Jump to content

Sean Payton suspended for 2012, Tebow a Jet


Brave-Bird 08

Recommended Posts

And it's official...Roger Goodell has officially killed football as we know it, enforcing his nanny state.

It was going to die anyway. If not from league action then from the grassroots as parents stop letting their kids participate in amateur bloodsport, which would eventually percolate up the foodchain.

Not only that, but insurers refusing to cover school districts with football programs, or charging much much more to insure them. When high schools can't or won't pay to insure high school football, that's going to be a critical blow to a lot of development. And I do think that will happen.

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 280
  • Created
  • Last Reply

And it's official...Roger Goodell has officially killed football as we know it, enforcing his nanny state.

I wish the NFL owners would get together and do a vote of no confidence or something like that...either that or get straight to a vote where if 22 teams vote that way, Goodell is removed from office and never allowed to hold another league position again.

Either way, Goodell's got to go.

Anybody who accuses Gooddell of enforcing a nanny state is insensitive to the NFL retirees who are probably suffering dementia and a bunch of other after-effects from football contact.

Besides, people would never watch sports if players were murdering each other on the playing surface.

As for the Saints, I prefer the league stripped them of their Super Bowl win on top of all the punishment they got today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that I can view that championship as completely free of taint, or that they "weren't cheating". Trying to injure opposing players out of a game for its own sake, and not as a natural and accidental byproduct of a violent game, is indeed cheating.

But I don't think you can go back and strip championships. Not even the 1919 World Series, and that one was genuinely rigged.

Instead, you come down hard on the offenders, hard enough that nobody's going to dare to break these rules again.

And in that respect, mission accomplished. Well done, Mr. Commissioner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After thinking about it a lot, I think that the NFL made the right decision in punishing the Saints. However, there was one comment that I saw somewhere where somebody said that the Saints championship in 2009 is now "tainted."

Not at all. While bounty systems should not be allowed, they are not cheating to me. They don't give you an unfair advantage at winning a game. I do not agree with the assessment that the title run is tainted now.

It's hard to explain what I mean about how bounty systems seem against the rules, but not "cheating." Does anyone else know what I mean?

Well, not in theory. But since a lot of bounty targets were impact players for opposing teams (your Brett Favres and Kurt Warners), and taking them out of games could alter the team's ability and the outcome of the game, then I could see it as cheating.

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These suspensions are bull :censored:. Payton and Williams are being made examples of and taking the entire punishment for what many, many people participated in.

It's like MLB suspending people for steroids before there is a rule. They could not do that. NFL should make a rule, have very harsh penalties and enforce them, knowing that anyone who breaks it should know better. But to punish people to this extent for something that the league was kinda turning the other way from is just flat wrong.

Bounties, regardless of their impact, just don't "sit right" from a league image perspecrive and there should be a rule...but pre-rule, this punishment seems arbitrary and therefore too harsh.

You would have to be pretty naive to think this doesn't go on in other lockerrooms, in other sports, and I know this is pro football, but really, does there need to be a rule to stop people from doing something as premeditated as this. I'm sorry, this is just one more thing to turn people away from sports. I have been a sports fan for nearly 50 years, I'm getting tired of all this bs. Maybe it's just my age, but people have to respect each other, that's what I learnt in sport - respect - for everyone. The people involved in this bounty practice are sad, sad excuses for human beings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These suspensions are bull :censored:. Payton and Williams are being made examples of and taking the entire punishment for what many, many people participated in.

It's like MLB suspending people for steroids before there is a rule. They could not do that. NFL should make a rule, have very harsh penalties and enforce them, knowing that anyone who breaks it should know better. But to punish people to this extent for something that the league was kinda turning the other way from is just flat wrong.

Bounties, regardless of their impact, just don't "sit right" from a league image perspecrive and there should be a rule...but pre-rule, this punishment seems arbitrary and therefore too harsh.

Payton and Williams lied to Goodell (and also ignored their owner's orders). Did they learn nothing about Michael Vick lying to Goddell?

Most folks I know of lose jobs when they deliberately disobey (and lie to) their employers.

Still think the suspensions are crap?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Williams deserved it, but Payton deserved no more than four games, you have just eliminated a top tier team from being able to compete next year.

ecyclopedia.gif

www.sportsecyclopedia.com

For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at

http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com

champssigtank.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Williams deserved it, but Payton deserved no more than four games, you have just eliminated a top tier team from being able to compete next year.

Keep in mind that they still haven't gotten around to punishments of the defense yet, so I think then you could say that their chances are officially decimated.

san-francisco-giants-cap.jpgsanfranciscob.gifArizonaWildcats4.gifcalirvine.jpg
BEAR DOWN ARIZONA!

2013/14 Tanks Picks Champion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Williams deserved it, but Payton deserved no more than four games, you have just eliminated a top tier team from being able to compete next year.

That's the point Frank.

On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said:
You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now.
On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said:
Today, we are all otaku.

