|
|
Post by Big Bri on Mar 6, 2012 11:17:29 GMT -5
Dear NFL. I have no idea why everyone thinks it is a bad thing to have bounties put out on opposing players. Sincerely. Tonya Harding. LMAO! Good one. |
|
|
|
Post by vx on Mar 6, 2012 18:08:42 GMT -5
The Bounty story gets more and more interesting: eye-on-football.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22475988/35113434Gregg Williams, the man at the center of "Bountygate," worked under Joe Gibbs as the Redskins defensive coordinator from 2004 to 2007 (before he became head coach of the Bills; there is also a concern he ran a bounty program there). So naturally, Gibbs was asked about whether bounty programs existed in Washington. And he said they absolutely did not. But here's an interesting twist to that: George Starke, one of the original "Hogs" under Gibbs during his first tenure as 'Skins coach, appeared on ESPN 980 and said, via Dan Steinberg of D.C. Sports Bog, that Gibbs used to walk through the locker room and hand out $100 b ills to defensive players who knocked down the quarterback. "Let’s be clear: the reason that the Hogs did that Hogs Night Out poster ... was, in the meeting after the game, Joe Gibbs would come in, he’d have a fistful of $100 bills," Starke said. "And if Dexter knocked the quarterback down three times, he would get three hundred-dollar bills. And Joe would pass the money out in the meeting, and we would have to duck." (Hogs Night Out was a result of Starke and the linemen being mad they received no money, so they'd apparently sign Jack Kent Cooke's name to the check.) Starke pointed out that Gibbs wouldn't consider the $100 handouts "bounties," but rather "incentives." And there's a big difference there, even if both are a violation of (current) NFL rules. Bounties contain a malicious intent to cause injury or physical harm to another player. Incentives are simply bonuses for doing your job well. And while Starke pointed out that he didn't think Gregg Williams (who he doesn't know) would tell a player to hurt someone, he said that "George Allen did in fact put a bounty on Roger Staubach of 200 bucks, and the bounty was to knock him out ... Not to hurt him. Let's be clear about that. Knock him out... We used to call it drag-offs." Now that is a bounty. And even if Starke doesn't think what Gibbs was doing would be considered a "bounty" and even if Gibbs wouldn't call it a "bounty," combining that description of injury to a person with the visual of Gibbs making it rain in the 'Skins locker room isn't exactly the best public relations for the former Redskins coach. |
|
|
|
Post by jrgoldman on Mar 6, 2012 22:57:10 GMT -5
This whole situation is really going to have a lot of repercussions not just on the league, but also on fans and defenders of the game. Long has the defense of the games inherent violence been 'Unlike boxing, the violence present in football is done without an intent to harm". With more and more allegations coming to light, this is no longer true. I think this could really impact the health of the game long term, as parents of middle and upper class families steer their athletic children back towards baseball and soccer. Football could become a more fringe attraction like boxing has become.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2012 23:39:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Mar 7, 2012 8:30:22 GMT -5
He asks - Where was the NFL early in 2010, when this passage appeared in Sports Illustrated in a story that discussed the aggressive nature of the Saints' defense under Gregg Williams?Easy. They were already looking into this back back then. That's been widely reported. Where was the media outrage when Williams popped off before the Saints' Super Bowl clash with the Indianapolis Colts to end the 2009 seasons? What does media outrage have to do with anything? He also writes "I suppose I'm confused." which he is. Weird that a Ram reporter wouldn't have the simplest of facts straight. I'm sure it's easier for "Bernie" to deal with this heart-breaker by trying to tie everyone else up into the Rams and Saints giant mess, but the facts are Greg Williams and the Saints are the only ones on trial here. On top of all that OF COURSE 70% of "Ram fans" voted that the Saints bounties are much worse than the Pats "spy gate". Sour grapes from when the pats ended the GSOT I suppose. As biased an article as one will find on this subject imo. Instead this writer should be better prepping Rams fans with names of possible replacement DC's for Williams, not trying to sell the "everybody does it" card like a schlub. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2012 10:48:44 GMT -5
He asks - Where was the NFL early in 2010, when this passage appeared in Sports Illustrated in a story that discussed the aggressive nature of the Saints' defense under Gregg Williams?Easy. They were already looking into this back back then. That's been widely reported. Where was the media outrage when Williams popped off before the Saints' Super Bowl clash with the Indianapolis Colts to end the 2009 seasons? What does media outrage have to do with anything? He also writes "I suppose I'm confused." which he is. Weird that a Ram reporter wouldn't have the simplest of facts straight. I'm sure it's easier for "Bernie" to deal with this heart-breaker by trying to tie everyone else up into the Rams and Saints giant mess, but the facts are Greg Williams and the Saints are the only ones on trial here. On top of all that OF COURSE 70% of "Ram fans" voted that the Saints bounties are much worse than the Pats "spy gate". Sour grapes from when the pats ended the GSOT I suppose. As biased an article as one will find on this subject imo. Instead this writer should be better prepping Rams fans with names of possible replacement DC's for Williams, not trying to sell the "everybody does it" card like a schlub. Can't see how Williams looming suspension would break the heart of a STL sports reporter...or any Rams fans for that matter. Is it inconvenient? annoying? stroke of bad luck? Sure. Heart-breaking? Hardly. Right off the bat, the writer states: "If Gregg Williams or any coach specifically dangled money as a reward for taking out a player's knee or zeroing in on a QB's head, then that's beyond the pale. Severe punishment is warranted." How can this possibly be the most biased article you'll find on the subject when a "Rams reporter" is suggesting severe punishment for a Rams coach? Writer probably didn't spend time crafting an article about Williams' possible replacements because it's already been put out there that Dave McGinnis (former HC and DC, and current LB coach for Rams) will take over in his absence. What I gathered from the article is that there is a big difference between "bounty" and "incentive" ... and interestingly, for the 10+ years on like 4 or 5 different teams where Williams ran this program, those teams were some of the least penalized and fined teams in the NFL - ironic since the NFL has been investigating this for years... |
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Mar 7, 2012 18:39:23 GMT -5
I can agree with that but it was the ending that really reeks of utter-frustration with the "Williams is the NFL" stuff.
imo night and day between pay for performance and pay to maim and I don't think everyone in the NFL is going out there trying to maim guys. As far as being penalized - you don't have to hit a guy illegally to have a bounty on them, but I understand the angle he is attempting to take.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sickman on Mar 7, 2012 20:36:59 GMT -5
I can't speak about the pay for maim stuff but purposely hurting guys has been going on for ages. The Steel Curtain of the 70s. The Purple People Eaters. I don't have to remind any Bear fans about Charles Martin and the hit he put on Jim McMahon. James Harrison? (Sure he plays hard, but you can't tell me that he doesn't intentionally try and hurt people.) Who thinks that Peyton Manning will not be targeted if he plays next year? Or any other player recovering from a known injury. It happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Mar 9, 2012 7:13:51 GMT -5
Sickman I agree to an extent but there is still a huge difference between a guy being overly violent by nature and a guy being overly violent for cash. If someone pays you money to break someone's neck and you get caught, you go to prison. So SOMETHING has to give here in the NFL. Very nice to see someone on the Rams side finally speak up against this (pay attention Bernie!) profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/09/rams-brady-poppinga-rips-gregg-williams-over-bounties/“I just can’t sit there and be silent,” Poppinga told Alex Marvez of FOXSports.com. “I look at this as an opportunity to share with the public that we, as football players, are not barbaric and out to try and destroy everything in our path. Football is my profession and I take it seriously. It’s an art form. It’s technical, strategic and takes a lot of intelligence to play. When this came out, it started to confirm the idea that football guys are idiots. That’s not who we are. Ninety-five percent of the guys are very intelligent. It’s just guys who love to go out and play a physical game.” Does not sound like the words of a man who shares the theory "it happens everywhere" like some media and fans would prefer to think. imo the Rams will be stronger for this. Better to know this now than later once Williams has installed a totally new defense (or before the Rams got pulled into the punishments). |
|
|
|
Post by Demosthenes on Mar 9, 2012 16:07:23 GMT -5
This is the most over blown story of the year so far. Do you think a guy making $100,000 a game really cares that he would get an extra grand to take someone out?
Here is the thing: football, by its nature, is a violent sport. Everyone on defense is trying to do something to the ball carrier to have him drop the ball or go down. Period. The NFL has rules to prevent injuries. If an injury happens because of an illegal hit, the player is fined and/or suspended. If an injury happens because of a legal hit, what can you do? If a play is legal, it doesn't matter if he received an extra G to do it. If the play is illegal, I am sure the fine will be more than any "bonus" he gets.
I am not up 100% on this story, but has there been any evidence that any coach said, "Hit him in the head" or "Break his arm"? If so, and a player actually did this illegally, than the coach should be expelled from the NFL. Plan and simple. But if a coach says, "Hit him so hard that you knock him out of the game", then that is just football. When I was in HS and played DE, my coach always told me to hit the QB so hard that remembers me. Should my coach have been fined or kicked out of the game for me doing everything I can within the limits of the rules to hit that QB so hard that he never wants to play again?
Has there been ANY direct evidence that this "bonus" system has caused an illegal hit? Has any player come out and said, "I took out his knees for the extra $1500?" If so, I apologize. However, I do not think that is the case.
|
|
