Aints* and Cheatriots* all asterisk scrimmage

[Mr. WEO]

nope.

 

just like if the nfl offers a settlement, they are not admitting the players innocence technically. for instance, one could argue the nfl making the defamation suit disappear in the offer would imply its because goodell did in fact defame vilma. likewise not a fair jump in logic and reason to make though in that situation.

 

a negotiated outcome would essentially be each side saying that they do not want to risk the outcome on the unknowns that come with a judge ruling.

 

that said, i think its becoming more obvious that this lies short of the nfl claims, but still within the realm of breaking the rules. i think finding a good negotiated outcome is the ideal for both sides.

 

The NFL has nothing to lose here. If the Judge says Vilma has to be reinstated, ok--he's reinstated. The defamation suit is completely hopeless because he cannot prove what needs to be proven in such a case. If Vilma takes an 8 game suspension (and drops the suit), his whole ongoing screaming innocent message goes out the window. Logically, he cannot now accept a reduced sentence if he's truly not guilty. If he fights for his "name" all the way through, the worst is he loses and he has the same penalty he has now--16 games. Thre is no "unknown" here.

 

I agree a settlement is best for both sides, but it is a clear admission of guilt by Vilma. He can't have it both ways. If he is standing on principle and his good name, he would tell Goodell to stick his settlement offer up his ass.

[NoSaint]

 

 

The NFL has nothing to lose here. If the Judge says Vilma has to be reinstated, ok--he's reinstated. The defamation suit is completely hopeless because he cannot prove what needs to be proven in such a case. If Vilma takes an 8 game suspension (and drops the suit), his whole ongoing screaming innocent message goes out the window. Logically, he cannot now accept a reduced sentence if he's truly not guilty. If he fights for his "name" all the way through, the worst is he loses and he has the same penalty he has now--16 games. Thre is no "unknown" here.

 

I agree a settlement is best for both sides, but it is a clear admission of guilt by Vilma. He can't have it both ways. If he is standing on principle and his good name, he would tell Goodell to stick his settlement offer up his ass.

 

heres the thing though - hes not denying a pay for performance program, hes denying a targeted bounty on warner and favre.

 

truth is, there is a middle ground on this issue. players have admitted breaking rules. that would mean its not all or none, likely.

 

further, letting this go, vilma would have something to lose if he followed this the whole way (assuming hes been offered 8 games). 8 games is a lot of salary, and may be a chance to showcase that he still has a career. even if totally innocent, its not clear the judge by federal labor law will be able to do anything to intervene.

 

a settlement is not an admission of guilt by either side.

 

a judge saying she cant step in would not be proof of guilt with vilmas charges either.

 

im all for him fighting to the bitter end, but.... theres a lot of middle ground here and thats where it belongs.

Edited August 8, 2012 by NoSaint

[apuszczalowski]

What the Saints did does not give them an asteriks. What they did was unsportsmanlike and deserved serious punishment because its an unacceptable act, but its not cheating.

Its like calling someone a criminal because they were pulled over for a speeding ticket going 10 over the posted limit.

 

The offered cash incentives for knocking players out of games or injuring them, thats just dirty and unsportsmanlike. Players don't necessarily need extra motivation to provide a hard hit or to try and knock someone out of the game, and if it wasn't for money being exchange for these hits coming from a coach, there would never have been an issue here. Now if they had paid the referees to look the other way, or to not call penalties on them, then thats cheating and deserves and asteriks.

 

Videotapping a teams practice secretly behind their backs, thats cheating and deserves an Asteriks

[NoSaint]

 

Well no actually, something can look odd but upon further inspection turn out to be coincidental. Doesn't necessitate something sinister was taking place beneath the surface.

 

This is more the classic "I don't like what he's saying about a team I'm partial to so I'll try to put words in his mouth - "so that's a yes?"- to draw a conclusion he can't defend."

 

joe - face it - you implied that the saints and the officials were working together to get favre out of the game, and when called on it, you have maintained that you didnt really imply it, just noted that it was "odd" that the refs werent making calls on the saints hits.

