Azazello1313 Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I've said over & over again that I don't believe the Saints are completely innocent and they deserve to be punished. That doesn't mean I agree with the severity of all the punishments, but it also doesn't mean that I don't "believe they did anything wrong or deserve any punishment." Hell, I've repeated that general sentiment three times in this thread alone... What the hell more do you want from me? so, you freely admit that there was obviously a system that placed incentives on injuring other players, that the defensive coaches ran it, that payton and the organization deserve some punishment. I assume that if you go that far, you freely admit that the players were willing participants as well, probably led by defensive captains like smith and vilma. with all of that, I guess the incessant defending of the saints players and attacking goodell's case against them doesn't make any sense. is that you think a pool that incentivizes injury does not equate to "intent to injure"? even when the highest payouts are specifically for injuries, and several very large injury-specific payouts were offered against key players in big games? you think that all of that reflects paying for performance and doesn't at all reflect a "bounty" and/or paying to injure, and that goodell is some kind of arrogant, irrational dictator with an axe to grind for believing otherwise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White lightning Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 so, you freely admit that there was obviously a system that placed incentives on injuring other players, that the defensive coaches ran it, that payton and the organization deserve some punishment. I assume that if you go that far, you freely admit that the players were willing participants as well, probably led by defensive captains like smith and vilma. with all of that, I guess the incessant defending of the saints players and attacking goodell's case against them doesn't make any sense. is that you think a pool that incentivizes injury does not equate to "intent to injure"? even when the highest payouts are specifically for injuries, and several very large injury-specific payouts were offered against key players in big games? you think that all of that reflects paying for performance and doesn't at all reflect a "bounty" and/or paying to injure, and that goodell is some kind of arrogant, irrational dictator with an axe to grind for believing otherwise? Dude, this is like the third time you've misquoted rajn or put words in his mouth. He has clearly said that he doesn't think the system was designed to promote or reward injuring players (He's also said that if it was then punish them)/ And as I have repeatedly said, according to the new NFL contract if the system is determined to be pay for performance then it's not considered 1) an action detrimental to the league falling under Goodell's domain 2) it's considered illegal pay and falls under the domain of the NFL arbritrator 3) and the players can only be fined and not suspended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Dude, this is like the third time you've misquoted rajn or put words in his mouth. He has clearly said that he doesn't think the system was designed to promote or reward injuring players (He's also said that if it was then punish them)/ And as I have repeatedly said, according to the new NFL contract if the system is determined to be pay for performance then it's not considered 1) an action detrimental to the league falling under Goodell's domain 2) it's considered illegal pay and falls under the domain of the NFL arbritrator 3) and the players can only be fined and not suspended. I might view it differently. Sure there is a pay element, but the key issue is that it is alleged that the Saints, as an organization, systematically ignored NFL rules pertaining to the subject and then took it to another level, intent to injure, which is arguably criminal and is certainly detrimental to the leagues image, marketability, and liability exposure. The pay part is collateral to the central issue, in my mind at least. This would be like a murder for hire case. The central issue would be murder. The contract nature of it perhaps an aggravating circumstance. I appreciate that on the matters last stop in court the Judge saw it more as you have postured the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Dude, this is like the third time you've misquoted rajn or put words in his mouth. He has clearly said that he doesn't think the system was designed to promote or reward injuring players (He's also said that if it was then punish them)/ And as I have repeatedly said, according to the new NFL contract if the system is determined to be pay for performance then it's not considered 1) an action detrimental to the league falling under Goodell's domain 2) it's considered illegal pay and falls under the domain of the NFL arbritrator 3) and the players can only be fined and not suspended. I'll believe rajn when some punishment is handed down and he doesn't rail against it. What kind of evidence can prove that these guys were really trying to injure other players (and offering money to reward that behavior) and will the Saints fans/defenders believe that. Until then it just sounds like a lot of conditional belief of some wrong doing, but not enough to believe they deserve any sort of harsh punishment. Coupled with