Saints investigated for "Bounty Program"

[VikingLord]

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

Hmmm... Makes one wonder... What if it's discovered that Chilly had a pay-for-incompetence scheme in place all this time as well? $1,500 per critical turnover, $1,000 per 12-men-on-the-field penalty...

[Mothman]

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:
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.

I see your point and BigSkyEric's but once you change the outcome of one play, that basically sends the game down a different path and anything could have happened from there. If the high/low hit had been called a penalty and that INT had been negated, giving the Vikes a first down, who's to say the Vikes wouldn't have turned it over anyway two plays later? There's just no way to know where the game would have gone if a few plays had changed or a few more penalties had been called. All we can do is speculate and once we start doing that, we can basically predict any outcome.

Hmmm... Makes one wonder... What if it's discovered that Chilly had a pay-for-incompetence scheme in place all this time as well? $1,500 per critical turnover, $1,000 per 12-men-on-the-field penalty...

LOL! That would explain a lot!

[headless_norseman]

The Saint's should be fined 1 million, hit with two high draft picks, Williams should be 8-balled from the league and Payton should step down as coach, even though that won't happen.

But Roger Goodhal better do this right.

Favre could not run for that first down, hence across the body throw and picked off. We're in the SB if that did not happen.

[headless_norseman]

Greg Williams should be banned from the NFL. Period.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this.

[justinkendle]

accroding to the headlines on espn.com Sean payton not only knew about it he encouraged it. Ya that little turd needs to go

[VikingPaul73]

accroding to the headlines on espn.com Sean payton not only knew about it he encouraged it. Ya that little turd needs to go

There needs to be serious consequences. If they just get a minor slap on the wrist, they will be laughing and toasting their Super Bowl win. Why would any coach not repeat this in the future if the consequences are minor (aside from the hope that all aren't total dirt bags).

[headless_norseman]

accroding to the headlines on espn.com Sean payton not only knew about it he encouraged it. Ya that little turd needs to go

He knew about it. If the NFL knew about it, so did he. Benson should wait for the NFL to enforce, then he should fire him, Either that, or Payton should man up and step down.


There is an asterisk next to the Saint's Super Bowl.

[glg]

accroding to the headlines on espn.com Sean payton not only knew about it he encouraged it. Ya that little turd needs to go

I just read the articles and I don't see any new information. Nothing to say that he encouraged it, just the same knew about it and didn't stop it.

[justinkendle]

I just read the articles and I don't see any new information. Nothing to say that he encouraged it, just the same knew about it and didn't stop it.

"By not halting the bounty program, Saints coach Sean Payton encouraged it. And that was just stupid"

[hibbingviking]

I see jared allen tackling qbs not blindsiding them like the saints did with warner or driving qbs into the ground. Clearly uneeded pummeling. Hope saints lose multiple draft choices and coaches get suspended.

[glg]

"By not halting the bounty program, Saints coach Sean Payton encouraged it. And that was just stupid"

author's opinion, which I do not share. It is well known that Payton runs the offense and left Williams to run the defense with little supervision. Yes, Payton was technically his boss, but they were much closer to equals then your usual head coach/coordinator.

[S197]

Former QB Brett Favre on the alleged bounty system employed by the Saints in the 2009 NFC championship game: "In that game there were some plays that, I don't want to say were odd, but I'd throw the ball and whack, on every play," he told SI.com. "Hand it off, whack. Over and over. Some were so blatant. I hand the ball to Percy Harvin early and got drilled right in the chin. They flagged that one, at least."

Despite former Saints DC Gregg Williams being called in to see NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, former Vikings QB Brett Favre wouldn't testify against him. "Now the truth comes out. That's good. But that's football. The only thing that really [ticks] me off about the whole thing is we lost the game. If they wanted me to testify in court about this, they'd be calling the wrong guy."

[vikeinmontana]

these two quotes are perfect for me because they mirrow my thoughts. there were blatant cheap shots in that game. they were so obvious i thought they'd be obvious to everyone. it was very clear that the saints were doing some shady things throughout the game, specifically to favre. favre said just that in the quote above....and i don't think it's "sour grapes".

however, in the second quote, he also seems to say just what i'm thinking. i'm pissed we lost the game. but i don't blame the shady play on the loss. doesn't sound like favre does either. he's pissed we lost. he thinks there were some blatant cheap shots. but he never ties the two together dorectly....and neither do i.

as i said before, it doesn't have to be so black and white. it's not like those of us who saw cheap shots ALL assume we lost because of them. for some of us, it's possible to see more angles to all of this. it's how i've seen it the whole time, and seems to be how favre sees it too. no one was closer to the situation than him.....

[Greg]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this.

+1

[bigskyeric]

I see your point and BigSkyEric's but once you change the outcome of one play, that basically sends the game down a different path and anything could have happened from there. If the high/low hit had been called a penalty and that INT had been negated, giving the Vikes a first down, who's to say the Vikes wouldn't have turned it over anyway two plays later? There's just no way to know where the game would have gone if a few plays had changed or a few more penalties had been called. All we can do is speculate and once we start doing that, we can basically predict any outcome.
LOL! That would explain a lot!

First, Thank you JustMe. Second, Mothman, While you could be right, the odds of NOT messing it up and kicking the FG for a win were high. With all the things the Vikings did wrong in that game, they did a ton right. Like outplaying the Saints 2-1 in terms of Yardage and 1st downs. Again, I know why people think what they think. But, to deny the fact they would have been in very good FG range, the last 2 INT's never would have happened, and the Vikings would have had a better then good chance to win the game, is silly. I believe it is silly because Gary Anderson shanked it for the loss in 98, and the odds of losing two NFCC games to a shanked FG are poor. You could be right and the Vikings could be doomed to lose no matter what. Or they could have been 1 (or in the case of the 09 game, several) bad calls away from the Super Bowl. Either way, I take solace in knowing we lost to a bunch of Thug Cheaters. I always knew they were a bunch of Thug Cheaters and now it's been confirmed. It is obviously to late as usual, but at least I know the Vikings were the better team win or lose. They played their hearts out, and they played fairly.