 

if you think thats what happened, go ahead and say it. obviously a random fan could never prove it but atleast you wouldnt be hiding behind the idea of "well i never really said that" even though you made a clear implication several times.

 

 

point blank: do you think that there is more to the story of the officials calls on that day?

 

if yes, what?

if no, what do you mean by its "odd" that they werent called?

 

theres no need to dance around that question, and whichever follow up is relevent.

Edited August 8, 2012 by NoSaint

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

oops let me clarify .... YES Ignored the REST of the league. I said

 

Aints? It's widely known and ignored by Roger Goddell that "rewards" programs have been in place for a while across the league.

 

let me repeat what was already posted the Saints didn’t cheat, no asterisk needed.

Edited August 8, 2012 by BillsFan-4-Ever

[BUFFALOKIE]

'[/b]NoSaint' timestamp='1344434152' post='2524668']

nope.

 

just like if the nfl offers a settlement, they are not admitting the players innocence technically. for instance, one could argue the nfl making the defamation suit disappear in the offer would imply its because goodell did in fact defame vilma. likewise not a fair jump in logic and reason to make though in that situation.

 

a negotiated outcome would essentially be each side saying that they do not want to risk the outcome on the unknowns that come with a judge ruling.

 

that said, i think its becoming more obvious that this lies short of the nfl claims, but still within the realm of breaking the rules. i think finding a good negotiated outcome is the ideal for both sides.

 

 

Breaking the rules is the very definition of cheating, is it not? The Aints* get an asterisk!!!! LOL@U since you seem to be mincing words about someone accusing the refs of turning a blind eye.

 

Aints? It's widely known and ignored by Roger Goddell that "rewards" have been in place for a while.

 

let me repeat what was already posted the Saints didn’t cheat, no asterisk needed.

 

Ignored?!?! Really?!?!? Roger dropped a friggin bomb dude! Aints* get an asterisk!

Edited August 8, 2012 by Stranger in a Strange Land

[Mr. WEO]

heres the thing though - hes not denying a pay for performance program, hes denying a targeted bounty on warner and favre.

 

truth is, there is a middle ground on this issue. players have admitted breaking rules. that would mean its not all or none, likely.

 

further, letting this go, vilma would have something to lose if he followed this the whole way (assuming hes been offered 8 games). 8 games is a lot of salary, and may be a chance to showcase that he still has a career. even if totally innocent, its not clear the judge by federal labor law will be able to do anything to intervene.

 

a settlement is not an admission of guilt by either side.

 

If he drops the suit then he's acknowledging it was a publicity move. How does he clear "his name" if he drops the suit and takes a penalty. And speaking of his reputation, the public isn't making a distinction between taking money for "big hits" or whatever he's claiming, and taking money to injure players. If he cops to the former, he's still labeled a "bounty hunter".

 

The NFL isn't charged with anything--no need to admit guilt.

 

It's clear why Vilma will take the offer. He would be crazy not to.

[NoSaint]

 

 

If he drops the suit then he's acknowledging it was a publicity move. How does he clear "his name" if he drops the suit and takes a penalty. And speaking of his reputation, the public isn't making a distinction between taking money for "big hits" or whatever he's claiming, and taking money to injure players. If he cops to the former, he's still labeled a "bounty hunter".

 

The NFL isn't charged with anything--no need to admit guilt.

 

It's clear why Vilma will take the offer. He would be crazy not to.

 

the nfl was, you know, sued for defamation. atleast roger goodell was. along with circumventing the CBA. so that would be why this is in court. in fact, the judge (likely wont but) could even have authority to force the NFL to re-work the punishment section of the CBA. so id say they have cash, pride, and authority to lose here. going to completion is not a no lose situation for them either, depending on a judges interpretation. a judge that called previous rulings in favor of the nfls stance "borderline ridiculous."

 

vilma also has a great deal on the line. major cash, possible career implications, etc... if he loses.

 

unfortunately this is a situation where you have what happened, and a toooootally different matter which is what in front of a judge is able to be proven and then further given legal remedy. we have started to cross into that last section. as much as we all hope that its the same as the first - unfortunately its not.