"The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert

POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010

The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Saints did this to themselves.

And Payton proved himself to be an enabler. He was told to put an end to it and he didn't. He also tried to play ignorance and got caught.

The Saints should do themselves a favor and clean house now. May as well fire Payton (or force him to resign), Loomis, etc. and rid themselves of all parties involved, especially those players that are looking at suspensions coming their way. They could speed up the rebuilding process by trading players for draft picks (seeing as how they aren't drafting until the 3rd round this year....doesn't Cleveland's two 1st-rounders sound awfully good in exchange for Drew Brees?) and having a new GM and coaching staff in place and evaluating talent on the fly. Consider 2012 a lost cause and start readying yourselves for 2013.

No way can Payton coach another game for the Saints, can he? Williams likely won't be allowed to coach for quite some time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that I can view that championship as completely free of taint, or that they "weren't cheating". Trying to injure opposing players out of a game for its own sake, and not as a natural and accidental byproduct of a violent game, is indeed cheating.

But I don't think you can go back and strip championships. Not even the 1919 World Series, and that one was genuinely rigged.

Instead, you come down hard on the offenders, hard enough that nobody's going to dare to break these rules again.

And in that respect, mission accomplished. Well done, Mr. Commissioner.

This.

And rather than stripping teams of championships, the NCAA should take a page out of the NFL's book and learn that the best way to deal with team infringements is to make it much harder for a team to compete for a year or whatever.

Wembley-1.png

2011/12 WFL Champions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As other posters have stated, the Saints got nuked because of the lies and the coverup, which was very stupid. They deserved to get some extra punishment for that, but overall this still seems pretty excessive. But ce la vie, it's done. What really bothers me is the hypocrisy by the league and media.

The bounties were stupid but the reaction is more a case of media pantywaists. They're like somebody who loves steak and suddenly one day sees a documentary and says, "Wait, they kill cows to make these, oh my God, I'm so appalled." What a joke. Ask yourself: why is Peter King more upset than Favre or Warner? Does that make one bit of sense?

Remember the scene in Friday Night Lights when the star RB is carried off and the two defenders, kneeling in "respect" to the injured player, give a surreptitious little fist bump? Where was the outrage over that depiction, or when Reggie Bush left the '06 Saints-Ravens game with a re-injured ankle and Bart Scott said he "put a little hot sauce" on Bush? For years players with injuries have made comments like "I'm sure they're going to go after my (fill in the blank)" and nobody even blinked.

The league and the media milquetoasts can squeal and wring their hands all they want but if they want to pretend this doesn't go on in most, if not all, football locker rooms, they're dreaming.

I'm not condoning or advocating it or saying the Saints shouldn't have been disciplined. They're not victims here in any way. I'm just saying "hurt their best player" goes on and has gone on for years and the sudden outrage is so hypocritical it's sickening. And I didn't even touch on the league making money selling videos of big hits. :rolleyes:

And all these "NFL insiders" with "exclusive access" blah blah, they had no idea? That's as ludicrous as Brees' denials that he knew anything.

On another note, the Saints will win some games this year and I guess the opponents won't have any excuses, will they?

@Chawls and other Saints fans, this too shall pass.

92512B20-6264-4E6C-AAF2-7A1D44E9958B-481-00000047E259721F.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bounties were stupid but the reaction is more a case of media pantywaists.

No.

The more we learn about how injuries linger long after glory fades, the more inexcusable it is to deliberately injure a player. We used to think that "getting your bell rung" was no big deal, was even a badge of honor. Well, now we know better.

We can't hold past players to modern standards. But we sure as hell can hold current players to those standards. And deliberately injuring opposing players is no longer acceptable in this game. It is a violent game, but violence within the rules. There is a very important distinction here, which renders all charges of hypocrisy baseless.

The more I see people beating their breasts over the loss of "manliness" in the sport, the more I think of Dave Duerson, Mike Webster and Shane Dronett.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bounties were stupid but the reaction is more a case of media pantywaists.

No.

The more we learn about how injuries linger long after glory fades, the more inexcusable it is to deliberately injure a player. We used to think that "getting your bell rung" was no big deal, was even a badge of honor. Well, now we know better.

We can't hold past players to modern standards. But we sure as hell can hold current players to those standards. And deliberately injuring opposing players is no longer acceptable in this game. It is a violent game, but violence within the rules. There is a very important distinction here, which renders all charges of hypocrisy baseless.

The more I see people beating their breasts over the loss of "manliness" in the sport, the more I think of Dave Duerson, Mike Webster and Shane Dronett.

Said it before, will say it again: it's wrong for any player to ever attempt to deliberately injure another player. That's why the hypocrisy is so outrageous.

The very definition of hypocrisy is trying to dance along the fine line between intent and no intent. You can't try to knock a guy out of the game but if you blindside him at full speed with a legal hit and he happens to get knocked out of the game, that's ok? No one likes to see an opponent injured but there's no denying two things: 1. your team's chances of winning increase and 2. winning is all that matters to most people. 1+2= 3. most fans may not celebrate an opponent's injury but they're not crying over it either.

