Post revenge thoughts on bountygate?

A forum for the hard core Minnesota Vikings fan. Discuss upcoming games, opponents, trades, draft or what ever is on the minds of Viking fans!

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Muqali
Practice Squad
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2015 1:01 pm

Post revenge thoughts on bountygate?

Post by Muqali » Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:05 pm

I will be honest about it as I wrote in the pre-game thread. I wanted injuries for the saints players. After all, it was only fair to want for them what they did to us.

However, one thing I want honest opinions about is the thought that maybe bountygate was little to zero reason as to why the Saints did well in the post season and eventually won the superbowl. I don't know why it would be reasonable to think that a relatively small side bet for players who already are making millions to basically do their job would add much motivation. Don't they have enough motivation without it? It is a strange thing to think that coaches were involved, but to think that bountygate was cheating is a stretch. As a fan and a competitor in other areas of life I recognize when players are simply taunting to have fun and raise the stakes of the game. Bounties between players are just another version of that, it's for fun. Hurting other players is a part of football.

Thinking about those hits on Favre can still make me angry, but at this point I think it's pretty easy to see that the blame should be placed almost entirely on the refs for not calling it.

There may be some details of bountygate that I am not remembering or are not aware of, but I would be curious to hear thoughts on this.

Either way, even if we don't win the Superbowl, I feel pretty at peace when it comes to the Saints.
Last edited by Muqali on Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

CrunkDat
Practice Squad
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:22 pm

Re: Post revenge thoughts on bountygate?

Post by CrunkDat » Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:30 pm

BountyGate was a distraction from the ongoing huge billion dollar lawsuit against the NFL on concussions. It has been estimated that as many as 28 out of 32 teams had some type of "bounty program". Your Vikings team included. Many players have come out and said it was nothing out of the ordinary.

With player safety needing to become as a perceived priority for the NFL, they need to make an example out of someone. The NFL asked all of the teams to cool it on advertising anything that could harm the NFL's new adopted stance on safety.
We became the scapegoat due to a former disgruntled employee who now has a nice cushy job in New York working for the NFL.

No rules were broken. The NFL was simply trying to save face with all of the negativity from the lawsuits.
0 x

User avatar
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6949
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm

Re: Post revenge thoughts on bountygate?

Post by J. Kapp 11 » Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:42 pm

Can we stop talking about Bountygate?

I'll respectfully disagree with our Saints-fan guest and say that I don't think it went as far or as deep as 28 of 32 teams, or that the poor Saints were made an example of. But it simply doesn't matter.

Here's the truth, no matter whether the Saints fans of the world want to admit it. We dominated that game in 2009 and should have won easily.

We outgained them 475-257. We had twice as many first downs (31-15), out-rushed them 165-68, won the passing yardage battle 310-197, and had almost 10 minutes more time of possession. But we lost the turnover battle 5-1. We had 12 men in the huddle FOLLOWING A TIMEOUT. And in the end, we handed the New Orleans Saints a game we should have won in a blowout.

Boutygate might have affected the Super Bowl, had we won. It's been reported that Favre likely would not have been able to play. But Bountygate didn't cost us the game. Our Vikings beat themselves.
0 x
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.

User avatar
fiestavike
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3492
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am

Re: Post revenge thoughts on bountygate?

Post by fiestavike » Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:42 pm

CrunkDat wrote:BountyGate was a distraction from the ongoing huge billion dollar lawsuit against the NFL on concussions. It has been estimated that as many as 28 out of 32 teams had some type of "bounty program". Your Vikings team included. Many players have come out and said it was nothing out of the ordinary.

With player safety needing to become as a perceived priority for the NFL, they need to make an example out of someone. The NFL asked all of the teams to cool it on advertising anything that could harm the NFL's new adopted stance on safety.
We became the scapegoat due to a former disgruntled employee who now has a nice cushy job in New York working for the NFL.

No rules were broken. The NFL was simply trying to save face with all of the negativity from the lawsuits.
Bountygate was a bunch of nonsense. Saints didn't do anything everybody else wasn't doing. Sean Payton is a POS though, and his gloating got the best of him. Its always satisfying to see a poor sport get served a nice big slice of humble pie. Saints should be better than him, but I think they have taken on his crappy character judgeing from the way their players behave on the field.
0 x

User avatar
Muqali
Practice Squad
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2015 1:01 pm

Re: Post revenge thoughts on bountygate?

Post by Muqali » Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:50 pm

CrunkDat wrote:BountyGate was a distraction from the ongoing huge billion dollar lawsuit against the NFL on concussions. It has been estimated that as many as 28 out of 32 teams had some type of "bounty program". Your Vikings team included. Many players have come out and said it was nothing out of the ordinary.

With player safety needing to become as a perceived priority for the NFL, they need to make an example out of someone. The NFL asked all of the teams to cool it on advertising anything that could harm the NFL's new adopted stance on safety.
We became the scapegoat due to a former disgruntled employee who now has a nice cushy job in New York working for the NFL.

