Saints investigated for "Bounty Program"

[saint33]

Where do you draw the line between fair, aggressive, tough football and cheap shots? How would you know whether a team is trying to take cheap shots because money is on the table rewarding them for doing it and their coach expects them to try to do it because he's the one running the program?

The problem I have with your position is that because you didn't see anything egregious happen there was nothing wrong with the way the Saints played in that game or other games over the last 3 seasons. In my view, when coaches teach and reward players for trying to hurt other players, the chances one of those "aggressive", "tough" hits is going to cross a line and really injure someone, perhaps permanently, goes way up. So just because it doesn't happen in a particular game, it's only a matter of time before it does happen, and when it does we could be talking about a guy perhaps being paralyzed or something far more significant than a simple win or a loss in a game.

The other thing a program like this does is it encourages others to follow suit. This is like steroids in baseball. Once some guys start to do it and are rewarded for it, the pressure increases dramatically on everyone else to do it as well if they want to win and be successful. When it's a just a few individuals that's bad enough for fair competition, but when it's endemic and sanctioned by those who should know better like head coaches and a general manager, it's virtually guaranteed to become a cancer that spreads throughout the league.

The NFL has to come down extremely hard on this one, moreso I think because when the Saints had this program in place they actually won the Superbowl. This wasn't the only reason they won it and maybe it wasn't the main reason, but the last thing the league can afford is to send the message that this type of behavior will produce anything positive for the team(s) that engage in it.

great post

[bigskyeric]

A Star Tribune "poster" expressed my exact sentiments about the NFC title game: "That "unpenalized hit" that is referred to . . let me jolt your memories. The league LATER apologized because they ADMITTED that the game officials blew it! THAT illegal play, when Favre was hit high AND low while still in the pocket, resulted in an interception. If the penalty had been called, the Vikings would have had the ball, first and 10 inside the Saints 20 yard line. Do YOU think it would have affected the outcome? As far as I am concerned, the league is at fault too because it was blatantly obvious that the league WANTED the Saints in the Super Bowl and they got what they wanted. All of the Saints coaches should be banned from NFL jobs forever, and it is time that the league FINED and SUSPENDED game officials when they screw up like they did in this game!"

This, to me, is NOT sour grapes but a true and realistic analogy of a main reason why the game was lost.
Favre is not going to complain about this because despite what any one says about him he is a true competitor and does not make excuses for losing. That crucial interception (thrown accross his body), was, in my opinion, largely due to the fact that although it appeared that he could have made the necessary yardage running his decision to throw had to be influenced by all of the damage (includeing his severly damaged ankle) he had sustained through all of the cheap shots the "bounty crew" had laid on him.
Yes turnovers and a costly 12 man on the field penalty played very significant parts for determining the outcome but any one would be a fool to believe that the "bounty crew's" cheap shots did not have a decisive bearing on this game.
I will take great delight in watching the league exact a large penalty on this organization.
On a side note, I would also take this opprotunity to again say to all of you complaining fans that have intimated or actually come out and said that the Vikings should have purposefully lost to Washington last year to secure a 2 pick in this years draft , just wait and see the fines and penalties that are bestowed on the Saints organization and then tripple that with what penalties which would have been levied on any NFL team for "throwing" a game.

This is exactly what I thought while watching the game. And what the league confirmed by admitting fault and penalizing players. I feel like I watched a different game that night when reading some of the posts on here by people claiming everything looked normal to them. Makes me wonder if they watched the game or don't know the rules or just don't care. The officiating in that game was deplorable. It wasn't any given Sunday. It wasn't Monday Night Football. It was the goddam Championship game.

[bpviking]

There is a big difference between rewarding players for injuring opponents, spying on other team's practices and intercepting their signals, and simply resting your starters at the end of a lost season so you can begin assessing your younger players in preparation for the offseason and the following season. That last point is taking a long-term view and increasing your chances for success down the road, not "throwing" the game. While it does increase the likelihood off a loss I suppose, it's not cheating. Playoff teams do it all the time when they have nothing to play for and want to rest their starters. It's simply being pragmatic.

