Jump to content

Ok... Im Pretty Sure I Heard This Right


Trouble
 Share

Recommended Posts

Steve Wyche, said "Vitt and Williams both admitted to a bounty program" and that players and a dozen reporters where showing proof of that.

OK... he didnt say pay for performance or pay to injure. He said "Bounty".

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d829f0155/article/nfl-saints-motivated-by-dog-the-bounty-hunter

Holy crap..... OK now this is sounding bad for Saints fans.

35 grand on Favre.... crap.

But he did say the players may be able to get a injunction to play this year at the very end.

He also flip flopped over the terminology of bounty vs pay for performance.

BTW i hate Steve Wyche, he loves to stir the pot and he was always one of the first to start Vick drama. But im wondering what RC people think of this new evidence being presented.

But the fact that Williams and Vitt both admitted to a program is probably the biggest news. What else they may have said has me wondering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Steve Wyche just reinterated that both Vitt and Williams basically turned evidence.

Also, Hargrove clearly says 'Give me my Money, Bobby' after Vitt says Favre might have broke his leg. They showed the clip from a sideline cam, twice, just now on NFLN.

I gave the Saints the benefit of the doubt though out this whole ordeal, I'm having a hard time believing this all a perfect storm of coincidence(Williams speech, Hargrove video, Power point 'slides' from the Saints own computers, Williams and Vitt 'snitching')

Edited by dirtydealin5858
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny guys you are....like sheep being led to slaughter with smiles on their faces.

Hargrove didn't sack Favre on the play where Farve was injured.....so how do you tie him to a bounty? He did hit him earlier in the game as Farve was releasing a pass, but there was no injury. Even members of the press are asking this question.

I have yet to see any evidence that a Saint player was paid any money for a "bounty" and until then, it hasn't been proven. Coaches talked tough, I'll agree. But the players are being made out to be the bad guys and there is still no proof of them doing anything but playing football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VIDEO EVIDENCE OF THE HIT IN QUESTION:

Skip to 2:07 for a clear look at who hit who and when. If the NFL was really trying to suggest that news of a broken leg (that wasn't actually broken) led to a player demanding payment, then they highlighted the wrong player.

I halway agree with some of the Falcons posters - this whole deal sure is a lot easier to accept if you simply take the NFL's word for it and don't ask any questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skip to 2:07 for a clear look at who hit who and when. If the NFL was really trying to suggest that news of a broken leg (that wasn't actually broken) led to a player demanding payment, then they highlighted the wrong player.

I halway agree with some of the Falcons posters - this whole deal sure is a lot easier to accept if you simply take the NFL's word for it and don't ask any questions.

No i was thinking they where more focused on the words he said demanding payment. Whats he asking to get paid for?

Vitt talking about Favre having a broken leg just adds a grimm picture to that and really bad timing.

But thats why it pointed to him is because he demanded his money. The bigger question is. What did he do that made he deserve his money? Especially now that they are saying the money was 35k by multi people and not just 10k

Edited by danight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No i was thinking they where more focused on the words he said demanding payment. Whats he asking to get paid for?

That's just it, the context of that comment is unknowable. The NFL has apparently tried to link it to that memorable hit in what most reasonable people would describe as an erroneous fashion. Otherwise there would have been no setup to his (offscreen) comment.

Why is nobody bringing up the elephant in the room - Favre never got knocked out of the game. I don't want to argue about intent, clearly there's evidence that supports intent. Honestly, I don't think anyone needs to see a slideshow with dollar signs OR mullets to prove that your defense wants to hit the opposing QB often and hard. But the rub here is the league took the stance that our coaches and players pooled and paid out cash for inflicting injuries and punished us accordingly, and none of the evidence they have relied upon, even that which has come out after the investigation concluded(!) supports it. How awesome would it be if they could simply show McCray and Ayodele splitting and pocketing $35K? That's about what it's going to take for them to save face at this point.

