It was discussed (albeit briefly) early in the thread, but the moral outrage of football players getting hit drowned that discussion out.
[Reply]

I can't agree with you Bob. While I understand the cap violations are part of the story, Roger Goodell has stated that player safety is paramount. The GM may be receiving his suspension because of the cap implications, but Gregg Williams is receiving his for the bounty. That's how I see it, anyway.

Here's a couple quotes from Roger Goodell
To reason that the money aspect is driving this doesn't make sense to me.
[Reply]

Sorry, didnt mean to say that cap violations were the primary issue, but only one of the violations. Player safety, competition, lying to investigators were all part of the decision.

If 25 of NO's 27 defensive players were involved, I wonder how many will be suspended? I think Vilma for sure, but we'll see who else.
[Reply]

1. Gregg Williams wasn't the DC of the Saints in 2008.
2. I don't need to; the WSJ already did that for us.
3. The burden of proof isn't on me to show that players were getting intentionally maimed by Saints defenders under Gregg Williams guidance.
[Reply]

No, the mob is driving this thing. That much is painfully obvious. The public called for blood and blood they got.:-)
[Reply]

One would have to think Roman Harper as well.
[Reply]

Doing a bit of reading on this topic today I have a couple of things that sort of stuck out for me. To those who are defending the Saints, didn't Payton already admit wrongdoing? I am quite sure that his statement on March 6 where he acknowledged that the bounty program existed and that he would make sure that he never be involved with it again is an admission of guilt. Having said that, the penalty seems to me to make sense. The 2nd is that it seems to me that this is as much about lying about it originally than it is about any specific injury that may or may not have happened because of the bounty program. Now whether or not a bounty program exists on other teams, or has existed is still up for debate. The fact that it existed here, to me, isn't about the salary cap, or the dollar amounts it's more about the motivation to make the big hit. I do just fine at work, but if I win a measly little office pool for $5 bucks, I get more satisfaction from that then I do my weekly paycheck. So the motivation for me to win the office pool is almost greater than what drives me to perform my job. I hope I'm saying that so it makes sense to people. I certainly enjoy the $5 bucks more. So even though these players all do really well, I can see it motivating them to get the payoff in front of their teammates.
[Reply]

Although I'm sure I'm viewed as one who's defending their actions, I'm not. I simply think that the perception, whether real or not, is that this was about attempting to injure other players. Personally, circumventing the salary cap with a, "bounty" system being funded by entities outside the organization and the (attempted) coverup is the real issue.:-)
[Reply]

The way this penalty phase sits now, it's got the teeth to absolutely gut the Saints next year. Losing the head coach, money, and draft picks (which makes absolutely no sense to me) should be sufficient punishment. It definitely sends the desired message, and it's likely to cost the Saints a number of games next year and a shot at the playoffs.
Now if Goodell starts suspending players, I can't see why their (bounty program) participation is less damning than Payton's knowledge of it. They certainly knew that they shouldn't be doing it and it had to have been communicated to them that they'd been told to quit.
So now we suspend almost the entire Saints defense for a year? That seems like an equal punishment.
Right now Goodell is playing the fear game, and he's playing it well. On appeal I see this being pared back dramatically. I doubt that Payton is able to appeal via the CBA as he's not a member, but in a court of law he wins easily. There's no precedent, no rules in place, and the Commissioner can dole out punishment at whim. That wouldn't likely stand up if it's tried.

I'm not sure where I sit on the punishment. I think it should be huge, but I don't think it should cripple the franchise's ability to compete. I completely disagree with the draft picks being taken away. I agree with the coach and GM's suspensions. I don't think they're excessive. The $500,000 is a pittance.
Maybe let Payton coach and fine him the $7,000,000 he'd have made this year and donate it to a player's injury fund to pay for health care for uninsured/injured players and so forth? Same with the GM, let the team buy him back by donating his salary.

