Now Greg Williams is a cheater?

[papazoid]

Meanwhile, former Buffalo Bills safety Coy Wire told The Buffalo News that Williams promoted bonuses injuring opponents while he was the head coach in Buffalo.

 

"There was financial compensation," Wire told the newspaper, which also cited three other anonymous defensive players who confirmed the existence of a bounty program during Williams' time with the Bills.

 

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7644139/nfl-reportedly-probe-washington-redskins-bounties

[truth on hold]

Joe, you have a link to this?

Read it on nfl.com, don't know how to link their stories from an app. But when you get a former head coach who's now part of the media, spotlighting an incident and career-threatening injury to perhaps the highest profile player, that's really going to add more fuel to the fire.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack

[Beerball]

Joe, you have a link to this?

It is a bit of a stretch to say that Dungy is blaming bounties for Manning's injury. What he did say some time ago was that he traces Manning's problems back to a game with the Redskins. The second link will answer your questions. Now with Bountygate the author speculates that a bounty was involved.

 

second link

[papazoid]

Joe, you have a link to this?

here we go...

 

Dungy: Gregg Williams’ Redskins may have started Peyton Manning’s neck issues:

 

By the time the "BountyGate" scandal investigation is over, the only thing former New Orleans Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams might not have been blamed for is whatever gas prices happen to be at that time.

 

Last September, Cindy Boren of the Washington Post wrote an article in which ex-Indianapolis Colts head coach Tony Dungy put the start of Peyton Manning's longstanding neck injuries and surgeries at a game between the Colts and the Redskins on October 22, 2006. On one play, Manning was given a "high-low" hit by defensive linemen Andre Carter and Phillip Daniels. Those types of hits, in which two defensive players aim for different halves of an offensive player's body, are among the most dangerous in football. After the play, Manning lay on the ground for a brief time, got up, and as Dungy told Peter King of SI.com and NBC Sports last September, shook his right arm "as if trying to get the feeling back in it."

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/dungy-gregg-williams-redskins-may-started-peyton-manning-163634407.html

Edited March 4, 2012 by papazoid

[Mr. WEO]

To a certain extent, yes. As proven by the stream of players stating that this is commonplace and not a big deal.

 

And more so, because they know and understand that they play a very violent sport. It's not a specific goal to injure, but it is to hurt.

 

Bounty system or not, going out with an intent to inflict pain on the opponent IS the mindset that they put themselves in every week. It's at the very nature and core of the game. To deny that is just trying to put yourself on some highhorse, and shows how little you understand the game.

 

Stop being naive. Just like there is no way there is any fixing going on in professional sports, right?

 

 

Just as Bucky Brooks says above:

 

 

Everyone who is pretending to be up in arms about this, needs to get off their high horse.

Cornered, you are changing the argument. Nice try.

 

To remind you, we are talking about a system that would reward players for injurious hits--the intent is to injure.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Mr. WEO

[DrDawkinstein]

Cornered, you are changing the argument. Nice try.

 

 

Read all of my posts here, and give it a rest. I havent changed my stance since post 1. However, the topic and detail of discussion has changed a few times since 4pm yesterday. So yes, the discussion is going to evolve. That's the point here, not just to "be right" or righteous.

 

To remind you, we are talking about a system that would reward players for injurious hits--the intent is to injure.

 

That's your interpretation of the interpretation the media is feeding you. You have no idea what the mindset of the players was.

 

Again, where are the personal fouls? The fines? The dirty reputation?

Edited March 4, 2012 by DrDareustein

[HalftimeAdjustment]

The question of relative penalties for the Saints vs. other organizations has come up in this thread, as well as "statute of limitations". A couple of points:

 

- If the NFL has previously considered a 'statute of limitations' for penalties then it should apply here. One would think that going after any teams beyond 10 years is out of the question. 5 years is a long time in pro football. No easy answer here. Saints were in continued violation.

- Teams that lied about it and/or failed to cooperate with the investigation (read: New Orleans) must be punished far more harshly than any teams which cooperate. Cooperation from other teams TBD. I would argue that if either the Redskins, Bills, or Titans cooperate with the investigation then that team should face no more than fines. No competitive penalties.

- New Orleans included outside (non-player, non-coach) money in its bounty pool. This is an extreme red flag and must be considered very problematic. Any team where outside money is found, must face severe sanctions regardless of points 1 or 2. Here's why: Outside money inevitably leads to organized crime. You might think "If a gambler offers money to players to make good plays, they are wasting money; the player should be doing that anyhow". Not so: the gambler pays the players for a while to do good things, then blackmails them into doing bad things based on their having taken dirty money in the past. The fact that the outside money in New Orleans may not have been tied to gambling, is irrelevant. Any outside money being allowed into a team's compensation system, is in my opinion as severe a violation as can be made from a management perspective; and on this basis alone Sean Payton (who received an email from a non-team source detailing the bounties) should be suspended and fined heavily. Ask yourself: in this case, what would an MLB commissioner do??? All of the "it's only football, which is violent" discussion is nice, but what about taking OUTSIDE MONEY to reward players??? So... if that did not happen at other teams, they should be penalized much, much less.