playing the victim in all this it just sounds hollow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Dude, this is like the third time you've misquoted rajn or put words in his mouth. He has clearly said that he doesn't think the system was designed to promote or reward injuring players (He's also said that if it was then punish them)/ And as I have repeatedly said, according to the new NFL contract if the system is determined to be pay for performance then it's not considered 1) an action detrimental to the league falling under Goodell's domain 2) it's considered illegal pay and falls under the domain of the NFL arbritrator 3) and the players can only be fined and not suspended. It's been well more than three times. I might view it differently. Sure there is a pay element, but the key issue is that it is alleged that the Saints, as an organization, systematically ignored NFL rules pertaining to the subject and then took it to another level, intent to injure, which is arguably criminal and is certainly detrimental to the leagues image, marketability, and liability exposure. The pay part is collateral to the central issue, in my mind at least. This would be like a murder for hire case. The central issue would be murder. The contract nature of it perhaps an aggravating circumstance. I appreciate that on the matters last stop in court the Judge saw it more as you have postured the matter. And that's where we differ in opinion. I don't think the intent was ever to injure, just to get the team to play hard & be aggressive. If the intent to injure were there then you should have seen over the past three years more injuries, penalties & fines against the Saints when in fact it was just the opposite. They were actually well in the bottom half of the league in those categories. I do, however, see that the wording & the bonuses included opens up the possibility of a player taking it too far though & I agree that the Saints should be punished for it. One of my central issues with this whole ordeal is do the punishments actually fit the crime? Sure, if the actually had "bounties" set aside each game to target specific players & the Saints actually went out and acted on that bounty and players got hurt as a result then it would be a little easier to stomach. But when comparing all the fines and suspensions and draft picks with other situations does it really seem fair? Is a year long suspension for Vilma equal to a year long suspension for what Stallworth or Little did? Do you really think that Payton's role in all this deserves a year long ban? A suspension, yes... A full year? I think not. And please, let's stop with the comparisons to a murder case. This is not murder or the intent to murder we're talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I'll believe rajn when some punishment is handed down and he doesn't rail against it. What kind of evidence can prove that these guys were really trying to injure other players (and offering money to reward that behavior) and will the Saints fans/defenders believe that. Until then it just sounds like a lot of conditional belief of some wrong doing, but not enough to believe they deserve any sort of harsh punishment. Coupled with playing the victim in all this it just sounds hollow. Parts of the supposed ledger provided by Cerrullo were already leaked to the media and were all proven to be false by comparing them to game tape. Then some of the false information was changed and re-leaked then proven again to be false. That's not to say they didn't have payouts, but as I've posted before, the Saints never knocked anyone of the game. The only person knocked out of a Saints game in that 3 year span was Reggie Bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I do, however, see that the wording & the bonuses included opens up the possibility of a player taking it too far though & I agree that the Saints should be punished for it. Sure, if the actually had "bounties" set aside each game to target specific players & the Saints actually went out and acted on that bounty and players got hurt as a result then it would be a little easier to stomach. Ok so what sort of punishment should they be getting, Payton, Vitt, Vilma, and the other players. Care to offer something you feel is reasonable. Also not sure how you can compare this to other acts, including guys like Stallworth that killed somebody while driving drunk. As for it being easier to stomach if players actually got hurt why? Because then there would be proof that they were trying to hurt players? Isn't it bad enough that they were offering money to players for injuring other players? Payton is the head coach, he and the whole team were caught doing this and told to stop. When they were caught again the man in charge got punished heavily for their actions and snubbing their nose at authority. I think that is perferctly reasonable, saying they'd stop and then continuing with the program needs to be punished to assert the league's authority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 It's been well more than three times. And that's where we differ in opinion. I don't think the intent was ever to injure, just to get the team to play hard & be aggressive. If the intent to injure were there then you should have seen over the past three years more injuries, penalties & fines against the Saints when in fact it was just the opposite. They were actually well in the bottom half of the league in those categories. I