I don't think crippling the team's ability to compete is the answer, although I agree that my angle won't likely make an impact because millions of dollars is nothing to many ball clubs. I don't envy Goodell's position, and he's been very effective at handling problems in the past. I'm sure he's thought of every angle, surrounded by a team of lawyers.
[Reply]

See, I don't see the bounty program as anything more than an office pool.
I think the issue is putting the league at risk for litigation. They're in the midst of fighting off these concussion lawsuits and this "bounty program" coming to light very much damages any shred of credibility they may have put together in their defense.

On another front, I heard this thing all blew up when Farve got carted off the field while he played for Minnesota. I didn't catch who the player was that made the hit, but that player was overheard saying "get me my money" or something to that effect, wanting his bounty money.
Did you hear that story?
[Reply]

I remember before that playoff game that there was a reported bounty out for Favre. I don't remember the in-game comments from players. After all that's come out the last few weeks, I certainly believe you though, Scott.
[Reply]

This thing turned into a 1700 page report, Andy. Maybe someone read that from the report and reported on it? I wish I'd have been paying closer attention.
[Reply]

Warren Sapp claimed that Jeremy Shockey blew the whistle back in '09. The NFL did an investigation and didn't find enough evidence, my guess is that's when the Saints were told to cut the sh1t.
[Reply]

I disagree. I think the bigger issue for the NFL (and for me, personally) was the intent to injure and the fact there was an award for doing so. Like Scott alluded, the NFL doesn't want the liability. And the amount of money involved was peanuts, relative to salaries.
[Reply]

:-)

For all the crybaby Favre fans complaining about the beating Favre took that game, I heard them talking on Mike and Mike that the NFL didn't fine a single player and reviewing the game once again in light of said information, didn't really provide any more insight that the Saints were really playing dirty. Perhaps they were playing more within the full rules, but too many hits or hitting too hard? This isn't pee wee football we're talking about here.

If Favre didn't need a walker to get around before the game, it's even less of an issue of taking the hits during the game. :-)
[Reply]

But the NFL, and rightfully so, views it as a circumvention of the salary cap. Further, outside entities helped fund these, "bounty" programs. Outside money influencing play on the field is a huge no-no in sports.
Court of opinion, sure. Court of law? I have my doubts.
[Reply]

Which is being ridiculously overblown, IMO. With a three year ongoing investigation, isn't it safe to deduct that the League would've taken a particular interest into the Saints play on the field?
And that was money rewarded for performance on the field, which was paid, "under the table" which in turn is a direct circumvention of the salary cap.
[Reply]

This is nothing more than NFL PR aiming to get out ahead of any possible litigation. The Saints do not deserve
anything LIKE this, at least nothing that the entire league is not subject to. Losing DRAFT PICKS?? Come on.
This punishment is just like everything Goodell does, OVER THE TOP. I am not saying it is not his right, I am not
saying the league doesn't NEED to be reined in at every corner, I am saying that I do not like it, I don't think it's
all that fair, and I will not be watching NFL football in 2012.
[Reply]

I understand that position, and it's a tool they have to use. We're talking pool money of $50,000, $1,000 for a hit that runs a player off the field, $1500 for a cart off. That's dinner money for these guys.
They can call it circumvention, because it is. Regardless, it's chickensh1t. It's a claim that'll stick, and it serves their higher purpose without making it look like they're covering their ass, which is what it is.
I'm not at all saying that the NFL is wrong in any of their actions here, I just have an affinity for getting down to the truth of the matter.
As far as my assertion about a court of law, Payton may not have any recourse in this whatever, including a court of law. I would think that the NFL has covered their ass so far as handing out punishments, making sure they're held harmless by contract.
I do think Payton got his due, I just wish their was a way that the fans don't have to suffer this. They're the ones paying the bill, and the ones who ultimately pay the most by watching their team become dismantled.
[Reply]

Agreed 100%. That's why to me, I think doing this under the guise of, "player safety" is to appease the masses. If they (the League office) were aware of these things three years ago and were truly concerned about the safety of their players, it would've been shut down three years ago, period. The League has shown time and again under Goodell's tenure to be pro-active to protect the League's, "image". Interesting that the hammer didn't fall until a month after these findings became public, no?
[Reply]