[Beerball]

Read all of my posts here, and give it a rest. I havent changed my stance since post 1. However, the topic and detail of discussion has changed a few times since 4pm yesterday. So yes, the discussion is going to evolve. That's the point here, not just to "be right" or righteous.

 

 

 

That's your interpretation of the interpretation the media is feeding you. You have no idea what the mindset of the players was.

 

Again, where are the personal fouls? The fines? The dirty reputation?

Does this meet your criteria?

Four of the Redskins players described an informal system under which Williams doled out thousands of dollars to Redskins defenders who measured up to his standards for rugged play, including for what one described as “kill shots” that sent opposing teams’ stars to the sideline.

 

“You got compensated more for a kill shot than you did other hits,” said one former Redskins player, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

 

This?

“I never took it for anything [but] just incentive to make good, hard plays,” said a current Redskins player, who requested anonymity. “But I’m pretty sure it did entice some guys to do more to a player than normal when it came to taking them out. I mean, that’s cash. Let’s just be honest about it.

 

“If you took the star player out, he’d hook you up a little bit.”

 

link

 

Or this?

In a makeshift meeting room, with the whisper of evening traffic pouring in from the Beltway, we laid our bounties on opposing players. We targeted big names, our sights set on taking them out of the game.

[bbb]

The sport is so violent and the players just keep getting bigger and faster all the time....You would think that would be enough for the players to respect each other enough to not purposely put somebody out.

 

What goes around comes around, and why wouldn't they have a code where you play hard, but you don't intentionally try to injure them?

[DrDawkinstein]

Does this meet your criteria?

 

 

This?

 

 

link

 

Or this?

 

As already discussed between NoSaint, SanJose, myself, and others.. No, it doesnt.

 

We have no idea what a "kill shot" means. Was it ever instructed to "lead with your helmet, give them a concussion"? Or just hit hard and aggressively and cause them enough pain where they cant play? There IS a difference, this IS contact sports.

 

Everyone hears a term like "kill shot" and jumps immediately to the worst conclusion. But Ive been on both the giving and receiving end of such hits, and they were never with the intent to seriously injure. Just hurt.

 

Ive been over this at least 10 times in this thread, as have others. If no one wants to, or can, understand it, that's fine. It's a reality of the game, and it's not nearly as malicious as you all want to believe. If more facts come out about paying for specific types of injuries, then that is different. Otherwise, this is just about Defenses playing hard and aggressive.

 

If you want more clarity, read through my posts again, because there is nothing left for me to say on the matter.

 

From your own quote:

“I never took it for anything [but] just incentive to make good, hard plays,” said a current Redskins player, who requested anonymity.

Edited March 4, 2012 by DrDareustein

[Justice]

Gregg's crap throwing fan has hit our team now...

 

 

http://profootballta...gregg-williams/

 

Here's the perfect response that Buddy should give to the NFL if they try to come down hard on the Bills, as well, starting at the 2:13 mark. NSFW

 

Edited March 4, 2012 by NoJustice

[JOE IN HAMPTON ROADS]

no big deal, imo. you want your Defense to want to knock out the opposing QB. it's a violent sport, not the ballet. as long as it was clean, and i have never seen the Saints play dirty, then it's whatever.

 

i get that it's against the rules. and i get why the NFL has to have a rule against it. but i would bet this happens on almost every team in some form.

If it's against the rules, it's not clean. Bad for football, bad for the players, bad for the fans. Yes its a violent sport, but if everyone did this the best players would all be on IR by mid-season and we would have to watch scrubs finish it out. Wonder how prevalent this really is?

[NoSaint]

If it's against the rules, it's not clean. Bad for football, bad for the players, bad for the fans. Yes its a violent sport, but if everyone did this the best players would all be on IR by mid-season and we would have to watch scrubs finish it out. Wonder how prevalent this really is?

Interesting - you assert what happens if everyone did it, then wonder if everyone is doing it.

[JOE IN HAMPTON ROADS]

Some interesting comments from NO writer Jeff Duncan on twitter...

 

http://twitter.com/#!/jeffduncantp

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

There's a difference between "hurt" and "injured" that I believe is being blurred here. I honestly dont believe that any Saints player wanted to seriously injure a fellow player. However, you can hurt them so they cant perform as well. And you can do so, while playing completely within the rules.

 

It's the attitude that good defenses have.

It's pretty clear from the reporting that players were paid cash to "seriously injure" other players. There's nothing OK about this.

 

Interesting - you assert what happens if everyone did it, then wonder if everyone is doing it.

I just think it's interesting that a lot of OUR players end up on IR early . . . but I get your point, most teams don't have that problem.

It would be intersting to find out the differential of season-ending hits from GW's teams versus the average.

[NoSaint]

It's pretty clear from the reporting that players were paid cash to "seriously injure" other players. There's nothing OK about this.

 

 

I just think it's interesting that a lot of OUR players end up on IR early . . . but I get your point, most teams don't have that problem.