do, however, see that the wording & the bonuses included opens up the possibility of a player taking it too far though & I agree that the Saints should be punished for it. One of my central issues with this whole ordeal is do the punishments actually fit the crime? Sure, if the actually had "bounties" set aside each game to target specific players & the Saints actually went out and acted on that bounty and players got hurt as a result then it would be a little easier to stomach. But when comparing all the fines and suspensions and draft picks with other situations does it really seem fair? Is a year long suspension for Vilma equal to a year long suspension for what Stallworth or Little did? Do you really think that Payton's role in all this deserves a year long ban? A suspension, yes... A full year? I think not. And please, let's stop with the comparisons to a murder case. This is not murder or the intent to murder we're talking about. I did not mean to imply the bountygate matter was in any way comparable to a murder case in regard to severity nor import, and I think you know that when you are not being extra sensitive. I was merely making an analogy as to where jurisdicion lies for making a determintion in this matter. As for my thoughts on appropriate punishments in this matter, I have from the begining of this matter taken the position that I do not find the behavior particularly shocking nor tremendously out of line with things said or done in the name of winning. I think the line has long been poorly drawn in sports as to what sport and game is. I think perspective was lost long ago. The Saints were not a cataclysmic shift in the ethos of the game, but rather only an incremental one, if a shift at all. Are they paying for the sins of others, to an extent probably. But they are also paying for their own hubris. I wonder who has jurisdiction over hubris. I think the Saints and Goodell could both find themselves in front of that tribunal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Parts of the supposed ledger provided by Cerrullo were already leaked to the media and were all proven to be false by comparing them to game tape. Then some of the false information was changed and re-leaked then proven again to be false. That's not to say they didn't have payouts, but as I've posted before, the Saints never knocked anyone of the game. The only person knocked out of a Saints game in that 3 year span was Reggie Bush. I don't give the Saint's credit for Favre's toughness. He was for all intents and purposes knocked out of that game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Dude, this is like the third time you've misquoted rajn or put words in his mouth. He's just trying to troll Rajn. Hilarity for old huddlers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White lightning Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) . I'll believe rajn when some punishment is handed down and he doesn't rail against it. What kind of evidence can prove that these guys were really trying to injure other players (and offering money to reward that behavior) and will the Saints fans/defenders believe that. I thought Williams' affidavit would have provided this evidence. I figured that since the NFL had him by the balls he would come clean (or roll over depending on which side you've taken) and admit that there was an "injure" element to the system. But Williams' affidavit was pretty clear that it was a pay/performance system. Oh and I stand corrected, I looked into the penalties/fines for the Saints/Packers game and both were levied for the Farve hits. So Steve, Goodell might point to Williams' affidavit about the "knock out/cart off" hits, the pregame speech, and the Farve hits/penalties/fines and say "that's enough circumstantial evidence to establish 'intent' to injure." Edited September 19, 2012 by White lightning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White lightning Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 He's just trying to troll Rajn. Hilarity for old huddlers. I need to start perfecting my craft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) . I thought Williams' affidavit would have provided this evidence. I figured that since the NFL had him by the balls he would come clean (or roll over depending on which side you've taken) and admit that there was an "injure" element to the system. But Williams' affidavit was pretty clear that it was a pay/performance system. Oh and I stand corrected, I looked into the penalties/fines for the Saints/Packers game and both were levied for the Farve hits. So Steve, Goodell might point to Williams' affidavit about the "knock out/cart off" hits, the pregame speech, and the Farve hits/penalties/fines and say "that's enough circumstantial evidence to establish 'intent' to injure." I would agree, but doubt most Saints fans would. I think offering the incentive alone is intent to injure (if those incentives include injuries like a cart off, knock-out, etc). As DW said, if I offer money to somebody to kill another, that is intent right there. Conspiracy to commit murder or something like that. Sure they cannot be charged with murder or even attempted murder unless they actually kill somebody, or try to kill them. The program itself (even absent any injuries, penalties/fines, or even suspect hits against the other team) is enough to prove intent. You don't offer somebody money to do something that yu don't intend for them to