Heck, by this point they could have never even used the word "bounty" and just dropped essentially the same harsh punishments for what they DO have overwhelming evidence for - an illegal pay for performance program - and we wouldn't be here today. Sure, maybe more people would argue the harshness of the penalities or even that the practice is more widespread, but the fact that they included the scandalous "bounty" aspect to it and the subsequent sloppy handling of that aspect of the investigation thus far has muddied the waters and obscured a simple process. They could have made an example by punsihing the guilty severely (as is Goodell's MO) but apparently the opportunity was too ripe to link this to player saftey.

The fact that it is going to end in a courtroom is on the commish, like it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest (Spot on Dtan)

Ok Saints fans.

He're your time to shine.

From your responses, it's clear that none of you think a bounty program existed.

So here's the follow up.

Why would Roger Goodell invent said pay-for-injury program?

What does he have to gain by supposedly framing and punishing the saints?

Once again,

I just wanna hear your honest opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dtan, I applaud your schtick, at least normally. I'm playing along with you just this once because I'm in a good mood.

---

I don't know if there was a bounty program or not. The league has a made a serious accusation and they have provided insufficient evidence to prove it. The day that evidence is supplied is the day you'll see THIS Saints fan cease his objections.

Your follow up question is speculative along a line of thought that I don't see as productive, much less realistic. Surely there's a middle ground between the Saints being 100% guilty-as-charged and a league-wide conspiracy, right? I just want the truth, and I don't believe I've been given that.

Allow me to ask you a question now - is Adam Schefter a Saints homer with delusions of conspiracy? Because he has many of the same questions as I do, and he was in the room when the evidence was released.

http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=8070934

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VIDEO EVIDENCE OF THE HIT IN QUESTION:

Skip to 2:07 for a clear look at who hit who and when. If the NFL was really trying to suggest that news of a broken leg (that wasn't actually broken) led to a player demanding payment, then they highlighted the wrong player.

I halway agree with some of the Falcons posters - this whole deal sure is a lot easier to accept if you simply take the NFL's word for it and don't ask any questions.

I REALLY hope the naysayers in this forum took the time to look at that play at 2:07 of this video clip. Hiz Honor is using this as evidence in his crusade.

Sorry...that looks like a good defensive effort at 2:07 to me.

Had that play been the Bears, or Ravens, or 49'ers, or Steelers in their playoff games during their haydays, we'd all be raving about what a tremendous defensive effort that was.

Hiz Honor needs to become Commish of the Flag Football League.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I REALLY hope the naysayers in this forum took the time to look at that play at 2:07 of this video clip. Hiz Honor is using this as evidence in his crusade.

Sorry...that looks like a good defensive effort at 2:07 to me.

Had that play been the Bears, or Ravens, or 49'ers, or Steelers in their playoff games during their haydays, we'd all be raving about what a tremendous defensive effort that was.

Hiz Honor needs to become Commish of the Flag Football League.

you mean when farve had the back of his knees speared by a launched helmet? that was a tremendous effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dtan, I applaud your schtick, at least normally. I'm playing along with you just this once because I'm in a good mood.

---

I don't know if there was a bounty program or not. The league has a made a serious accusation and they have provided insufficient evidence to prove it. The day that evidence is supplied is the day you'll see THIS Saints fan cease his objections.

Your follow up question is speculative along a line of thought that I don't see as productive, much less realistic. Surely there's a middle ground between the Saints being 100% guilty-as-charged and a league-wide conspiracy, right? I just want the truth, and I don't believe I've been given that.

Allow me to ask you a question now - is Adam Schefter a Saints homer with delusions of conspiracy? Because he has many of the same questions as I do, and he was in the room when the evidence was released.

http://espn.go.com/e...play?id=8070934

Just to play along even more. What level of proof becomes exceptable level of proof. Ex: at many work places they have rules about sexual harassment. The breaking of this rule is usually severe. But for explanation. If a male pats another female on the buttocks and no 1 sees it and she reports it. It will bring swift punishment.

Now if other heard the male in question saying stuff like "id hit that" or "im get me some of that". Then even though no contact was made it would be offered a proof of intent. The intent gives motives for why the original action could have happened.

