Jump to content

Nfl Shows Reporters Proof Of Saints Suspensions


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 404
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No offense meant, but at this point I believe (at least on TATF) you are essentially preaching to an empty church.

Most of us have read and seen the same basic material that you have and have reached a separate conclusion.

Doesn't make you wrong and others right. It just means that everyone seems to have a pretty well-formed and intractable opinion about the Saints transgressions.

But by all means keep putting forth your opinion if that's what you want to do.

On this board....yes. Outside of this board....no, I don't really think so.

I do want to continue to put forth my opinion. It's fun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Gritz

Here we go with the personal insults.

It's all good.

I have too much respect for ya to ever resort to that myself......but I freely admit I'm more than a little confused about what you're specifically trying to accomplish with this.

Posted the first part before I saw your most recent response. Never mind.

Edited by Gritz
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is one thing that is really making the NFL look bad to most people actually looking at the evidence presented.

The NFL has asknowledged that Vitt is not accused of putting up any money for any kind of bounty or incentive program, but the supposed documentation of the other's contributions (Ornstein, Vilma, Grant) also includes Vitt.

If they are acknowledging that Vitt is not accused of being involved in contributing money, how can that evidence be any good for the other guys?

They had enough on Vitt for allowing the program to go on. They didn't have to nail him for proof of one case of putting money up. Vitt was William's underling. Williams got the brunt of the punishment, and I wouldn't call an 8 game suspension.

Peyton, the NFL is privately owned. They don't owe any of us an explanation. If you really think that the NFL is just making this up, that's fine, but it comes across that you think that they do.

I've never worried to much about how my opinions make me look. I know a lot of people on the board have the attitude "if they play for the Saints, they must be a bad person".

That just seems incredibly stupid to me. If saying so makes me look bad, so be it.

Personally, I think Goodell has too much power. His appeal process is a joke. I personally think Goodell is a total tool. But I didn;t sign my name to a card giving him that right. Drew Brees and Scott Fujita did as a NFLPA leaders. Jonathan Vilma, Anthony Hargrove signed those cards as well.

My feelings for the Saints aside, private employers don't have to bear the burden of evidence to sanction it's employees that the legal system does to prosecute . From the evidence I've seen, there is beyond plenty to punish all of the characters involved in this case. In the case of Loomis, Williams and Payton, adding in the involvements of Ornstein and the Vicodin scandals, I can see lifetime bans. Companies have punished, fired or suspendede more for far less agregious accusations.

We are acting as if there was some congressional witchunt and Jonathan Vilma and Sean Payton are politcal prisoners. It's not the case. Am I guitly of shadenfreude? Sure, but putting my fanhood aside, and talking to people here in DC that have no interest in the Saints, I don't see a whole lot of outrage out side of New Orleans, and those Katrina sympathizers in the media like Mike and Mike, about the Saints punishment.

I honestly think the NFL is protecting the Saints more than they are hurting them, and that's why we haven't seen the evidence. To think that the NFL is purposely punishing the Super Bowl host city's franchise for the fun of it, is beyond absurd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is one thing that is really making the NFL look bad to most people actually looking at the evidence presented.

The NFL has asknowledged that Vitt is not accused of putting up any money for any kind of bounty or incentive program, but the supposed documentation of the other's contributions (Ornstein, Vilma, Grant) also includes Vitt.

If they are acknowledging that Vitt is not accused of being involved in contributing money, how can that evidence be any good for the other guys?

Don't care, go to the Saints Report and make some friends there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have too much respect for ya to ever resort to that myself......but I freely admit I'm more than a little confused about what you're specifically trying to accomplish with this.

I must have been raised different, I can't muster up respect for anyone that is that blatently hard headed. Life is too short and there many sane people out there to respect than him.

Sorry, just the way I feel and I just love refutation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you say there is no penalty for lying when the Goodell can lengthen his suspension any time he wants apparently?

Because the risk of a longer suspension is worth not losing the trust of his players.

And how do you explain the Saints organization doing nothing at all? If all the Saints are guilty of is pay for performance and they got punished for bounties, it's like being arrested for speeding, getting charged with vehicular homicide with no evidence and going, "Well OK you got me" Saints apologized for the bounty program.

P4P is a misdemeanor-there is no reason for the Saints to simply acquiesce to players, GM & coaches being suspended, loss of money and draft picks for that. Punishment far outweighs the crime, why didn't the Saints protest, file a lawsuit, get an injunction and make Goodell prove this in a court of law?

Why did they simply cooperate, apologize for something that "never happened" and refuse to support their coaches and players?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, Peyton is cool, and a great Falcons fan. While I totally disagree with him in this particular case, and have no idea where this is coming from, I can attest as a long time board member, he is right on 99% of the time. No need to personally attack him.

Ditto to this. Don't understand his position, which is why I keep talking to him, to see if I'm missing something, but he's not deserving of personal attacks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, Peyton is cool, and a great Falcons fan. While I totally disagree with him in this particular case, and have no idea where this is coming from, I can attest as a long time board member, he is right on 99% of the time. No need to personally attack him.

Ditto to this. Don't understand his position, which is why I keep talking to him, to see if I'm missing something, but he's not deserving of personal attacks.

I appreciate that.

I've always thought this whole thing was overblown terribly, and I'm not alone in that feeling, even among Falcons fans.

But mostly, I thought the onus for this fell on Greg Williams and Sean Payton. If thier were warnings given, they were given to coaches and the GM, not players.

So I've thought that the penalites for the players were very harsh. And for me personally, I look at the players involved as human beings, not members of the enemy.