 

and yes, i do think there is a major distinction between "i have 10k on favre - do whatever it takes" and "were pooling money and its 1000 for a pick, 1000 for a fumble, and 1000 for a big legal hit, and moneys coming out of your pocket for penalties or bad plays." the nfl has backed off the targeted bounty claim by a ton as this has progressed, and i think fairly his suspension should reflect that.

 

again, pay for performance is wrong and the team and players deserve punishment. in a court room where this is all or nothing, each side may be wise to try to come to agreement on what actually happened and a fair punishment for that.

Edited August 8, 2012 by NoSaint

[Mr. WEO]

the nfl was, you know, sued for defamation. atleast roger goodell was. along with circumventing the CBA. so that would be why this is in court. in fact, the judge (likely wont) could even have authority to force the NFL to re-work the punishment section of the CBA. so id say they have cash, pride, and authority to lose here. going to completion is not a no lose situation for them either, depending on a judges interpretation. a judge that called previous rulings in favor of the nfls stance "borderline ridiculous."

 

vilma also has a great deal on the line. major cash, possible career implications, etc... if he loses.

 

unfortunately this is a situation where you have what happened, and a toooootally different matter which is what in front of a judge is able to be proven and then further given legal remedy. we have started to cross into that last section. as much as we all hope that its the same as the first - unfortunately its not.

 

and yes, i do think there is a major distinction between "i have 10k on favre - do whatever it takes" and "were pooling money and its 1000 for a pick, 1000 for a fumble, and 1000 for a big legal hit, and moneys coming out of your pocket for penalties or bad plays." the nfl has backed off the targeted bounty claim by a ton as this has progressed, and i think fairly his suspension should reflect that.

 

again, pay for performance is wrong and the team and players deserve punishment. in a court room where this is all or nothing, each side may be wise to try to come to agreement on what actually happened and a fair punishment for that.

 

Goodell and everyone else, for the reasons that have been cited here many times (the criteria which must be proven to win a defmation case), knows Vilma could never prove defamation. He just can't. So that one is a pure legal bluff and that's why Vilma will gladly drop the nuisance suit to get 8 games back. The funny thing is that he is still pouring it on with more filings. If he suddenly drops all the rhetoric and righteous indignation, he will be exposed as a phony and thus ruined his own reputation.

 

Again, you make that distinction, but I bet most don't. And did Vilma only deny the bounty for injury or any bounty system?

[NoSaint]

 

 

Goodell and everyone else, for the reasons that have been cited here many times (the criteria which must be proven to win a defmation case), knows Vilma could never prove defamation. He just can't. So that one is a pure legal bluff and that's why Vilma will gladly drop the nuisance suit to get 8 games back. The funny thing is that he is still pouring it on with more filings. If he suddenly drops all the rhetoric and righteous indignation, he will be exposed as a phony and thus ruined his own reputation.

 

Again, you make that distinction, but I bet most don't. And did Vilma only deny the bounty for injury or any bounty system?

 

The players have admitted to the pay for performance system in court, news interviews, etc... The evidence released has the slide decks and the players have outlined what the different terms meant (ie a knockout and cartoff being did not return vs shaken up and not the initial unconscious or on a cart).

 

Really the core to a lot of this is the idea of vilma holding up cash and putting favre and Warner's names on it. 9 players/coaches (not including his co-defendants) have denied under oath that this part happened. The judge really won't be ruling on this though.

 

Further, the big thing legally is whether it's goodells to punish or if it should be in committee for on field play.

 

In theory, the court could feel that vilma probably got railroaded but it's not their spot to step in due to the CBA superseding the nlra, or vice versa that perhaps the saints did what they were accused of but the nfl didn't follow process. It's not in a situation where what players actually did is the sole (or even primary) issue. Hence I don't think taking a settlement (note, not a plea bargain as you earlier referenced which implies the nfl has his actions on trial and he's taking responsibility) is wrong for either side, even though joe nfl fan may still have opinions one way or the other.

 

And finally - the fact that the way the nfl handled this in march leads people to not understand the distinction is a major selling point for why a defamation suit is not what the nfl wants in court. I'm guessing they know goodell blurred lines in his statements and it has damaged vilmas reputation immensely.