If the company fails to act the female could have a lawsuit vs the company.

My point being is the PA and players would have everything said as being taken out of context and was just a rah rah speech. The proof of some bonus system is in place and has been admitted to. Now even more details such as players demanding their money only adds more. The use of dogg the bounty hunter pic even adds a mental image of whats trying to be relayed in the message.

At what point can we say the pieces fits together? I know the saints fans at TSR have blown up that place with bounty talk. I also think had this been any other team, their fans would react very similar. Not because the proof is any less, but because fans get heart broken their team did something dumb enough to get them in trouble in the first place.

Saints fans will never say bounty gate is fair and the punishment fits the crime.

But as it stands between the bonus programs, all the people who lied in the cover up, all the way up to GM knowing about it and not ensuring it was stopped.

Like i said. Did anyone really need to see the male hit the female on the butt, when no 1 is shocked by how the male conducted himself when talking about her? A company investigation also wont either. The male can say he was just joking and the others who heard him took it the wrong way. But it fits with the crime thats accused.

If the company never told the male the other people said he said those things. He chose to leave out saying those things. It only makes him look guilty.

Thats kinda whats happening here. Everyone is like "the NFL should show the proof". No 1 is asking the saints 100% questions of what took place and if they did, those players would not answer. For fear if they deny it, someone else may talk or the NFL already has proof against that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my thing is what's the harm in wanting the truth to come out? Just like you feel like Saints fans will never say Bountygate is fair, it's becoming clear to me that rival fans aren't too interested in seeing or considering any evidence contrary to what they already believe.

Incidentally, your sexual harrassment metaphor has a fundamental flaw - saying "I'd hit it" sufficiently rises to the level of harrassment by itself. Don't ever say that if you want to keep your job, just FYI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest (Spot on Dtan)

Dtan, I applaud your schtick, at least normally. I'm playing along with you just this once because I'm in a good mood.

---

I don't know if there was a bounty program or not. The league has a made a serious accusation and they have provided insufficient evidence to prove it. The day that evidence is supplied is the day you'll see THIS Saints fan cease his objections.

Your follow up question is speculative along a line of thought that I don't see as productive, much less realistic. Surely there's a middle ground between the Saints being 100% guilty-as-charged and a league-wide conspiracy, right? I just want the truth, and I don't believe I've been given that.

Allow me to ask you a question now - is Adam Schefter a Saints homer with delusions of conspiracy? Because he has many of the same questions as I do, and he was in the room when the evidence was released.

http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=8070934

Good answer, for part of the question.

You still need to address what the league would possibly gain by pushing this "serious accusation with insufficient evidence," if that's all it turns out to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you mean when farve had the back of his knees speared by a launched helmet? that was a tremendous effort.

Oh, come off of it.

The pass rusher was falling to ground as he comes around the RT and he hits Favre as he is falling to the ground. The Ref DID NOT PENALIZE the pass rusher for that hit. I've seen that kind of hit the NFL hundreds of times over the years.

The Ref did penalize the other pass rusher for hitting Favre in the chest on that play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as an aside, I'm listening to Florio on the phone with the NFL's Law and Labor policy dude...

link: http://hqplayer.nbcsports.com/Player.html?PID=86 3rd segment is the NFL dude.

The response about the "kill the head" question is troubling. Hopefully there was a more careful scrutiny of this evidence than what he is suggesting here, because yeesh.

The other two segments are worth watching, basically the first one is a reporter who saw the evidence and was convinced it was damning and the second part is VIlma's lawyer who naturally thought there's some funny bidness going on. He does offer some insight into some of GW's terminology which is a relevant lead-in to the third segment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, come off of it.

The pass rusher was falling to ground as he comes around the RT and he hits Favre as he is falling to the ground. The Ref DID NOT PENALIZE the pass rusher for that hit. I've seen that kind of hit the NFL hundreds of times over the years.

The Ref did penalize the other pass rusher for hitting Favre in the chest on that play.

put a black and red Jersey on the rusher and you will see clearly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good answer, for part of the question.