do. "Hey kid, I'll give you $10 if you go kiss that girl." OMG, he really went over there and kissed her, I never intended for him to do that. Edited September 19, 2012 by stevegrab Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) Dude, this is like the third time you've misquoted rajn or put words in his mouth. He has clearly said that he doesn't think the system was designed to promote or reward injuring players you're the one misquoting me. it wasn't "designed" to cause injury. it was designed to get them to play harder, smarter, more aggressive, whatever. but what I don't think anyone with an ounce of honesty can deny is that it placed financial incentives on causing injury. there is simply no other rational way to spin "knock-outs" and "cart-offs". It's been well more than three times. so you do not agree there was a system that paid incentives specifically for injuring opposing players? then what exactly do you think the saints deserve some punishment for having done? is this really no different in your mind than a system where players had a pool that only rewarded, say, turnovers and tackles-for-loss? Edited September 19, 2012 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White lightning Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 so you do not agree there was a system that paid incentives specifically for injuring opposing players? then what exactly do you think the saints deserve some punishment for having done? is this really no different in your mind than a system where players had a pool that only rewarded, say, turnovers and tackles-for-loss? First, there is a difference between the two as stated by the CBA and the appellate panel that issued the injuction. http://espn.go.com/n...r-goodell-power. The pay/performance system is in violation of the CBAs contract and salary cap provisions while the bounty/injure system is in violation of the "player conduct" provisions. Second, if it was a pay/performance system they do deserve to be punished with fines as per the CBA, but they cannot be suspended. Don't worry brother we'll get there one post at a time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) so you do not agree there was a system that paid incentives specifically for injuring opposing players? then what exactly do you think the saints deserve some punishment for having done? is this really no different in your mind than a system where players had a pool that only rewarded, say, turnovers and tackles-for-loss? I think I've told you enough times exactly what I think. I've been completely consistent and honest in my thinking this entire time & I have repeated myself & explained myself to you more than what should be considered satisfactory. If you don't get it by now then you never will. If you want me to explain it all again then go re-read the ridiculous amount of posts I've already put up trying to explain my position to you. I'm completely done with you on this subject. Edited September 19, 2012 by rajncajn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 First, there is a difference between the two as stated by the CBA and the appellate panel that issued the injuction. http://espn.go.com/n...r-goodell-power. The pay/performance system is in violation of the CBAs contract and salary cap provisions while the bounty/injure system is in violation of the "player conduct" provisions. Second, if it was a pay/performance system they do deserve to be punished with fines as per the CBA, but they cannot be suspended. Don't worry brother we'll get there one post at a time. Good clarification. But either way the Saints did something wrong, just a matter of what level of wrong and who can punish and what punishment they can give. But that is only as it relates to players. As far as the coaches, I haven't heard anything to convince me they didn't do wrong, say they'd stop, and do wrong again. Goodell (and anybody in a management role) didn't like that, and punished them. Too many angles, spins, etc. in this whole case. And too much emotion on all sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I think I've told you enough times exactly what I think. I've been completely consistent and honest in my thinking this entire time & I have repeated myself & explained myself to you more than what should be considered satisfactory. If you don't get it by now then you never will. If you want me to explain it all again then go re-read the ridiculous amount of posts I've already put up trying to explain my position to you. I'm completely done with you on this subject. I'm making a good faith effort to understand where you're coming from, and from what I can tell you have essentially tried to carve out a position that avoids answering the relevant questions. therefore, it doesn't surprise me that you take the righteous indignation tack rather than answer them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I'm making a good faith effort to understand where you're coming from, and from what I can tell you have essentially tried to carve out a position that avoids answering the relevant questions. therefore, it doesn't surprise me that you take the righteous indignation tack rather than answer them. I've already answered all of your questions, multiple times. Why should I have to keep answering them to satisfy you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) First, there is a difference between the two as stated by the CBA and the appellate panel that issued the