Bud Adams Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 How do you guys rank this compared to NE's Spygate, if true? BA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmy10 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Ouch. That's some Tom Clancy sh*t right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Pretty severe charges if true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KollegeStudnet Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Wow, this could really gain feet again....imagine the penalty! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddog69 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 WOW. What a mess the Saints are in. You wonder if Tom Benson will need to clean house and hire all new GM, Front office and coaches to remove any link to this mess and start to rebuild the image of the franchise. This whole thing seems to put a serious black mark over what previously had been viewed as the golden age for the former 'Aint's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 (edited) This is much worse than Spygate. Of course the Saints did seem to win much because of it. Still it's a direct violation of the NFL rules, even though the practice allegedly ended years ago. The only possible outcome would be to banish those directly involved, then fine the Saints team and dock them draft picks. I'm thinking $1M and two first rounders. First the Cheatriots...now the Taints. PTR Edited April 23, 2012 by PromoTheRobot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JÂy RÛßeÒ Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Surprised this isn't more of an issue, with the home team providing the means of communication for the visiting team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Adams Posted April 23, 2012 Author Share Posted April 23, 2012 This whole thing seems to put a serious black mark over what previously had been viewed as the golden age for the former 'Aint's. You hit the nail on the head. I really, really like Drew Brees, but I don't see how the "Super Bowl era" in New Orleans isn't already branded with an asterisk. I read over the weekend that Jabari Greer signed a three-year extension. Congrats... I think??? BA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 (edited) You hit the nail on the head. I really, really like Drew Brees, but I don't see how the "Super Bowl era" in New Orleans isn't already branded with an asterisk. I read over the weekend that Jabari Greer signed a three-year extension. Congrats... I think??? BA the easiest answer being all ive read since this broke is 2002-2004, which isnt a superbowl era by any means. also its still alleged and anonymous, so id be patient with info. unlike bounty-gate, it seems many including polian on espn a little while ago are doubting this one. the local news in new orleans is reporting that espn will not give any evidence publicly yet Surprised this isn't more of an issue, with the home team providing the means of communication for the visiting team. i know ive heard a lot of allegations of stuff like this. anything from eavesdropping to having the system fail at key times.... not sure what to make of accuracy of reports though - often around the Pats - go figure. but many other cities. seems it may be the unspoken part of why its so hard to travel in the NFL and perhaps the 12th man gets more credit than it deserves in that sense. This is much worse than Spygate. Of course the Saints did seem to win much because of it. Still it's a direct violation of the NFL rules, even though the practice allegedly ended years ago. The only possible outcome would be to banish those directly involved, then fine the Saints team and dock them draft picks. I'm thinking $1M and two first rounders. First the Cheatriots...now the Taints. PTR if true, id have to think loomis would be hard pressed to come back. Edited April 23, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Before this gets too far.... Greg Bensel, Saints VP of Communications: "This report is 100% false. Completely inaccurate. We asked ESPN to provide us evidence to support their allegations and they refused. The team and Mickey are seeking all legal recourse regarding these false allegations." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Adams Posted April 23, 2012 Author Share Posted April 23, 2012 the easiest answer being all ive read since this broke is 2002-2004, which isnt a superbowl era by any means. also its still alleged and anonymous, so id be patient with info. unlike bounty-gate, it seems many including polian on espn a little while ago are doubting this one. Point taken. However, the current lack of info could go either way, meaning, it might not have been limited to those years. To me, it would show that this GM -- and people he brought in -- would stop at nothing to win for the past decade. If it were a different GM, okay. But it's not. Begs the question of what else is likely to come out. Innocent until proven guilty -- sure. But one has to consider the character of the front office. If they can look the other way on bounties, eavesdropping wouldn't surprise me at all. BA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Point taken. However, the current lack of info could go either way, meaning, it might not have been limited to those years. To me, it would show that this GM -- and people he brought in -- would stop at nothing to win for the past decade. If it were a different GM, okay. But it's not. Begs the question of what else is likely to come out. Innocent until proven guilty -- sure. But