You still need to address what the league would possibly gain by pushing this "serious accusation with insufficient evidence," if that's all it turns out to be.

I don't feel that the burden lays upon me to provide that answer. It has been suggested by many others that the league, staring down the barrel of potentially billions of dollars of litigation stemming for former players, took the opportunity to appear strong on the aspect of player safety. If I had to guess as to any ulterior motives I'd say that one has legs. I don't believe that has to be true just to reconcile what I already have questions about, though; the League's evidence contines to raise further questtions and only the incurious among us are left without any.

Quid pro quo: is Shefter a delusional Saints homer? Listen to his interview on the link I provided and remember that he was in attendence for the 75+ minute presentation of all the league's evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, come off of it. The pass rusher was falling to ground as he comes around the RT and he hits Favre as he is falling to the ground. The Ref DID NOT PENALIZE the pass rusher for that hit. I've seen that kind of hit the NFL hundreds of times over the years. The Ref did penalize the other pass rusher for hitting Favre in the chest on that play.

Obviously you don't read TATF enough - it's been explained thoroughly that we paid off the refs that year. DOn't worry, all is right now and the refs will be looking the other way on vicous hits to Brees and the laundry will be raining when our defense hits the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VIDEO EVIDENCE OF THE HIT IN QUESTION:

Skip to 2:07 for a clear look at who hit who and when. If the NFL was really trying to suggest that news of a broken leg (that wasn't actually broken) led to a player demanding payment, then they highlighted the wrong player.

I halway agree with some of the Falcons posters - this whole deal sure is a lot easier to accept if you simply take the NFL's word for it and don't ask any questions.

File this one under WHOOPS:

Hargrove just released s statement in NY and said that's not even him on the tape saying that. Which makes sense - what was Bobby supposed to pay him for, anyway? His most memorable hit on Favre was flagged, and EVIDENCE CLEARLY SHOWS that such a result was fined by the very program in question. The now mystery person quoted on tape could just as well be referencing the hike in pay the NFCCG winner gets in his game chack for going to the SB, which IIRC is noticeably higher than a regular game check.

So, just to tally, the NFL has already micharacterized his actual words once on the matter, and now they've apparently attributed someone else's words to him in the same investigation. As a thinking man, I begin to wonder what other evidence they may have mischaracterized or misattributed in this investigation.

Edited by joe horn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my thing is what's the harm in wanting the truth to come out? Just like you feel like Saints fans will never say Bountygate is fair, it's becoming clear to me that rival fans aren't too interested in seeing or considering any evidence contrary to what they already believe.

Incidentally, your sexual harrassment metaphor has a fundamental flaw - saying "I'd hit it" sufficiently rises to the level of harrassment by itself. Don't ever say that if you want to keep your job, just FYI.

As far as what rival fans wanna see. Its not different than what happened with Vick. As soon as the news broke, Saints fans flocked TATF condemning Vick. It was a crippling blow for the falcons and other teams fans loved it, if for no other reason than that.

As far as the truth coming out Who are we to believe. The Saints have lied to cover it all up for years. Not just to the fans but to NFL security. Kinda hard to take their word when they still deny everything. Even Saints fans know they are guilty of something, but the players wont admit that.

Now lets look at Vilma

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/06/19/nfl-says-williams-ornstein-unnamed-coach-corroborated-vilmas-offer-on-favre/

Where are the players or PA to debuct this stuff? Who is saying this never happened? Its all made up by the NFL. If Vilma thought Goodell tarnished his image before, then he really should be pissed now.

Mr. [Gregg] Williams and Mr. [Mike] Ornstein and another member of the Saints defensive coaching staff, all of whom were present at the meeting, all stated to NFL investigators that Mr. Vilma pledged $10,000 to any player who knocked Brett Favre out of the next week’s NFC championship game against the Minnesota Vikings,” White said according to the official transcript, a copy of which PFT has obtained. “All three witnesses stated that the amount of this bounty was $10,000.”

Vilma’s offer allegedly sparked a tidal wave of similar gestures.