Edited August 8, 2012 by NoSaint

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

Breaking the rules is the very definition of cheating, is it not? The Aints* get an asterisk!!!! LOL@U since you seem to be mincing words about someone accusing the refs of turning a blind eye.

 

 

 

Ignored?!?! Really?!?!? Roger dropped a friggin bomb dude! Aints* get an asterisk!

 

oops let me clarify .... YES Ignored the REST of the league. I said that a "reward" program of sorts goes on across the league. The Saints lied so they got punished for it. Gregggg did it in Buffalo, the Bills players admitted so. no lie, no fine.

 

 

How many times did Jim Kelly "buy" things for his O Line for not getting sacked? Sure, you can say - hey its the opposite side of the ball, yet who knows what "tactics" the O Line used to protect him.

 

holding, tripping, face masks, chop blocks .. all against the rules every one of them cheating.

Edited August 8, 2012 by BillsFan-4-Ever

[Bud Adams]

No offense to the OP, but team namecalling the likes of "Aints" and "Cheatriots" is unoriginal, overplayed and not even remotely amusing. Just my two cents.

 

BA

[BUFFALOKIE]

No offense to the OP, but team namecalling the likes of "Aints" and "Cheatriots" is unoriginal, overplayed and not even remotely amusing. Just my two cents.

 

BA

 

No offense taken, Bud. Believe me, I'm getting a kick out of the totally unexpected responses.

 

My point was lost very early in this thread, and that is that I, me, and myself, found it interesting that the only two teams exposed in a scandal during their superbowl winning season, regularly practice together. Thats what I meant by, you know, "birds of a feather".

 

Call it cheating, unsportsmanlike, dirty, or not, I don't care. They both were penalized heavily, for good reason. Both teams get an asterisk, from me.

 

Now I am pretty juvenile, and I do not posess nearly as much football knowledge as many of my fellow Bills fans here, and I aint no good writer neither, so I dont post often, and havnt starte a thread in a very long time. So if you are offended by *Cheatriots, *Aints, Jests, Fish (I coulda used the one that rhymes with ballbags), Seachickens, Peckers, etc. then I apologize, but I don't know if your cut out for sports chatrooms. Those are not terms I use very often. Matter of fact, I cant remember ever using those terms, honestly, but gimmeafriggin break man! Taking cheap shots at other teams name is pretty minor compared to the things I read here daily about Bellyache, Marsha, Jeebow, Sexy Rexy, Trentative, Mayabeen, and on and on. But you're gonna call ME out? HA!

 

oops let me clarify .... YES Ignored the REST of the league. I said that a "reward" program of sorts goes on across the league. The Saints lied so they got punished for it. Gregggg did it in Buffalo, the Bills players admitted so. no lie, no fine.

 

 

How many times did Jim Kelly "buy" things for his O Line for not getting sacked? Sure, you can say - hey its the opposite side of the ball, yet who knows what "tactics" the O Line used to protect him.

 

holding, tripping, face masks, chop blocks .. all against the rules every one of them cheating.

 

Had Jim Kelly been caught breakin any rules, or being unsportsmanlike, or dirty, and if, and this is a big IF, the Bills had won a superbowl in the same season, we might have deserved an *. He didn't, and the Bills didn't, so we don't.

[Mr. WEO]

The players have admitted to the pay for performance system in court, news interviews, etc... The evidence released has the slide decks and the players have outlined what the different terms meant (ie a knockout and cartoff being did not return vs shaken up and not the initial unconscious or on a cart).

 

Really the core to a lot of this is the idea of vilma holding up cash and putting favre and Warner's names on it. 9 players/coaches (not including his co-defendants) have denied under oath that this part happened. The judge really won't be ruling on this though.

 

Further, the big thing legally is whether it's goodells to punish or if it should be in committee for on field play.

 

In theory, the court could feel that vilma probably got railroaded but it's not their spot to step in due to the CBA superseding the nlra, or vice versa that perhaps the saints did what they were accused of but the nfl didn't follow process. It's not in a situation where what players actually did is the sole (or even primary) issue. Hence I don't think taking a settlement (note, not a plea bargain as you earlier referenced which implies the nfl has his actions on trial and he's taking responsibility) is wrong for either side, even though joe nfl fan may still have opinions one way or the other.

