Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Saints players Suspended


Darkhorse1251
 Share

Recommended Posts

Lofton was going to be in the middle anyway.

 

 

Lofton ultimately ticketed for strong si... (Rotoworld) Interim coach Joe Vitt suggested LB Curtis Lofton would move to the strong side when Jonathan Vilma is healthy and in the lineup. Analysis: If Vilma is suspended, as expected, Lofton will move back to the middle with David Hawthorne on the weak side and Scott Shanle on the strong side. Chris Chamberlain, signed away from the Rams, could end up competing for snaps with Shanle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the suspended players required to wear brown bags on their heads during the duration of their suspension?

 

 

No, but you should for that weak attempt at a joke. :lol:

Lofton ultimately ticketed for strong si... (Rotoworld) Interim coach Joe Vitt suggested LB Curtis Lofton would move to the strong side when Jonathan Vilma is healthy and in the lineup. Analysis: If Vilma is suspended, as expected, Lofton will move back to the middle with David Hawthorne on the weak side and Scott Shanle on the strong side. Chris Chamberlain, signed away from the Rams, could end up competing for snaps with Shanle.

 

I'm pretty sure that was just coaches talk. Shanle isn't all that & should have been on his way out if it weren't for the bounty possibilities. My money for the strong side, now that Vilma is out for the season, is on Martez Wilson. Lofton is still a lock for the middle & Hawthorne at Will. If somehow the suspension gets delayed with the appeal I think Vilma will play the Will & Hawthorne the SAM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the Packers lost their gamble on Hargrove. It is not, however, as if they did not have some notice on the risk.

 

I feel sorry for Cleveland. They had no notice of the potential consequences when they cast their lot with Fugita.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the Packers lost their gamble on Hargrove. It is not, however, as if they did not have some notice on the risk.

 

I read that there was no signing bonus on the 1-year contract, so there was little risk. And the suspension provides salary-cap relief if he makes the team.

 

Details

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read that there was no signing bonus on the 1-year contract, so there was little risk. And the suspension provides salary-cap relief if he makes the team.

 

Details

 

I suspect this may have been one of the hold-ups on the Brees contract as well. If they get cap relief for Vilma & Smith's contracts this year then that makes a sizable difference this year that could be put towards Brees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I suspect this may have been one of the hold-ups on the Brees contract as well. If they get cap relief for Vilma & Smith's contracts this year then that makes a sizable difference this year that could be put towards Brees.

 

 

So you are saying if this gets brees to sign, that the suspensions have helped the saints?

 

:thinking:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are saying if this gets brees to sign, that the suspensions have helped the saints?

 

:thinking:

 

No, I wouldn't say losing two of their best defenders would help the Saints, would you?

 

I'm saying that it possibly could be an unintentional consolation. They still may get nothing this year at all if an appeals process drags out like it did with Starcaps. Which wouldn't surprise me in the least, especially if the court system gets involved as they did in Starcaps. If the league had handed down the suspensions weeks ago like they should have then it may have been a slightly more possible scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read that the league never contacted the players to stop their involvement with the bounty program, only Loomis and the coaching staff. If that's the case, then the player suspensions don't seem legit to me.

With that in mind, how does

Sean Payton=Jon Vilma

Mickey Loomis=Anthony Hargrove?

I'm usually all for Goodell and his iron fist, but if they never contacted the players it's hard to see how he suspends these guys for the amount of time that he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The NFL says that Hargrove eventually admitted his role in the team’s bounty program, but that at first “Hargrove also actively obstructed the league’s 2010 investigation into the program by being untruthful to investigators.”

 

http://profootballta...or-all-of-2012/

 

 

Pardon me if I have trouble putting a lot of stock in one players confession. At least not until the NFL decides to actually provide some of the physical evidence they say they have. I think the fans deserve at least that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Pardon me if I have trouble putting a lot of stock in one players confession. At least not until the NFL decides to actually provide some of the physical evidence they say they have. I think the fans deserve at least that.

 

 

Goodell represents the owners, so the fans are SOL. Notice how none of the owners have said a peep about this? They support Goodell 100%, and have given him carte blanche to do what hd thinks is necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goodell represents the owners, so the fans are SOL. Notice how none of the owners have said a peep about this? They support Goodell 100%, and have given him carte blanche to do what hd thinks is necessary.

 

And the NFLPA? They shouldn't be able to see the evidence either?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the NFLPA? They shouldn't be able to see the evidence either?

 

 

IMO the only ones who have a right to see the evidence are the players being suspended, and the NFLPA if they're going to challenge those suspensions. Or possibly the NFL owners (or their reps). The fans do not deserve to see anything. When a criminal trial takes place and a murderer is tried and convicted, does the public have access to all the evidence so we can be sure that the courts did the right thing?

 

Personally, I would hope that if the NFLPA receives evidence that a player offered money to other players to hurt (knock out) a player from a game that said player would be banned from NFLPA membership (and therefore playing in the NFL) for life. I know they should defend all members, but I also think that a member trying to harm another member should be removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an issue of employer/employee discipline, and it's none of the public's business. When they fired the CEO of HP we all knew the general reasons behind it due to the media coverage of the controversy (just like this), but we were not privy, nor should we expect to be, about the details behind it. They announced the decision, they hired a new CEO, and that was it. That's how this should be handled. I do agree the player needs to see the evidence, and of course they can do whatever they feel is necessary based on that. But to demand that we, the public see it is ludicrous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO the only ones who have a right to see the evidence are the players being suspended, and the NFLPA if they're going to challenge those suspensions. Or possibly the NFL owners (or their reps). The fans do not deserve to see anything. When a criminal trial takes place and a murderer is tried and convicted, does the public have access to all the evidence so we can be sure that the courts did the right thing?

And that I can't really argue with. While I do feel like the fans deserve to know the truth & see it in black & white so that they can make up their own minds based on facts & not speculation, I realize that as a private entity they do not have an obligation to provide that to us. I do however think that it would be the right thing to do & if they have nothing to hide then it would put an effective end to all this speculation.

 

Personally, I would hope that if the NFLPA receives evidence that a player offered money to other players to hurt (knock out) a player from a game that said player would be banned from NFLPA membership (and therefore playing in the NFL) for life. I know they should defend all members, but I also think that a member trying to harm another member should be removed.

 

 

And I agree to an extent there as well. There are players trying to hurt other players often in the NFL (Suh for example) and I understand if they feel like what they did was not in the wrong or was done in the heat of the moment. I think those players have a right to be represented. But if they did something & then they lie about it to the NFLPA & everyone else and use the NFLPA to try to weasel their way out of punishment then I totally agree. They should be removed from the NFLPA completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information