Wow. Did I say that resting players was the same as a team that intentionally "throws" a game?
My comment was for those fans that said that the Vikes should have lost the game INTENTIONALLY to secure a higher draft position. Do you comprehend the difference? Now if you understand that point then you might understand that an NFL team that PURPOSEFULLY "throws" a game, violates NFL rules, would cause an unmeasurable amount of distrust in the league and totally destroys the creditabillity to it's fans. This also involves the millions of fans that enjoy fantasy football and the betting public. I do not bet or play fantasy football but if I did I would be very pi$$ed off if I bet on the Vikes and they kept AD on the bench or if AD was on my fantasy team and did not play.This does also take into account the fans that paid a huge sum of money to actually atternd the game. Do they want to watch a bunch of 2nd stringers play?
Now about this aspect of it. Do you think that Jarred Allen should have been benched when he was striving to break the sack record? You could not have chained him to the sidelines to keep him out of that game. Do you think that AD would have wanted or allowed the coaches to bench him? These guys are not only great competitors but also have many monetary incentives that they are playing for (this is not college football). Many of these starters are fighting for their jobs for the following year and want to play in every game, especially since this team so baddly underachieved.
Lastly, this team was already going into this game with it's 2nd string qb and a totally depleted secondary and a horrible o-line and terrible receivers (except Harvin) for all intents and purposes they should have gotten beaten legitimately by a better Skins team playing at home.
Yes it is true that the Vikes would certainly have benefited from a loss but not by "throwing" the game.

[Mothman]

Wow! That's quite an article, DP. It sure gives insight to the mentality of winning at all costs.

And it sounds as if the Saints are far from being alone when it comes to bounties. That's unsettling.

It's unsettling but not surprising. I think this sort of mentality has existed in the NFL for decades. It probably goes back further than most of us have been alive.

Here's a link to another article by a former player acknowledging that "pay for performance' systems are commonplace in the NFL. It's definitely worth reading:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8 ... le=HP11_cp

From my rookie season in 1994 to my final year as a scout in 2007, I was associated with several teams that incorporated various forms of the "bounty" program cited in New Orleans. Most of those bonuses were tied to sacks, interceptions, forced fumbles and return touchdowns, but big hits and knockout shots were also included in the payouts. The financial incentives were established by players prior to the season, typically within a position group, and the payouts ranged from a few hundred dollars to $1,500 at the max.

In addressing the damning allegations of placing bounties on opposing players, I would like to believe the Saints instituted policies that rewarded defenders for hard but clean shots that separated ball carriers from the ball. These "knockout" shots, as we called them, were not inflicted with the intent to injure, but rather to establish a physical tone that created hesitation and fear in the minds of offensive players venturing across the middle of the field.

Jim

[VikingLord]

My comment was for those fans that said that the Vikes should have lost the game INTENTIONALLY to secure a higher draft position. Do you comprehend the difference?

How exactly would you or anyone else know if a team INTENTIONALLY throws a game? How would you prove something like that to the degree necessary to levy the sorts of punishment you're referring to?

Now if you understand that point then you might understand that an NFL team that PURPOSEFULLY "throws" a game, violates NFL rules

You're familiar with the NFL rules enough to back that up with a link?

I don't think there is one for the reason that it would be impossible to prove something like that. What if a coach starts his 3rd-string QB? Is he trying to lose to meet your mental conception of PURPOSEFUL?

It's ridiculous on it's face and I'm sure in the history of the NFL and pro football before it such a thing has never been proven and never will be.

This does also take into account the fans that paid a huge sum of money to actually atternd the game. Do they want to watch a bunch of 2nd stringers play?

[

Um, anyone who wants to cry because they paid to watch two non-playoff teams go at it in December is welcome to their misery as far as I am concerned.

[bpviking]

How exactly would you or anyone else know if a team INTENTIONALLY throws a game? How would you prove something like that to the degree necessary to levy the sorts of punishment you're referring to?
You're familiar with the NFL rules enough to back that up with a link?

I don't think there is one for the reason that it would be impossible to prove something like that. What if a coach starts his 3rd-string QB? Is he trying to lose to meet your mental conception of PURPOSEFUL?

It's ridiculous on it's face and I'm sure in the history of the NFL and pro football before it such a thing has never been proven and never will be.
[

Um, anyone who wants to cry because they paid to watch two non-playoff teams go at it in December is welcome to their misery as far as I am concerned.