 

And finally - the fact that the way the nfl handled this in march leads people to not understand the distinction is a major selling point for why a defamation suit is not what the nfl wants in court. I'm guessing they know goodell blurred lines in his statements and it has damaged vilmas reputation immensely.

 

The bolded is the most likely. But I think when the players (despite their later explanation) say a "cat off"--they mean an injured guy being taken off in a cart.

 

Anyway, I agree that a settlement works out best for everyone (as does a plea bargain with a criminal who is certainly guilty), but Vilma's current behavior is completely at odds with a guy who is about to take that settlement and give up the fight to clear his name. He's obviously the one who makes out the best here. I still say Vilma cannot prive defamation, as it is legally defined.

 

We shall see! As always, very interesting points of view, NoSaint..

[NoSaint]

 

 

The bolded is the most likely. But I think when the players (despite their later explanation) say a "cat off"--they mean an injured guy being taken off in a cart.

 

Anyway, I agree that a settlement works out best for everyone (as does a plea bargain with a criminal who is certainly guilty), but Vilma's current behavior is completely at odds with a guy who is about to take that settlement and give up the fight to clear his name. He's obviously the one who makes out the best here. I still say Vilma cannot prive defamation, as it is legally defined.

 

We shall see! As always, very interesting points of view, NoSaint..

 

It has been an interesting case thus far. I think we're getting much closer to seeing a reasonable conclusion (hopefully). I will say I haven't seen anything indicating vilma is about to back down. I could very well see him taking this to the end. That may be a bad choice, but I'm no expert, I've just gotten to hear a lot of legal commentary.

 

Given the alleged evidence for the favre Warner bounties were handwritten notes from a source that was fired for the team under BAD circumstances, that mans testimony (which was not under oath and vilma alleged was in April recanted), allegedly ornstein who swears in the media he never said such a thing and the single gimme my money quote with no context vs. 9 men swearing under courts oath that the favre bounty didn't exist I'm getting pretty firm in my prior suspicions that they did have a general system in place but that the smoking gun on the favre/Warner hits being tied to vilma holding up stacks of cash - just doesn't measure up.

 

As to the knockout/cartoff - if you match up the slide deck payouts to the games referenced it matches what a number of players have claimed and not the idea of literal meanings. That said - I won't defend money for injury as being nothing, even if it's lesser injuries and legal hits. It's still not good.

 

All that said- punishments are definitely deserved but I don't think we're in harshest in the history of the nfl by a mile kind of territory. Vilma as a captain on a defense with that system I am ok with getting some punishment but a year seems waaaaaay harsh.

 

We will see. I may still end up eating my words but so far it seems to be tracking back towards what I was saying in march. It wasn't popular then but it seems the tide is turning some. This one will be all about middle ground from both sides.

Edited August 8, 2012 by NoSaint

[NoSaint]

Here's an article from today from a former assisstant echoing the same sentiments

 

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/08/08/dennis-allen-sees-a-distinction-between-incentive-and-bounty/

[CarolinaBill]

"unfair competitive advantage"

thats the key phrase. NE clearly gained it with their tactics. NO didn't. providing incentives for LEGAL, NON-INJURING hits does not provide an unfair advantage. The Saints, while exhibiting blatant unsponsmanlike behavior and brash defiance of authority, were not cheating.

 

NO ASTERISK NEEDED

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

No offense to the OP, but team namecalling the likes of "Aints" and "Cheatriots" is unoriginal, overplayed and not even remotely amusing. Just my two cents.

 

BA

 

I guess you missed the memo. Here on TBD that team shall always be referred to as the Cheatriots and if you use their name it must be accompanied by the *

[Bud Adams]

No offense taken, Bud. Believe me, I'm getting a kick out of the totally unexpected responses.

Cool. I really meant that: "No offense to the OP... I have just seen these names over and over and over again and was bound to throw in my two cents (for what they're worth) eventually. This just happened to be that random post.

