandGold.com