It would be intersting to find out the differential of season-ending hits from GW's teams versus the average.

 

I'll say the last 3 years I haven't seen anything devastating. Big hits, sure, but nothing that strikes me out of the ordinary. Do you remember any from when this was our program?

 

Isn't this the same board that celebrated moats for putting an end to the favre streak?

Edited March 4, 2012 by NoSaint

[Zulu Cthulhu]

Seems the discussion here by some attempting to discern the mindsets of the players and/or coaches involved in this is missing the issue. As others have said, this kind of compensation is against NFL rules, period. There's no question Williams engaged in it, he's already admitted as much.

 

The level of injury resulting from the compensated hits isn't an issue at all, neither is the level of injury (or "hurt") the compensated players intended to inflict.

 

The money awarded is the only problem, and Greggg will pay dearly for it.

[Beerball]

As already discussed between NoSaint, SanJose, myself, and others.. No, it doesnt.We have no idea what a "kill shot" means. Was it ever instructed to "lead with your helmet, give them a concussion"? Or just hit hard and aggressively and cause them enough pain where they cant play? There IS a difference, this IS contact sports.

 

Everyone hears a term like "kill shot" and jumps immediately to the worst conclusion. But Ive been on both the giving and receiving end of such hits, and they were never with the intent to seriously injure. Just hurt.

 

Ive been over this at least 10 times in this thread, as have others. If no one wants to, or can, understand it, that's fine. It's a reality of the game, and it's not nearly as malicious as you all want to believe. If more facts come out about paying for specific types of injuries, then that is different. Otherwise, this is just about Defenses playing hard and aggressive.

 

If you want more clarity, read through my posts again, because there is nothing left for me to say on the matter.

 

From your own quote:

Then you are IMO totally irrational, or you don't have the ability to extrapolate. Kill shot, knock a player out of a game, take him out...can't get much clearer than that. Players were paid (more) to injure a player and knock them out of the game.

 

You've boxed yourself into a corner IMO and rather that bow out gracefully you've decided to cling to an unbelievable argument.

[RealityCheck]

From the responses to this GW story I think that I am more shocked at how naive the general public is. We collectively see so much in the world yet we are in denial of the dark underside of all things that involve money and prestige. We watch, contribute our money, and selectively deny what we see until a talking head breaks a story. This is a league wide PROBLEM that should have been obvious to many if for a moment you applied common sense. Until a big story breaks I am sure that many will continue to believe that referees are not influenced by cash. I don't know why since we openly accept that all politicians run a pay to play legislation program. I agree that this is wrong but denial is clearly far more insidious and destructive. GH and steroids permeate all sports from college to pros. There are many college football programs that provide staff to administer these drugs in organized protocols yet until a hack reporter says something we will simply accept what we are told when our own eyes and common sense tell us otherwise. Some here have assumed that this all began with one coaching tree. That is ridiculous. Some will insult me over my opinion and please feel free to do so, I won't be offended. Just do me one favor. If any of you have children that are on there way to a college sports program, do them a favor and educate yourself through investigation so that you can prepare them adequately for what they will be expected to do to maintain their scholarships. If you teach them a grossly naive perspective such as "winners never cheat and cheaters never win" you will quickly become someone that they will not feel that they can confide in when it comes to making these critical decisions.

[DanInUticaTampa]

Seems the discussion here by some attempting to discern the mindsets of the players and/or coaches involved in this is missing the issue. As others have said, this kind of compensation is against NFL rules, period. There's no question Williams engaged in it, he's already admitted as much.

 

The level of injury resulting from the compensated hits isn't an issue at all, neither is the level of injury (or "hurt") the compensated players intended to inflict.

 

The money awarded is the only problem, and Greggg will pay dearly for it.

 

Yeah, this is the part that is pretty much fact. Without the actual money there is no rule broken. But with the money, you break a rule. And it looks like it was broken for awhile

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Seems the discussion here by some attempting to discern the mindsets of the players and/or coaches involved in this is missing the issue. As others have said, this kind of compensation is against NFL rules, period. There's no question Williams engaged in it, he's already admitted as much.

 

The level of injury resulting from the compensated hits isn't an issue at all, neither is the level of injury (or "hurt") the compensated players intended to inflict.

 

The money awarded is the only problem, and Greggg will pay dearly for it.

See, I totally disagree with you on this.

 

I think the issue is how were the bounties actually expressed, spelled-out, defined.

 

Were the bounties for hard hits or illegal hits?

 

THAT, IMO is the issue here… one btw that is not really being explored by the media.

 

Isn't this the same board that celebrated moats for putting an end to the favre streak?

 

I'm very glad you brought this up, NS.

 

The Moats hit was a perfectly clean hit.

 

Favre still had the ball.

 

Moats did not lead with his helmet.

 

If THIS is the type of play that Williams was bountying, I have no problem with it at all.

 

If on the other hand he was encouraging his players to (for instance) "light up" a defenseless receiver with a spear shot to the head (illegal), then I have a huge problem with it.