 

My point was lost very early in this thread, and that is that I, me, and myself, found it interesting that the only two teams exposed in a scandal during their superbowl winning season, regularly practice together. Thats what I meant by, you know, "birds of a feather".

Oh, believe me -- I have no love for either team, and am disgusted with what they did. I'm not cozying up to them in the slightest, and I see the irony as well.

 

Call it cheating, unsportsmanlike, dirty, or not, I don't care. They both were penalized heavily, for good reason. Both teams get an asterisk, from me.

Cheating: Patriots YES, Saints NO.

Unsportsmanlike: Both YES

Dirty: Both YES

Asterisks: PATRIOTS yes, Saints NO.

 

I agree with the penalties, though I didn't think the NFL hit New England nearly as hard as it should have. New Orleans got what it deserved, imo.

 

Now I am pretty juvenile, and I do not posess nearly as much football knowledge as many of my fellow Bills fans here, and I aint no good writer neither, so I dont post often, and havnt starte a thread in a very long time.

I'm with you. I've been following this board for many years, but just recently signed up. And I am not that active, either. And nobody said YOU were juvenile.

 

So if you are offended by *Cheatriots, *Aints, Jests, Fish (I coulda used the one that rhymes with ballbags), Seachickens, Peckers, etc. then I apologize, but I don't know if your cut out for sports chatrooms.

I'm not offended; I'm not sure where that came from. And this is not a "chatroom" -- "Shout" is more of a chatroom, and you won't catch me there. I've been on forums like this since the mid-1990s when Usenet was popular. And, just like a chatroom, the content was not moderated. I guess I've just seen so much of this that I've grown tired of it. Again, this is one man's opinion about a single point, which was referring to teams by names that I've grown tired of.

 

Those are not terms I use very often. Matter of fact, I cant remember ever using those terms, honestly, but gimmeafriggin break man! Taking cheap shots at other teams name is pretty minor compared to the things I read here daily about Bellyache, Marsha, Jeebow, Sexy Rexy, Trentative, Mayabeen, and on and on. But you're gonna call ME out? HA!

Wasn't calling you out. In fact, I'm not likely to even to respond to posts that have that tier of name-calling as the focal point.

 

Circling back, I meant what I wrote in my first line: "With all due respect to the OP..." Hope I made it clear that this wasn't a personal attack.

 

P.S. CarolinaBill stated my views brilliantly in his last post.

 

BA

[BUFFALOKIE]

 

Cool. I really meant that: "No offense to the OP... I have just seen these names over and over and over again and was bound to throw in my two cents (for what they're worth) eventually. This just happened to be that random post.

 

 

Oh, believe me -- I have no love for either team, and am disgusted with what they did. I'm not cozying up to them in the slightest, and I see the irony as well.

 

 

Cheating: Patriots YES, Saints NO.

Unsportsmanlike: Both YES

Dirty: Both YES

Asterisks: PATRIOTS yes, Saints NO.

 

I agree with the penalties, though I didn't think the NFL hit New England nearly as hard as it should have. New Orleans got what it deserved, imo.

 

 

I'm with you. I've been following this board for many years, but just recently signed up. And I am not that active, either. And nobody said YOU were juvenile.

 

 

I'm not offended; I'm not sure where that came from. And this is not a "chatroom" -- "Shout" is more of a chatroom, and you won't catch me there. I've been on forums like this since the mid-1990s when Usenet was popular. And, just like a chatroom, the content was not moderated. I guess I've just seen so much of this that I've grown tired of it. Again, this is one man's opinion about a single point, which was referring to teams by names that I've grown tired of.

 

 

Wasn't calling you out. In fact, I'm not likely to even to respond to posts that have that tier of name-calling as the focal point.

 

Circling back, I meant what I wrote in my first line: "With all due respect to the OP..." Hope I made it clear that this wasn't a personal attack.

 

P.S. CarolinaBill stated my views brilliantly in his last post.

 

BA

 

Its all good, friend. I am pretty juvenile at times though. And way too serious the rest of the time. Can't wait to get home and watch the Bills beat the FORESKINS!!

 

 

GO BILLS!!!!!!

Edited August 9, 2012 by Stranger in a Strange Land