No rules were broken. The NFL was simply trying to save face with all of the negativity from the lawsuits.
On one foot I understand what you mean, but you can't say "No rules were broken." as they quite literally were. You can't pay players to injure people and you can't sandwich quarterbacks late. There is a really true element to "If you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'." Which is why you can't really rob the victory from the Vikings for some #### calls from the refs. Diggs held the defender's hand and did a bit of acting. Pretty sure that's against the rules but it didn't get called. There was a late hit on Keenum that wasn't called as well.

Depending on how you stretch the rules you might either be loved or hated for it. Rhodes has made it an artform and the league loves him for it because it's always so damn close to the line of what's legal and what's not. That's talent.
0 x

Dmizzle0
Transition Player
Posts: 360
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2014 5:03 pm

Re: Post revenge thoughts on bountygate?

Post by Dmizzle0 » Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:07 pm

The Saints clearly targeted Brett with those late hits, the thing that made it worse was the lack of calls by the officials. Bountygate didn't really have anything to do with it except fuel my anger towards the Saints.

Even though I hate the Saints its more on the organizational standpoint if that makes sense, much like the Packers. I have reapect for most of the players and I dont wish any harm to them. I just dont want to ever see them win a Super bowl ever.
Last edited by Dmizzle0 on Tue Jan 16, 2018 9:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

User avatar
PacificNorseWest
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2391
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:10 am
Location: Seattle, Wa

Re: Post revenge thoughts on bountygate?

Post by PacificNorseWest » Tue Jan 16, 2018 3:42 pm

I've moved on, but I don't feel like this is revenge at all. It's completely separate. That '09 loss has a sting of its own that will be there forever. As will '98. To a lesser extent, '01.
0 x

User avatar
dead_poet
Commissioner
Posts: 24484
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Post revenge thoughts on bountygate?

Post by dead_poet » Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:11 pm

Because of that game I'll always dislike the Saints, Sean Peyton and Greg Williams. It wasn't always like that. And I like Drew Brees and the city. But I have it in me to look past that respect of the QB and give the finger to the team. At least until Peyton is gone.
0 x
“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.” --- Bill Shankly

User avatar
TeamChaplain
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1142
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 9:14 am
Location: Miller, SD

Re: Post revenge thoughts on bountygate?

Post by TeamChaplain » Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:53 pm

dead_poet wrote:Because of that game I'll always dislike the Saints, Sean Peyton and Greg Williams. It wasn't always like that. And I like Drew Brees and the city. But I have it in me to look past that respect of the QB and give the finger to the team. At least until Peyton is gone.
As will I. But I do believe that the 2009 NFCCG was tarnished not only because of bountygate but also because of egregious calls/noncalls by the officiating team. All the turnovers were a major factor as well.
0 x
From the Fjords of ValHalla

User avatar
jackal
Strong Safety
Posts: 11578
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:05 am
Location: California

Re: Post revenge thoughts on bountygate?

Post by jackal » Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:42 pm

For me the Saints got away with Murder
in 2009 and they deserve to rot for it.

They were trying to injure a player who
deserved one last moment in the sun
and the refs allowed, a worst sin ..in my
book.

Peterson fumbles imo were a bigger
factor than the Farve pick.
0 x
no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

User avatar
Rieux
Franchise Player
Posts: 440
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:48 pm
Location: St. Paul

Re: Post revenge thoughts on bountygate?

Post by Rieux » Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:48 am

I just don't understand how anyone can contend that the bounty system didn't have a meaningful effect on a game that went to overtime, especially given the way regulation ended. Yes, certainly, the three Viking fumbles, the third-quarter interception, and the bizarre 12-men penalty were major contributing factors to Minnesota's loss as well—but basically any close football game, and certainly every high-scoring one that goes to overtime, involves a number of factors or plays that each, had it gone the other way, would have reversed the outcome. The fact that the Vikings committed ordinary football mistakes does not absolve the Saints for committing freakish violations of fundamental rules of modern sport (such as "it is improper to intentionally injure one's opponent"), nor does it change the fact that those violations directly benefited the Saints by degrading Brett Favre's ability to play football. The league suspended Payton and Williams and fined the Saints franchise for perfectly good reason; unfortunately, though, that did nothing to compensate the teams that were victimized by the Saints' violations (the Cardinals as well as the Vikings) or to overturn the ill-gotten Lombardi Trophy.