injuction. http://espn.go.com/n...r-goodell-power. The pay/performance system is in violation of the CBAs contract and salary cap provisions while the bounty/injure system is in violation of the "player conduct" provisions. Second, if it was a pay/performance system they do deserve to be punished with fines as per the CBA, but they cannot be suspended. Don't worry brother we'll get there one post at a time. I understand that distinction and why the saints apologists desperately want to characterize it as merely a "performance" system. I am just pointing out the glaring weaknesses in that argument, unless you deny what is completely obvious -- that their "performance system" very clearly and specifically created incentives for causing injury to opposing players. where "performance" is specifically defined as a "cart-off" or a "knock-out", I see no meaningful distinction between "pay/peformance" and "bounty/injure" -- in that context they are one in the same, and therefore clearly under the commissioner's jurisdiction. Edited September 19, 2012 by Azazello1313 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Pat!!! Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 It's been well more than three times. And that's where we differ in opinion. I don't think the intent was ever to injure, just to get the team to play hard & be aggressive. If the intent to injure were there then you should have seen over the past three years more injuries, penalties & fines against the Saints when in fact it was just the opposite. They were actually well in the bottom half of the league in those categories. I do, however, see that the wording & the bonuses included opens up the possibility of a player taking it too far though & I agree that the Saints should be punished for it. One of my central issues with this whole ordeal is do the punishments actually fit the crime? Sure, if the actually had "bounties" set aside each game to target specific players & the Saints actually went out and acted on that bounty and players got hurt as a result then it would be a little easier to stomach. But when comparing all the fines and suspensions and draft picks with other situations does it really seem fair? Is a year long suspension for Vilma equal to a year long suspension for what Stallworth or Little did? Do you really think that Payton's role in all this deserves a year long ban? A suspension, yes... A full year? I think not. And please, let's stop with the comparisons to a murder case. This is not murder or the intent to murder we're talking about. I don't think the league cares whether it was ever carried out or not. If Vilma offered 10K for a knockout of Favre but the team couldn't get the job done, so no money was exchanged, they are still guilty of having the program. Look at it this way. If I hire a hitman to kill my wife and he tries but she lives, I'm still guilty. Even if he doesn't try, I'm still going to jail. The other aspect you are not taking into account is defying the league. The commish sent a memo (a few from the sounds of it) telling them to stop whatever programs they had in place, and the did not. That is why the excessive fines for the coaches and GM. Goodell has made it clear that he is not to be disobeyed when he tells a team to stop doing something. That was the situation with the Pats. BB was not fined for taping coaches. He was fined because he was told not to tape from the sidelines and he continued to do so. To this day teams still tape other teams coaching signals, they just have to do it from certain places and with certain cameras. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLAYER Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 HI gang. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I've already answered all of your questions, multiple times. Why should I have to keep answering them to satisfy you? I can't find them, so maybe one more time you can tell me, agree or disagree: the saints defensive coaches and players participated in a system that provided financial incentives for causing injury to opposing players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) I can't find them, so maybe one more time you can tell me, agree or disagree: the saints defensive coaches and players participated in a system that provided financial incentives for causing injury to opposing players. Every one of the posts below has an admission of guilt by me of either players or coaches or both in one form or another. Many of the posts are in direct response to you. http://forums.thehud..._bounty__st__75 http://forums.thehud...n/#entry3663658 http://forums.thehud...50#entry3644474 http://forums.thehud...50#entry3644517 http://forums.thehud...75#entry3644616 http://forums.thehud...75#entry3647292 http://forums.thehud...25#entry3651047 http://forums.thehud...00#entry3653211 http://forums.thehud...50#entry3655497 http://forums.thehud...25#entry3676324 http://forums.thehud...50#entry3681544 http://forums.thehud...00#entry3728115 http://forums.thehud...75#entry3727882 http://forums.thehud...75#entry3728094 http://forums.thehud...00#entry3728306 That's 15 times that I could find. Here's one more... The Saints had a program that could have influenced players to injure opponents in games & they should be punished for it. Happy now? Edited September 19, 2012 by rajncajn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Petty pissing contests are ghey 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.