Gregg Williams ran a bounty system in NOLA

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by Brandon13

I do see what you're saying regarding the terminology in reference to what I posted earlier. However, I located the quote I should have cited earlier: http://www.profootballweekly.com/story/permalink/31974 That is the same thing as pay-to-injure. And with that, I just believe it is entirely unfair to publicly accuse individuals of participating in an intent-to-injure program (probably the most exact term to use, based upon Goodell's wording) without a.) releasing the identities of the anonymous accusers, and b.) allowing the accused to face their accusers. Let's just assume for one moment that the players are actually innocent of the intent-to-injure charge. Would it not then be fair to say the players were defamed then prevented by the NFL from any possibility of recourse? Goodell said the players offered no evidence in their defense at the appeals hearing that disproved the accusation, but how is one to disprove a negative, especially when the accused is not allowed access to all of the accuser's evidence?

That quote's certainly better than the others but still doesn't paint the intended picture. This is what you're focused on.

Quote:

When there is targeting of players for injury and cash rewards...

Again, how is this not true? There is a large leap between a program designed to do as said here and players going on the field trying to injure other players at all cost. As stated, there is a program that rewards a player IF a targeted player gets hurt due to a hit that player made. The picture you're trying to paint is that players are going into a game trying to injure another player. It's subtle but significant. What you're suggesting could get someone locked up. I haven't seen anything in Goodell's comments suggesting an "intent to injure" anyone. Just that a program existed that rewarded players for injuries that happened... and that's what the evidence points toward.

That section is also incomplete without the rest.

Quote:

...the involvement of the coaching staff, and three years of denials and willful disrespect of the rules, a strong and lasting message must be sent that such conduct is totally unacceptable and has no place in the game.

In short, an illegal program was in place that involved players and coaching staff, years of denial and "willful disrespect of the rules". That last part doesn't happen and we don't even hear about this. In a way you can compare it to congress going so hard after someone like Clemens. On the surface, why put so much effort into something seemingly insignificant? But on a larger scale, anyone lying to congress for any reason opens up a huge can of worms. In the same sense, lying and blatantly disregarding the rules in place related to player safety at a time right now can create much bigger problems for the NFL if not appearing to be handled with a strong arm.

You can assume the players are innocent of an "intent to injure" charge but they need to prove they're innocent of participating in an illegal program and lying to the NFL about it and their participation. The evidence presented appears to make that hard to do, and they did have opportunity to try. Your focus is just in the wrong place.

[jmood88]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,1284132.story

If you want a safer league, institute more bounty programs.

[ubernoob]

Quote: Originally Posted by jmood88

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,1284132.story If you want a safer league, institute more bounty programs.

That just shows their defense fails, and their pot for the bounties should have been huge if they kept adding money in.

What a bunch of sweethearts they are!

[mestevo]

Hearing today for a restraining order against the suspension of Vilma, who is calling several witnesses.

Quote from Vitt testifying - "means as much to our defense as Brees means to our offense"

[ABR173rd]

Quote: Originally Posted by mestevo

Hearing today for a restraining order against the suspension of Vilma, who is calling several witnesses. Quote from Vitt testifying - "means as much to our defense as Brees means to our offense"

That's not saying a whole lot about Brees judging by the way our defense has played the last couple of seasons.

[capp34]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/conversations...aws-civil-suit

In other words there must not be a lot of evidence.

[p_rushing]

Quote: Originally Posted by capp34

http://espn.go.com/nfl/conversations...aws-civil-suit In other words there must not be a lot of evidence.

Has nothing to do with any evidence. The NFL knows a lawsuit isn't good for them, even if they will most likely win it. The NFL does a great job of keeping league things private. The Saints didn't drag this into court because it would hurt the league and them further. Vilma will have a chance to bring things into evidence for everyone to see. The NFL wants to keep its privacy.

The 8 game offer is probably what he would have gotten after appeal, so the NFL really isn't giving him anything.

The lawsuit also sets precedent for the future. The NFL doesn't want to keep getting sued by the players.

[Brandon13]

I think it's difficult to say with any degree of certainty that Goodell would have reduced the suspensions if the players had fully participated in the appeals process while remembering that none of the coaches' suspensions were lessened upon their participation in the appeals process.

[mestevo]

Certainty? No. But you can say with certainty there was zero chance of it with them opting against really participating in it at all.

[Brandon13]

Quote: Originally Posted by mestevo

Certainty? No. But you can say with certainty there was zero chance of it with them opting against really participating in it at all.

Yes, and I'm sure they knew that.