But I certainly understand the other mindset too I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must have been raised different, I can't muster up respect for anyone that is that blatently hard headed. Life is too short and there many sane people out there to respect than him.

Sorry, just the way I feel and I just love refutation.

And I really thought you and me were going to be tight........

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other things is......I think all the outrage over the fact that players might try and knock other players out of the game is a little bit contrived.

Last year when the Falcons played the Eagles, I started a thread saying the Falcons should hit Vick hard on every play, and even hit him late and take multiple personal fouls on him if they had to in order to rough him up, and pretty much everyone responded with "h*ll yeah".

Nobody said "oh I don't think we should hit Vick late or illigally, that wouldn't be nice".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did they simply cooperate, apologize for something that "never happened" and refuse to support their coaches and players?

I can't really tell you what was the mindset of Tom Benson, but I would imagine they would be inspired to bow down to the NFL because they really didn't want to do anything to endanger them of losing this year's Super Bowl.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate that.

I've always thought this whole thing was overblown terribly, and I'm not alone in that feeling, even among Falcons fans.

But mostly, I thought the onus for this fell on Greg Williams and Sean Payton. If thier were warnings given, they were given to coaches and the GM, not players.

So I've thought that the penalites for the players were very harsh. And for me personally, I look at the players involved as human beings, not members of the enemy.

But I certainly understand the other mindset too I guess.

Don't hate the Saints, and don't think the penalties are too harsh at all.

Don't think your "the coaches were the only ones who were warned" idea works- don't have to be warned by your coach to know that bounties are illegal, and if Williams & Vitt talked to Hargrove, good bet they talked to others as well.

If what the NFL is saying is true, then Vilma helped instigate the bounty program and contributed big money to it. That, and his continued denial of it got him a year.

Much of what the NFL gave to the players last week wasn't important, what was was an email from Ornstein to Williams saying that he had paid several 1000 already and would pay the rest over time. which is an elaborate joke, to say the least.

And a transcript of a handwritten sheet with 35K worth of money pledged to a QB KO pool, with contributions by Ornstein, Vitt and Vilma. [and another 30K in pledged money for other things]

Find it hard to believe that the NFL fabricated that, or that they're lying when they say they have confessions from Williams and Vitt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't really tell you what was the mindset of Tom Benson, but I would imagine they would be inspired to bow down to the NFL because they really didn't want to do anything to endanger them of losing this year's Super Bowl.

There's no way they're moving this years super bowl, that would be another lawsuit entirely. And that's pathetic motivation for not trying to make sure you have a team that could get to the super bowl. Saints with Payton are a super bowl contender, without him, they're a borderline playoff team.

What you're saying is there's no good reason for the Saints to just roll over on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no way they're moving this years super bowl, that would be another lawsuit entirely. And that's pathetic motivation for not trying to make sure you have a team that could get to the super bowl. Saints with Payton are a super bowl contender, without him, they're a borderline playoff team.

What you're saying is there's no good reason for the Saints to just roll over on this.

Well there is no question that Sean Payton deserves his suspension. That is a non issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there is no question that Sean Payton deserves his suspension. That is a non issue.

this is where you lose me

if you say that Payton deserves his suspension, then you must believe there was some improper conduct going on. That improper conduct, by definition, must be on the field. If its on the field, it involves players.

so if we have improper conduct on the field by the players, how can you say they should not be punished?

If Payton is correctly punished for overseeing improper conduct, then the people whose conduct was improper should also be punished

the "the boss made me do it" defense has been a no go since Nuerenberg

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is where you lose me

if you say that Payton deserves his suspension, then you must believe there was some improper conduct going on. That improper conduct, by definition, must be on the field. If its on the field, it involves players.

so if we have improper conduct on the field by the players, how can you say they should not be punished?

If Payton is correctly punished for overseeing improper conduct, then the people whose conduct was improper should also be punished

the "the boss made me do it" defense has been a no go since Nuerenberg

So, I have a question for a lawyer. If Payton was getting railroaded here- if there was no evidence of any bounties whatsoever and he was getting suspended for a pay for performance program, would that be such an outrageous penalty that he could file a lawsuit against the NFL?

I know he can't for normal penalties, but a year for P4P is extreme, is it extreme enough that he can sue?

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is where you lose me

if you say that Payton deserves his suspension, then you must believe there was some improper conduct going on. That improper conduct, by definition, must be on the field. If its on the field, it involves players.

so if we have improper conduct on the field by the players, how can you say they should not be punished?

If Payton is correctly punished for overseeing improper conduct, then the people whose conduct was improper should also be punished

the "the boss made me do it" defense has been a no go since Nuerenberg

Two things:

1. Yes, I do believe that when there is organizational misconduct that starts at the top, it's the people at the top that should take the brunt of the punishment.

2. Loomis and Payton were warned by the NFL.....allegedly. No person has ever indicated that those warnings trickled down to the players. Makes a big difference to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I have a question for a lawyer. If Payton was getting railroaded here- if there was no evidence of any bounties whatsoever and he was getting suspended for a pay for performance program, would that be such an outrageous penalty that he could file a lawsuit against the NFL?

I know he can't for normal penalties, but a year for P4P is extreme, is it extreme enough that he can sue?

I don't know, is the short answer. I do not think the coaches are parties to the CBA, so thats not an issue - also, I do not know,if you accept your assumption that there is no evidence of bounties but only pay for play, if pay for play is enough of a violation of the salary cap that the suspension is warranted only for pay for play

but I dont accept your assumption generally speaking

Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...