Saints investigated for "Bounty Program"

[vikeinmontana]

this is almost funny it's so ridiculous. the nfl is doing a serious investigation on williams and his bounties. players were literally given huge sums of money to knock guys out of games. one game getting a lot of attention is the nfcc game against the vikings. in that game there were blatant cheap shots. so blatant on several non calls that the nfl actually issued and apology and handed down fines after the fact. watch espn today. every time this story gets mentioned they show the high-low hit on favre that was so blatantly cheap i can't believe it's even still being discussed.

bottom line....late hits and personal fouls DO happen every game. that can't be debated. and when they do, chances are usually good a player had a lapse in judgement. however, when these plays happen, on a team where they were getting paid under the table to hurt other players....chances are good it's no longer a lapse in judgement.....but rather a team being cheap and trying to win at all costs.

vikings lost that game because we shot ourselves in the foot over and over. but that doesn't change the fact that during that game, players on the saints played dirty, and we now learned that they were instructed to by their coach. i think the saints are going to regret this decision when goodell is done with them.

[justinkendle]

Saints are going to learn that karma is a ####

[bigskyeric]

I'm confused by people saying, the Vikings lost fair and square BUT The Saints Cheated. Isn't that contradictory? If the Saints cheated then the Vikings did not lose fair and square. Getting to the quarterback and sacking him is an effort to 'get in his head'. Thus causing him to mess up. If players blatantly try to hurt a quarterback, that would cause a quarterback to screw up even more. Add to the equation that the Refs were blind that night and it's obvious the Saints had an advantage. And I'm sure the cheapness didn't stop at Favre. Thus getting in all the players heads 'more' then usual. The Vikings were one factor away from winning that night. Fumbles, 12 men, Interceptions, cheating players, and blind refs are the factors that lead to the Vikings demise. Remove just one of these factors and the game most likely would have had a different outcome. Sour Grapes? or Logic?

[Demi]

Tim Graham of the Buffalo News reports that multiple former Bills players allege that Williams maintained such a system during his three seasons as the teams head coach, from 2001 through 2003. Former safety Coy Wire told Graham that “[t]here was financial compensation” for inflicting injury. Two other former players speaking on the condition of anonymity said the same thing.

“That’s real,” Wire said. “That happened in Buffalo. There were rewards. There never was a point where cash was handed out in front of the team. But surely, you were going to be rewarded. When somebody made a big hit that hurt an opponent, it was commended and encouraged.”

Just good hard play! Nothing wrong with that!

[glg]

Just good hard play! Nothing wrong with that!

With this from the Bills and the Skins, it's clear that this wasn't just a "mistake" Williams made with the Saints. The league is going to have to suspend him for a long time with this. The Rams should very seriously be considering firing him.

[vikeinmontana]

I'm confused by people saying, the Vikings lost fair and square BUT The Saints Cheated. Isn't that contradictory? If the Saints cheated then the Vikings did not lose fair and square. Getting to the quarterback and sacking him is an effort to 'get in his head'. Thus causing him to mess up. If players blatantly try to hurt a quarterback, that would cause a quarterback to screw up even more. Add to the equation that the Refs were blind that night and it's obvious the Saints had an advantage. And I'm sure the cheapness didn't stop at Favre. Thus getting in all the players heads 'more' then usual. The Vikings were one factor away from winning that night. Fumbles, 12 men, Interceptions, cheating players, and blind refs are the factors that lead to the Vikings demise. Remove just one of these factors and the game most likely would have had a different outcome. Sour Grapes? or Logic?

for me personally, i don't see it that way. the vikes still could have won even with the cheap play throughout the game. had we won, i still would have thought the plays were cheap. and while they did have some effect on some plays....not enough where we couldn't have still won in my opinion. i'm mad at the cheap stuff. i'm madder that players were given extra money to try and get players carted off. but i'm maddest that the vikes turned the ball over what felt like ten times, and our brilliant coach sent 12 guys on the field after a timeout!

to blame our loss on the cheating is a stretch in my personal opinion. to ignore the cheap plays all together when an nfl investigation seems to point to just that also seems to be a huge stretch in my opinion.

