Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am Posts: 28541 Location: PORTLAND, ME
warehouse wrote:
as much as i despise the pats cheating, it starts and ends on the football field. injuring someone effects their livelyhood. i agree w/ goodell
nfp wrote:
Buffalo Bills linebacker Shawne Merriman asked on his Twitter account why Bounty-Gate with Gregg Williams and the New Orleans Saints is a big deal now.
That's because Merriman, then with the San Diego Chargers, has long claimed that then-Tennessee Titans coach Jeff Fisher ordered a hit on him in December 2007 after he hit Titans quarterback Vince Young following a handoff.
Merriman claimed then that Titans tackle David Stewart and center Kevin Mawae intentionally retaliated against him at Fisher's urging. Fisher and the Titans players denied any intentional wrongdoing, but the NFL did hand out fines in the matter.
Merriman still sounds bitter over the incident, probably because he has not been the same player since the injury with no more than four sacks in any season since the injury.
The irony in this is that Fisher and Gregg Williams, the central figure in the New Orleans Saints Bounty-Gate, have long been close coacing friends and Williams is now Fisher's defensive coordinator in St. Louis.
no. the more i think about it the more i call bullshit on this entire controversy. paying players to deliver punishing but legal hits is called professional football.
as if a player has a super secret fatality move that he holds in reserve just for bounties. ridiculous.
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am Posts: 28541 Location: PORTLAND, ME
bmacsmith wrote:
no. the more i think about it the more i call bullshit on this entire controversy. paying players to deliver punishing but legal hits is called professional football.
as if a player has a super secret fatality move that he holds in reserve just for bounties. ridiculous.
the point is not whether what they did on the field was legal, bmac.
the point is that the rule book specifically states that you can't pay a player (or teammate) an under the table bonus for anything. incentives are in contracts for a reason. you can't avoid the salary cap, or the IRS for that matter, regardless of whether the hit, or interception, was permissible on the field.
and the issue doesn't stop there, the coach(es) & GM knew about this AND contributed to the piggy-bank.
no. the more i think about it the more i call bullshit on this entire controversy. paying players to deliver punishing but legal hits is called professional football.
as if a player has a super secret fatality move that he holds in reserve just for bounties. ridiculous.
the point is not whether what they did on the field was legal, bmac.
the point is that the rule book specifically states that you can't pay a player (or teammate) an under the table bonus for anything. incentives are in contracts for a reason. you can't avoid the salary cap, or the IRS for that matter, regardless of whether the hit, or interception, was permissible on the field.
and the issue doesn't stop there, the coach(es) & GM knew about this AND contributed to the piggy-bank.
ok. they broke a minor rule that couldnt have possibly altered the outcome of any games, and doubtfully caused any player to do something he wouldnt have done anyway, since fines far outweigh any monetary award. this is nothing remotely as game altering as what the Pats did.
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am Posts: 28541 Location: PORTLAND, ME
bmacsmith wrote:
ok. they broke a minor rule that couldnt have possibly altered the outcome of any games, and doubtfully caused any player to do something he wouldnt have done anyway, since fines far outweigh any monetary award. this is nothing remotely as game altering as what the Pats did.
(1) i love how this rule is "minor" while some other rules are more important to you. how do you choose, bmac? (2) i also enjoy your certainty that paying players to deliberately intend to injure other players has no outcome on games. as you've stated, its a violent game, so w/o knowing a players intentions, how is the league suppose to police players deliberately targeting knees? only QBs get that luxury. (3) there is no measuring stick for cheating, sir. breaking the rules and getting caught looks bad no matter how you do it.
ok. they broke a minor rule that couldnt have possibly altered the outcome of any games, and doubtfully caused any player to do something he wouldnt have done anyway, since fines far outweigh any monetary award. this is nothing remotely as game altering as what the Pats did.
(1) i love how this rule is "minor" while some other rules are more important to you. how do you choose, bmac? (2) i also enjoy your certainty that paying players to deliberately intend to injure other players has no outcome on games. as you've stated, its a violent game, so w/o knowing a players intentions, how is the league suppose to police players deliberately targeting knees? only QBs get that luxury. (3) there is no measuring stick for cheating, sir. breaking the rules and getting caught looks bad no matter how you do it.
are you seriously trying to argue that all rules are created equal?
of course its minor. in what scenario does this affect anything in the game? explain how a player is better able or more willing to hurt an opposing player because a coach offered to give him a thousand dollars instead of a pat on the back or a game ball? how is he physically going to do it? do you think players hold back when they hit someone?
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm Posts: 20059 Gender: Male
This is pretty interesting, and if you think Freakonomics people are too full of the coolness of their own stats (and interpretations), you'll appreciate it
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:52 pm Posts: 2647 Location: Where gila monsters meet you at the airport
EllisEamos wrote:
so you mean to tell me that its the league's fault for having this "minor" rule? not anything the Taints did illegally?
however, if you're willing to admit that they did break a rule (cheat), no matter how minor, why would they if it didn't benefit them in any way?
You're misusing cheat here. The Saints might have been cheating the rules about compensation, but they weren't cheating in a way that gave them a competitive advantage.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
My stance on the bounties, which I don't think I've seen expressed anywhere yet, is that I feel that Gregg Williams is a coward. The way to run a defense most effectively, which also happens to be the safer way, is to insist that your players make form tackles on every single play. Keep your head up, wrap up the body, and then drive his ass to the ground. If they don't consistently do this, make them sit out plays or do extra work in practice. Williams seemed to be worried that his players couldn't or wouldn't be form tacklers--worried enough that he had to essentially bribe his players to weaken the opposition by encouraging injuries, instead of strengthening his own defenders. Not only is there no place for that in the NFL on an ethical basis, I'm not sure if it's a good policy to have on a practical basis.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
