I wouldn't hire us.

This article misses the point entirely. It's not how many were injured in a large data set of random and non-random events, it's were the targeted players injured. Where's the data on that? If the players who were allegedly targeted were injured during the games, AND the plays in which that targeted player was injured occurred in an illegal/questionable fashion (or that player was subject to "hits beyond normal course of play" that did not result in injury), then let's see the data on that.

Everything else is whitewash.

There's no need to review any data on the alleged targeted players. All one needs to do is look back at the games against those players. Aaron Rodgers didn't get hurt, nor did he ever take a hit that was even questionable. Cam Newton in the second game against us just got his ankle turned a little in a pretty routine play. Brett got his ankle turned, but even though viqueens fans didn't like the so called high-low hit, it wasn't overly malicious looking. And considering he stayed in the game, you have to wonder if there were truly a bounty on him why they didn't go back and finish the job. Warner got hit in a perfectly legal way after an interception, and he even admits it was perfectly legal. I find it hard to believe that play had anything to do with a bounty. Why would they wait for an interception to try to hurt him? and besides, he didn't even get injured, it just rang his bell.

And why just those players? If this is what the Saints were all about, why not a bounty on Manning in the Superbowl? Why not a bounty on Tom Brady earlier that year? Visual evidence speaks very loudly against these ridiculous claims.