[bigskyeric]

for me personally, i don't see it that way. the vikes still could have won even with the cheap play throughout the game. had we won, i still would have thought the plays were cheap. and while they did have some effect on some plays....not enough where we couldn't have still won in my opinion. i'm mad at the cheap stuff. i'm madder that players were given extra money to try and get players carted off. but i'm maddest that the vikes turned the ball over what felt like ten times, and our brilliant coach sent 12 guys on the field after a timeout!

to blame our loss on the cheating is a stretch in my personal opinion. to ignore the cheap plays all together when an nfl investigation seems to point to just that also seems to be a huge stretch in my opinion.

The hit that most remember was a high-low take out that McCray and nose tackle Remi Ayodele put on Favre in the third quarter that left the veteran on the turf with an injured left ankle. Favre's pass on the play was picked off by Vilma. New Orleans took over at its own 31 with the score 21-21 but did not score on the ensuing series.

No flag was thrown but Mike Pereira, then the NFL's vice president of officiating, admitted later that referee Pete Morelli's crew should have called a 15-yard penalty. Favre was injured but was able to continue playing.

A hobbled Favre threw an interception near the end of the fourth quarter with the scored tied and the ball at the Saints 38-yard line.

It reflects well upon your character, and I see your point. Although, had the high/low been called for a 15 yard penalty it would have changed the game. The last 2 Interceptions never would have happened. Longwell would have put up 3 points for the win. I know..... I should learn to let go. I'm still torn up about the 98 loss.

[J. Kapp 11]

Im losing an arguement?? Im not having an arguement. In my opinion, the bounty side of what the Saints did was wrong. On the field, they played just fine. Yea, they got flagged and fined, who cares, that happens in every game. They didnt play a cheap game, noone will ever convince me they did, so its not an arguement, Im stating my opinion, and couldnt care less if you or any other Vikings fan who is just bitter that the Vikings lost dont see it that way. Some are using the bounty crap to validate that the Saints played cheap football. To me they are 2 very separate issues, one is totally wrong. But their play on the field was fine.

Sore losers is how it seems to me. We lost a physical playoff football game. While the Saints shouldnt have had "bountys", they didnt resort to cheap or dirty play to attempt to collect those bountys, they were just physical and aggressive. Players get 15yd penalities in every game, so by your sore losers definations, every team/player is cheap and dirty. Im just not a sore loser or look for excuses, Ill leave this thread for those who feel better about the Vikings by whining about what another team supposedly did. Pathetic IMO.

You can't even recognize when you're in an argument ... it's no surprise you're getting buried.

As much as I try to have civil conversation with you, here is why your comments often rub me the wrong way:

You state an opinion, then you call anybody who disagrees with that opinion a whiner, a sore loser, pathetic, a connoisseur of sour grapes and whatever other names you can come up with. Do you think name-calling makes you smarter and more grounded than the person you're arguing with?

I think the Saints played dirty -- not just against the Vikings, but against other teams, as well -- and thinking that doesn't make me a sore loser. It makes me a person with an opinion. And now that said opinion is backed up with FACT -- that Gregg Williams employed a bounty system that motivated his players to INTENTIONALLY INJURE opposing players, not only with New Orleans, but also with other teams he coached -- it makes my opinion pretty solid.

And by the way, leaving an argument because you think everybody else is a sore loser? Well, that's the action of a sore loser.

[Demi]

Mark Maske of the Washington Post reports that the NFL is considering long suspensions for head coach Sean Payton, General Manager Mickey Loomis, former defensive coordinator Gregg Williams and players who were involved in bounties.

How long? Maske cited an unnamed source who said suspensions could be half a season or longer.

Just sour grapes from Vikings fans.

[PurpleMustReign]

If Mike Tice gets fined $500,000 or whatever for selling SB tickets, then Greg Williams should be suspended for at LEAST one season. AND the Saints should be forced to give both the Vikings and Cardinals a draft pick. AND whichever player is found to have participated, should have to give their rings back.