one has to consider the character of the front office. If they can look the other way on bounties, eavesdropping wouldn't surprise me at all. BA i certainly wouldnt be shocked, more so im reminding everyone that its easy for people to come out of the woodwork when they see an opening. this would be an entirely different coaching staff - so its possible it is someone jilted trying to pile on while they see weakness. ESPN has been known to run with stuff like this prematurely when they think it will be a hot story and have also used the same reasoning you just did to incorrect ends. is it true? no idea. not trying to let them off the hook, but this one sounds sketchy on the surface, especially with how strongly the saints are refuting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Adams Posted April 23, 2012 Author Share Posted April 23, 2012 Before this gets too far.... Greg Bensel, Saints VP of Communications: "This report is 100% false. Completely inaccurate. We asked ESPN to provide us evidence to support their allegations and they refused. The team and Mickey are seeking all legal recourse regarding these false allegations." I couldn't see ESPN reporting something this serious -- which could trigger an avalanche of lawsuits -- unless they had hard evidence and/or solid witnesses. I really don't believe anything the Saints say anymore. Will be interesting to see how it pans out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I'm all for Loomis and the Saints getting their fair day in court, and it does seem like this could end up going there. IF that's proven, then Loomis could likely face a lifetime ban from the NFL and a few years in federal-pound-him-up-the-azz-prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Adams Posted April 23, 2012 Author Share Posted April 23, 2012 i certainly wouldnt be shocked, more so im reminding everyone that its easy for people to come out of the woodwork when they see an opening. this would be an entirely different coaching staff - so its possible it is someone jilted trying to pile on while they see weakness. ESPN has been known to run with stuff like this prematurely when they think it will be a hot story and have also used the same reasoning you just did to incorrect ends. is it true? no idea. not trying to let them off the hook, but this one sounds sketchy on the surface, especially with how strongly the saints are refuting it. Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KollegeStudnet Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 If found guilty, the NFL will further pillage this franchise for penalty... Already, because of 'Bountygate' GM Loomis is suspended for the first 8 games of the season...In fact, he should just be canned! Also, because of 'Bountygate' the Saints lose their 2012 second rounder (first pick will be in the 3rd this year, New England has the Saints first) and 2013 second rounder. The NFL has to make an example of this franchise, which when you boil it down, I would not be surprised if the Saints lose more picks, including their franchise tag next year--along with their 2013 first round pick and 2013 third round pick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I couldn't see ESPN reporting something this serious -- which could trigger an avalanche of lawsuits -- unless they had hard evidence and/or solid witnesses. I really don't believe anything the Saints say anymore. Will be interesting to see how it pans out. Really? You cant? Are you that unfamiliar with the 24-hour news cycle and what it does to an Entertainment company like ESPN? I wouldnt put ANYTHING past any of these 24-hour "news" networks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I couldn't see ESPN reporting something this serious -- which could trigger an avalanche of lawsuits -- unless they had hard evidence and/or solid witnesses. I really don't believe anything the Saints say anymore. Will be interesting to see how it pans out. Yeah ummm Bernie Fine would like to disagree with you.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Adams Posted April 23, 2012 Author Share Posted April 23, 2012 Really? You cant? Are you that unfamiliar with the 24-hour news cycle and what it does to an Entertainment company like ESPN? I wouldnt put ANYTHING past any of these 24-hour "news" networks. This is not "breaking news." It's not a "flash" that can be retracted. ESPN had BETTER have solid sources in place, or it'll face civil suits out the you-know-what. So, to answer your question -- No, I can't see ESPN making up something this serious. As you wouldn't put anything past a network like ESPN, I wouldn't put anything past the Saints. BA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 This is not "breaking news." It's not a "flash" that can be retracted. ESPN had BETTER have solid sources in place, or it'll face civil suits out the you-know-what. So, to answer your question -- No, I can't see ESPN making up something this serious. As you wouldn't put anything past a network like ESPN, I wouldn't put anything past the Saints. BA All ESPN is doing is "reporting the report". Passing along the info, if you will. They will not be on the hook if proven false. They have NOTHING to lose. If it comes out it was incorrect, they say "We were just relaying what was reported and what our sources told us". The entire thing is a he-said/she-said. Im not saying the Saints are, well... Saints. I certainly cant defend the franchise at this point, but Im taking everything new with a grain of salt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts