QBREES9

When the bounty scandal broke, many folks bought the NFL's early narrative that the league had abundant proof of what went down -- especially after the release of the sickening Gregg Williams audio, and the Saints defensive coordinator's subsequent apology. Commissioner Roger Goodell had to clean up the league, given the grave news about concussions, right? Weren't the Saints' yelps of protest just more overheated, self-involved behavior of a team that has no perspective -- players condoning a system that encouraged "cart off" hits or going after the heads and knees of other players, players fighting a commissioner who seems intent on protecting them better than they're protecting themselves? Goodell couldn't have asked for better footing if he wrote the script himself.



Any Roger Goodell deal for Jonathan Vilma, Saints raises questions - ESPN

www.sportsshooter.com/johnjcoleman

" Anyone can take a picture Only a Photographer can take a photograph "

Vrillon82

All I can tell you is Goodell has changed the story numerous times.

Its also coming out that Goodell refused to speak to Vilma when Vilma arranged a meeting with Goodell, Vilma also wanted proof a bounty system by rules of the CBA and that proof has yet to come to light anywhere yet that this has went on. Goodell has also back tracked on the number of pages on the bounty, it was at one time 10,000 I think, week ago on NFLN it became 1800 pages and part of the 1800 pages showed the Saints in no rule breakings.

Apparently everything keeps changing and back tracking along with the fact their has been no proof provided which goes against the CBA, Goodell is in hot water with this one.





Someone needs to keep track of this bounty stuff and see just how much this story has changed since it was broke, how much Goodell has changed it. Could be useful information in public opinion.

saintsfan1976

Fight on Vilma!! Your statue is being erected as we speak.



. Of course, the NFL also had to admit its original assertion that Vitt's name appeared on a ledger promising $5,000 toward a bounty on Brett Favre was a mistake. And Goodell would be more convincing if Vilma's argument that the league's lack of transparency about its investigation didn't ring so true. Goodell has never laid out the whole case publicly, which naturally makes you wonder what other horrors could be hidden in the interest of both the league and the players?

And although this facet of the case has been far, far less talked about, it should be harped on more: Goodell has never really given a satisfactory explanation for the NFL's delay in punishing the Saints from the first moment it knew a bounty system might be going on during the 2009 season. The NFL says it privately warned the Saints to stop the practice first. Which begs the question "Why?" if wrong is wrong. Then Goodell finally came down hard on them in March because the Saints smugly ignored the message for three years. What the hell took so long?

Were the shock-and-awe penalties Goodell finally handed down purely for crimes against football humanity, or for crimes against Goodell? Does anything irk a get-tough authority figure more than having his edicts ignored?

Just asking.....

burningmetal

ESPN always seems to pump out these way too long articles that leave you wondering what point they're actually trying to make, if any. At certain parts it looked like she was perhaps questioning the evidence. Other times she seems to think there is more evidence that Goodell just won't show because it would make the league look bad. And then she seems to be convinced that the Saints are a band of thugs.

Where do I begin?... Well first off, how could any idiot honestly believe he would withhold evidence that would clearly vindicate his position, if he had it? It doesn't seem to occur to these writers that perhaps Roger is offering a settlement because he DOESN'T have evidence to support his rulings.

And why does this writer take such offense to the fact that Drew Brees said the Saints have a chip on their shoulder? They have every right to. People are accusing them of all sorts of horrible crimes that don't appear to have ever taken place, much less does the league have anything to show that the Saints ever had any such intentions. I just do not get how anyone could come to the conclusion that because a few suspensions might be lessened, that somehow proves the Saints are even MORE guilty than people think they are.

Just... stupid. Or should I say, ESPN?

If I had a nickel for every time I heard that, the NFL would fine and suspend me.

Rugby Saint II

The article left me with more questions than answers. And I had plenty of questions to start.