If the Gophers have to take down their Final Four Banner from 1997 for measly academic issues, then by God, players going out to hurt someone should result in forfeiting the Lombardi trophy.


EDIT, I am sick of the Minnesota teams having to be an example for violations. It's time other teams, even darlings of the leagues, have to suffer consequences too.

[glg]

Just sour grapes from Vikings fans.

If Payton and Loomis only knew about it and didn't stop it (that's what I've read, Williams and maybe some of his assistants were the ones actively involed), I'd be fine with just a big fine to them. Williams should get a long suspension, especially with the Skins/Bills stuff showing a long history of this behavior.

[bigskyeric]

I'm not one to complain about refs/etc unless something is blatantly obvious.

But I think the Vikings are the all-time leader in NFL history in after-the-fact apologies from the NFL. "We're sorry that shoulda been called a penalty" and so on

We are the best team of all time with no championship. http://sportslistoftheday.com/2011/09/2 ... n-records/

[PurpleHalo]

With this from the Bills and the Skins, it's clear that this wasn't just a "mistake" Williams made with the Saints. The league is going to have to suspend him for a long time with this. The Rams should very seriously be considering firing him.

I think that will take care of itself, I think he gets booted from the nfl.

[Mothman]

I think that will take care of itself, I think he gets booted from the nfl.

Permanently? I doubt the punishment will be that severe but I'm betting he'll get a one year suspension accompanied by a substantial fine.

Unfortunately they won't because they got what they wanted the Super Bowl. No matter how many fines or suspensions or dirty or disapproving looks are hande out, the Saints are already in the history books. And even if they took it away NCAA style (which I doubt would happen) they still "won" the Super Bowl that year. That's what really sucks about this, nothing can fix this, the damage is done and the Vikings are the biggest losers out of this.

The Vikes aren't the biggest losers in this. They didn't lose that game because the Saints played dirty. The Vikes self-destructed in a big way that Sunday. That game was theirs for the taking, whether the Saints played dirty or not. Putting the responsibility for a 5 turnover loss on anyone but the Vikes themselves is just passing the buck.

Jim

[Just Me]

The Vikes aren't the biggest losers in this. They didn't lose that game because the Saints played dirty. The Vikes self-destructed in a big way that Sunday. That game was theirs for the taking, whether the Saints played dirty or not. Putting the responsibility for a 5 turnover loss on anyone but the Vikes themselves is just passing the buck.

Jim

While I agree that the Vikes are responsible for their own loss for a vareity of reasons, I thought Bigskyeric made an interesting point when he said:

Although, had the high/low been called for a 15 yard penalty it would have changed the game. The last 2 Interceptions never would have happened. Longwell would have put up 3 points for the win. I know..... I should learn to let go. I'm still torn up about the 98 loss.

Where it gets interesting is to argue that the Vikes did (or didn't) lose because of "factor X." In a game where the teams went into overtime, I'd be hard pressed to call out (or refute) any single cause of the loss. Yes, a fistfull of turnovers doesn't help, but if the 5 become 3 turnovers due to penalties that should have been called, it does change the game. I'm not saying I disagree with you exactly (I'm a big personal responibility guy myself) I'm just saying that it becomes almost as hard to say that the Vikings lost this game themselves as it is to say the Saint's dirty play caused the loss (or in my case - Childress caused the loss as I keep asserting.)

It's sort of the:

Anderson missed FG
Griffith dropped interception
Smith running out of bounds
Da Knee

argument(s) of 1998, with the only difference that the Vikings had all of the controlling factors in that loss, whereas in 2009 one of the contributing factors was the lack of a penalties being called on the Saints. Whether or not the QB being illegally hit should be a factor or actually affect the outcome of a play (one could argue the interception was thrown before the illegal hit, so it wasn't/shouldn't be a factor in giving the ball back to the Vikings) is another argument all-together.