This is like teachers and test scores. We put all the eggs in the test scores basket when it comes to measuring success but then are shocked when teachers cheat. Fans, players, and the league cultivate a "win at any cost" culture then we're shocked when we discover bounties. Please.

92512B20-6264-4E6C-AAF2-7A1D44E9958B-481-00000047E259721F.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The very definition of hypocrisy is trying to dance along the fine line between intent and no intent.

Not in any dictionary I own. I'm not sure I follow this sentence.

You can't try to knock a guy out of the game but if you blindside him at full speed with a legal hit and he happens to get knocked out of the game, that's ok?

Yes.

When there are bounties on the line, then no player can be said to "just happen to get knocked out of the game." So long as a player has financial incentive to injure another, any hit is under a cloud of suspicion. That's precisely why bounties are outlawed in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These suspensions are bull :censored:. Payton and Williams are being made examples of and taking the entire punishment for what many, many people participated in.

It's like MLB suspending people for steroids before there is a rule. They could not do that. NFL should make a rule, have very harsh penalties and enforce them, knowing that anyone who breaks it should know better. But to punish people to this extent for something that the league was kinda turning the other way from is just flat wrong.

Bounties, regardless of their impact, just don't "sit right" from a league image perspecrive and there should be a rule...but pre-rule, this punishment seems arbitrary and therefore too harsh.

Payton and Williams lied to Goodell (and also ignored their owner's orders). Did they learn nothing about Michael Vick lying to Goddell?

Most folks I know of lose jobs when they deliberately disobey (and lie to) their employers.

Still think the suspensions are crap?

I admit this...I tune the NFL out as much as I can (which is getting harder) between the super bowl and my fantasy drafts, so I was not really aware of the meetings with Goodell and I should have done more homework.

I still struggle with the idea that this has been going on a long time and the league seems to arbitrarily pick "now" as the time to actually address it. So I think big punishments to players (or anyone that does not go into a meeting and lie) would be the wrong way to go. If they want to ask people about it and establish a history (which may have been the intent with Payton and Williams) then that's great. But until now, it seems they've been turning their heads away from this...so set a "minimum penalty" for participating in bounties and enforce it from here on out.

As for the severity for Williams and Payton...I don't know. It seems harsh, but they did open themselves up to it, Clinton style. The coverup is worse than the act, as they say. I think I'd rather have seen them get "games" rather than a full year. They'd have to work their 18 hour days for a full year, miss 8 or so games, and get half their salary.

Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse."

 

BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD

POTD (Shared)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So does the crackdown on bounties extend to player pots for interceptions, sacks, etc.?

I would actually equate those with Pete Rose betting on his own team. If I have a little extra incentive to make a pick, maybe I overplay the ball when I cannot get to it and should be playing the man.

Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse."

 

BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD

POTD (Shared)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The very definition of hypocrisy is trying to dance along the fine line between intent and no intent.

Not in any dictionary I own. I'm not sure I follow this sentence.

You can't try to knock a guy out of the game but if you blindside him at full speed with a legal hit and he happens to get knocked out of the game, that's ok?

Yes.

When there are bounties on the line, then no player can be said to "just happen to get knocked out of the game." So long as a player has financial incentive to injure another, any hit is under a cloud of suspicion. That's precisely why bounties are outlawed in the game.

1. I meant in the context of Bountygate. It's okay if a guy's career ends on a hit as long as the defender didn't mean to hurt him? That just seems crazy because if players are going full speed and playing the way they were taught, intent doesn't fundamentally change game action.

Remember when Leonard Marshall put the crown of his helmet in Montana's helmet bumper and knocked him out for about a season-and-a-half? Did Marshall intend to hurt Montana? You answered below that if he didn't, that hit was okay, but it wouldn't be okay if he intended to injure Montana. But nothing about the hit itself would've changed and Montana would've suffered the exact same injuries either way.

A more modern example is Sheldon Brown's monster shot on Reggie Bush in '06, a hit so epic somebody took the time and effort to make a McFarlane out of it. :blink:

timo.gif

For argument's sake, let's assume there was a bounty on Bush and Brown was trying to collect by injuring Bush. How is that hit any different than it actually was, when we know (or at least believe) there was NO bounty and he had NO intent to hurt Bush? It's the same play either way because we have to presume Brown is playing as fast and hitting as hard as he can one way or the other. That's my point.

2. Since intent can't be proven (with or without bounties), and all we can ever do is presume there is no bounty, shouldn't any hit be under a cloud of suspicion?

Can anyone really know whether the Saints players intended to hurt opponents to collect a bounty or simply received one if their hit happened to knock the guy out of the game? Two very different things.

92512B20-6264-4E6C-AAF2-7A1D44E9958B-481-00000047E259721F.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.