I never said that it would be easy to prove but the way a team could be found out to be tanking a game would be in the same manner that probably exposed the Saints and their bounty hunting. A player or coach, more than likely ex-player or ex-coach comes "forward" and reveals that information. Then other players or coaches corroberate those facts.

A team could tank a game by punting or not punting when they should or shouldn't have. Attempted a field goal when they should or shouldn't have. Gone for a first down on fourth down when they should or shouldn't have. Had 12 men on the field accidentaly (on purpose) at a cruical time in a game. Pulled a key player from the game, say when the other team is facing a long 4th down and needs to complete a long pas and the other team decides on that play to substitute their best player out of the game (ie. pulling Jarred Allen out of the game when a situation dictates an almost certain, crucial passing situation). Yes indeed it could be done and I never ever said that it has been done only that if it was done (and obviously came to light). those sanctions and ramnifications would be enforced.

In regards to your comment: "Um, anyone who wants to cry because they paid to watch two non-playoff teams go at it in December is welcome to their misery as far as I am concerned.[/quote" There are, believe it or not, loyal fans , some of which are season ticket holders that go and watch their teams play regardless of their records or standings. In that vain if I was a season ticket holder and had spent 50 to 500 dollars on a ticket, arrived at the game and discovered that the teams were playing 2nd stringers (in preseason fashion) yeah I would be pretty unhappy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_fixing: "In organised sports, match fixing or sports fixing occurs as a match is played to a completely or partially pre-determined result, violating the rules of the game and often the law. Where the sporting competition in question is a race then the incident is referred to as race fixing. Games that are deliberately lost are sometimes called thrown games. When a team intentionally loses a game, or does not score as high as it can, to obtain a perceived future competitive advantage (for instance, earning a high draft pick) rather than gamblers being involved, the team is often said to have tanked the game instead of having thrown it. In pool hustling, tanking is known as dumping. In sports where a handicap system exists and is capable of being abused, tanking is known as sandbagging.
Thrown games, when motivated by gambling, require contacts (and normally money transfers) between gamblers, players, team officials, and/or referees. These contacts and transfer can sometimes be found, and lead to prosecution, by law or by the sports league(s). In contrast, tanking is internal to the team and very hard to prove. Often, substitutions made by the coach designed to deliberately increase the team's chances of losing (frequently by having one or more key players sit out, often using minimal or phantom injuries as a public excuse for doing this), rather than ordering the players actually on the field to intentionally underperform, were cited as the main factor in cases where tanking has been alleged"

[VikingLord]

Well bp, I think you made my point by quoting the Wikipedia article:

In contrast, tanking is internal to the team and very hard to prove. Often, substitutions made by the coach designed to deliberately increase the team's chances of losing (frequently by having one or more key players sit out, often using minimal or phantom injuries as a public excuse for doing this), rather than ordering the players actually on the field to intentionally underperform, were cited as the main factor in cases where tanking has been alleged

Almost impossible to prove, and even if proven, how would one punish that unless it was directed and coordinated as in the case of the Saints and their bounties?

If the coach sits his better players and/or calls questionable plays without that degree of collusion to support him, he's going to get canned. If there is that degree of collusion, then you're starting to get into the territory the Saints find themselves in. Of course, there is a HUGE difference between tanking a game or two near the end of a season and engaging in systemic behavior over the course of 3 seasons as is alleged in the case against the Saints.

If fans pay to watch a product that is sub-par, then they vote with their feet and stop paying.

Bottom line - Frazier played to win games towards the end of the season, which as a head coach is his call. But had he chosen to play with a more forward-looking view in mind a large percentage of Vikings fans wouldn't have held it against him (including me), and in fact it would have increased my optimism that he'll succeed as a head coach. And had he played with that view in mind there is no way in HE-double hockey sticks that the league or any prosecutor could bring some sort of sanctions against him or the Vikings. None.

[PurpleMustReign]

Anyone who says that it was merely an "agressive" defense that the Saint's had then should be locked up. The Vikings lost because they blew it fair and square. However, the Saint's defense had a purpose and that was to HURT BRETT FAVRE AND KURT WARNER.
What they did was illegal. It is not ok. And it is not "sour grapes" to say that they cheated.