“According to one of the witnesses present at the meeting, the bounty offered by Mr. Vilma prior to the NFC championship game inspired additional players to pledge money for injury-producing hits or potentially injury-producing hits against opposing players or for other types of plays during the game,” White said. “Mr. Vitt told NFL investigators that this meeting, quote, got out of hand, unquote. NFL investigators were informed that a member of the defensive coaching staff kept track of the various pledges made by players at this meeting.”

White also said that an unnamed witness provided the following quote regarding Vilma’s behavior before the prior week’s game: “‘In the NFC divisional playoffs, the Saints faced the Arizona Cardinals. During a meeting of the defense the night before the game in January 2010, Jonathan Vilma, a Saints defensive captain, asked for permission to address the team, which was granted,. Mr. Vilma, in the course of giving a motivational speech to the team, stated, while raising his hands, each of which held stacks of bills, that he had two five stacks, which I understood to mean $10,000, for anyone who knocked Cardinals quarterback Kurt Warner out of the game.’” White said that the quote was independently confirmed by Mike Ornstein.

I mean really? this is looking bad. The Saints lied to cover this stuff up for years. Had they just excepted their suspensions it probably would have went away. But now more and more is coming out and more and more is making them look real bad.

Objectively how can other team fans look at this? You have 1 side represented by a union (are known to be biased to who they protect). The 2 top guys involved from the union is 1 Brees the face of the franchise and the other is a guy who is being investigated and punished.

Then look to the NFL side. They have a lawsuit from former players (it doesnt benefit them to make up bounty gate). The Superbowl is there, so why cause drama with the town holding the biggest game of the year?

1 could say Goodell wants to make a statement and did. True. 1 could say he wants a safer league and he does. Thats True.

But neither of those is reason to just imagine up bounty gate and make up evidence.

As far as the truth. Saints players in protecting their own have weakened their case. As more and more comes out, the players have no come back for it. Except "they took things the wrong way" and "thats not what we ment".

Like the guy saying "id hit that". Didnt mean he would punch the girl in the face. His meaning was clear if not to be taken literal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as what rival fans wanna see. Its not different than what happened with Vick. As soon as the news broke, Saints fans flocked TATF condemning Vick. It was a crippling blow for the falcons and other teams fans loved it, if for no other reason than that.

As far as the truth coming out Who are we to believe. The Saints have lied to cover it all up for years. Not just to the fans but to NFL security. Kinda hard to take their word when they still deny everything. Even Saints fans know they are guilty of something, but the players wont admit that.

Now lets look at Vilma

http://profootballta...offer-on-favre/

Where are the players or PA to debuct this stuff? Who is saying this never happened? Its all made up by the NFL. If Vilma thought Goodell tarnished his image before, then he really should be pissed now.

I mean really? this is looking bad. The Saints lied to cover this stuff up for years. Had they just excepted their suspensions it probably would have went away. But now more and more is coming out and more and more is making them look real bad.

Objectively how can other team fans look at this? You have 1 side represented by a union (are known to be biased to who they protect). The 2 top guys involved from the union is 1 Brees the face of the franchise and the other is a guy who is being investigated and punished.

Then look to the NFL side. They have a lawsuit from former players (it doesnt benefit them to make up bounty gate). The Superbowl is there, so why cause drama with the town holding the biggest game of the year?

1 could say Goodell wants to make a statement and did. True. 1 could say he wants a safer league and he does. Thats True.

But neither of those is reason to just imagine up bounty gate and make up evidence.

As far as the truth. Saints players in protecting their own have weakened their case. As more and more comes out, the players have no come back for it. Except "they took things the wrong way" and "thats not what we ment".

Like the guy saying "id hit that". Didnt mean he would punch the girl in the face. His meaning was clear if not to be taken literal.

Ornstein already went on record and said that the NFL is lying

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ornstein already went on record and said that the NFL is lying

My thing is. If the Saints coaches have admitted this has happened. Then who is lying? Vitt and the others or Vilma? Either way Goodell is going off what has been told.

That sounded like more than 1 person confirmed the meeting did happen and Vilma was offering a bounty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...