It just seems all but inarguable to me that (1) without the bounty system in place, the Saints' defenders would not have so disgustingly frequently targeted Favre for brutal late hits (hits that quite possibly violated Louisiana conspiracy statutes, to say nothing of the rules of football); (2) without those late hits, Favre would have been in substantially better physical shape late in the fourth quarter—especially with regard to his mangled ankle; (3) without said mangled ankle, he would have run up the right sideline for at least seven or eight yards on third-and-fifteen with 19 seconds left in regulation rather than throwing the most damaging Vikings interception since 1977, if not ever; and (4) Ryan Longwell was an awfully safe bet to hit the 40-to-50-yard field goal that would have ensued, thus winning the game. I don't think any of those deductive steps is terribly arguable, which makes Bountygate very likely dispositive for the conference championship. (One also wonders what effect the illegal abuse had on Favre in earlier plays, such as the handoff-fumble on the exchange to Peterson or the third-quarter interception. Williams and his goons in black jerseys didn't target Favre after the whistle because they thought it would make him play better.)

It is also true that the inaction of Pete Morelli and his crew in failing to call personal foul after personal foul for the Saints' conduct, not to mention a number of other awful calls that uniformly benefited New Orleans, was a major factor in the outcome of the game. But a crook who robs a bank is not permitted to disclaim responsibility for the crime (or, more relevantly, for the bank's losses) on the grounds that the police were generally disinterested in catching him. Nor can he plead that the bank's guards and security system did a poor job of preventing bank-robbery losses. The crook is culpable even if there are other parties who bear some meaningful level of responsibility.

So I for one was delighted that the Saints, and especially Sean Payton, had their guts ripped out in Minneapolis on Sunday. It couldn't have happened to a dirtier and more deserving jerk. I hope he never sees the playoffs again.
0 x

PurpleKoolaid
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8369
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:52 pm

Re: Post revenge thoughts on bountygate?

Post by PurpleKoolaid » Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:58 am

Bountygate was bad. The refs looking the other way was worse. The fact is, the Vikings themselves really screwed things up with mistakes. I just hope Zimmer doesnt allow that to happen this weekend.
0 x

User avatar
PurpleMustReign
Starting Wide Receiver
Posts: 18407
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Location: Crystal, MN
Contact:

Re: Post revenge thoughts on bountygate?

Post by PurpleMustReign » Wed Jan 17, 2018 7:28 am

Favre's third quarter pick should have been nullified because he was hit high and low. So keep that in mind too.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
0 x
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." ‪#‎SKOL2017 #BringitHome‬

CrunkDat
Practice Squad
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:22 pm

Re: Post revenge thoughts on bountygate?

Post by CrunkDat » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:57 am

PurpleMustReign wrote:Favre's third quarter pick should have been nullified because he was hit high and low. So keep that in mind too.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
Agree with that play. Easily could've been flagged with the newer rules protecting QB's. But it's not like they planned to hit him high and low at the same time or anything other than a desire to harass him as much as possible was a factor in the gameplan. We had recently acquired Darren Sharper, who had the most experience playing against Favre, and he convinced the defense that the only way to beat him was to get to him and be physically punish him over and over.

We knew you guys were loaded with incredible talent and it showed. Our defense gave up a ton of yards all year but always managed to come up with a big play when it mattered the most. I understand blaming the outcome of the game on something that has been going on in football forever, but like some mentioned, the turnovers were the difference. We were actually penalized a ton more that game than the Vikes.

Anyway, it's in the past and it's something more for the fans than the current players. Good luck the rest of the way. Going to be hard to get focused after such a dramatic win and having to travel.
0 x

User avatar
Rieux
Franchise Player
Posts: 440
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:48 pm
Location: St. Paul

Re: Post revenge thoughts on bountygate?

Post by Rieux » Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:08 am

CrunkDat wrote:We were actually penalized a ton more that game than the Vikes.
:roll: Yes, that's what generally happens when "your" game plan includes systematically violating the rules of the sport. The fact that the Saints, having committed vastly more fouls than the Vikings did, were penalized more is meaningless in light of the fact that the Saints should have been penalized much, much more than they actually were. Additionally, the penalty margin between the teams was not in fact "a ton": in the game that actually took place in January 2010, the Vikings were flagged 5 times for 32 yards vs. the Saints' 9 times for 88. Even in absolute terms, 9 called fouls for 88 yards is not "a ton" under any standard, much less was it in proper proportion to the historically disgusting level of contempt for the rules of the game, and indeed for basic human decency, that the Saints displayed in that game. The fact that New Orleans was not hit for hundreds of penalty yards, in light of the disgusting number of brutal personal fouls they committed, is an outrage.
Anyway, it's in the past and it's something more for the fans than the current players.
I would note that Sean Payton, Drew Brees, and Brian Robison were all on the field that day; as a consequence of the Saints' outrageous conduct, the first two acquired a championship they did not legitimately earn, while the third was denied an opportunity to play for a title that he and his teammates did earn. And I disagree with the notion that the experiences of several million fans of both franchises are irrelevant.

In a just world, the Super Bowl XLIV championship would have been vacated at the close of the Bountygate investigation. "You" don't deserve to be considered to have won that title. And you should be ashamed.
0 x

Post Reply