The fact that anyone who isn't a Saint's fan would argue that this was ok or not a big deal sickens me.

[bpviking]

Well bp, I think you made my point by quoting the Wikipedia article:
Almost impossible to prove, and even if proven, how would one punish that unless it was directed and coordinated as in the case of the Saints and their bounties?

If the coach sits his better players and/or calls questionable plays without that degree of collusion to support him, he's going to get canned. If there is that degree of collusion, then you're starting to get into the territory the Saints find themselves in. Of course, there is a HUGE difference between tanking a game or two near the end of a season and engaging in systemic behavior over the course of 3 seasons as is alleged in the case against the Saints.

If fans pay to watch a product that is sub-par, then they vote with their feet and stop paying.

Bottom line - Frazier played to win games towards the end of the season, which as a head coach is his call. But had he chosen to play with a more forward-looking view in mind a large percentage of Vikings fans wouldn't have held it against him (including me), and in fact it would have increased my optimism that he'll succeed as a head coach. And had he played with that view in mind there is no way in HE-double hockey sticks that the league or any prosecutor could bring some sort of sanctions against him or the Vikings. None.

I will not re-explain to you how a team could be found out nor do I have any idea how I proved your point WITH THAT ARTICLE.
As far as fans voting with their feet WTF. I was talking about playing subs in a regular season game in order to secure a loss. Imagine a new head coach trying to win games, what a bafoon Frazier must be and I bet Zygi was furious.....oh yeah that is why he is coaching the team this year.
I think that I am done trying to explain myself to you in regards to my opinion, your counter arguments are irrelevent and neaningless to me. You admittedly are one of the fans upset that Frazier did not tank the end of the season and his team was giving a 100% effort to win.

[hibbingviking]

I was pretty suprised. You just brushed tom brady and got a penalty. Favre took uneeded pounding. No doubt they wanted to take favre out. Dont see jared allen drive qbs in the ground.

[jackal]

This is how I feel about this

I love football because its a sport of physically tuff men, who are great athletes
who do things very people can do. They dedicate most of their young lives to play
this sport.

I have no problem with hard hits ,and outplaying another team.

When you roll a players legs as they did with Farve, Hit him high and low, and various
other things that's wrong no matter what your reason.

I have no doubt a lot of the Saints players were trying to hurt others intentionally.
Did the program start that way ? who knows

The NFL wanted the Saints to win, of that I am sure it was a media friendly story
to rebuild an area destroyed by Katrina. Did the refs call the game at the NFL's
request? Doubtful.. The Refs are people and I am sure they sensed what a lot of
America wanted. Not much you can do about that though?

I think the Saints will lose a few picks including a first round pick. People will be fined
and their former DC will be suspended and fined.

[glg]

Not surprised in the least that Gregg Williams was involved in something like this. His defenses in NO have always had a cheap shot component to them.

While bounties of this sort have existed between players for a long time, a coach running one so organized in this day is ridiculous. Goodell needs to send a message on this one.

[dkoby]

the RAMS should lose some as punishment for hiring the actual perpertrator in this scenario,

C'mon Man!!! Really? Think this is going a little too far. How the heck could the Rams have known this?

[VikingPaul73]

I don't know what's more appalling - that's this happened or that people are actually trying to downplay and even defend it.

Greg Williams should be banned from the NFL. Period.

The Saints should lose draft picks and the Super Bowl should be vacated from that year. Anything less will just encourage more of this behavior. Why not? Who wouldn't trade a super bowl win for a couple of picks...if they even get that???

The sad thing is, none of the above will happen....in fact, that dirt bag Greg Williams will probably get a luctrative contract sponsoring Bounty paper towels or something.

[CyminologyVIKES]

Anyone who says that it was merely an "agressive" defense that the Saint's had then should be locked up. The Vikings lost because they blew it fair and square. However, the Saint's defense had a purpose and that was to HURT BRETT FAVRE AND KURT WARNER.
What they did was illegal. It is not ok. And it is not "sour grapes" to say that they cheated.

The fact that anyone who isn't a Saint's fan would argue that this was ok or not a big deal sickens me.

100% agree.