Vikings Message Board.Com

I put this in general Vikings discussion due to its related nature to our team, but feel free to move it.


Shefter on twitter:

NFL security determined between 22 and 27 defensive players on the Saints, as well as at least one asst. coach, maintained a bounty program.

NFL determined that former Saints DC Gregg Williams administered the program with knowledge of other defensive coaches.

NFL investigation of Saints began in 2010 when allegations were made that Saints targeted QBs such as Brett Favre and Kurt Warner.

Discipline for the Saints could include fines, suspensions and forfeiture of draft choices.

Very big news. This will probably dominate NFL headlines until the draft. Finally those of us who were convinced the Saints were playing dirty in the 2009 NFC championship get some confirmation. Not much consolation, though.

HA!!! We all knew it!! Pathetic ####. They should be forced to forfeit their SB trophy.

Eh. So they wanted to hit a QB or crush a WR, its football. No one will ever convince me they played dirty vs the Vikings in that game, ever. That is just sour grapes, IMO. They are turning the NFL into a 2 hand touch league, let em play.

Good.

I don't mind losing a well played athletic contest, but they were definitely riding dirty that day.

Just read the NFLs release. Probably against the NFLs rules, but so is wearing the wrong socks. While they had a bounty "if" someone was injured or left the field, doesnt mean they intentionally hurt them, or if they were hurt, that the hit was dirty. AD was injured on a totally clean hit, had that been vs the Saints and the player collected the "bounty" would that make the hit "dirty"??? I understand its not within the NFLs rules, rightfully so, but it not a big deal to me, at all. Its football, if you dont want to get hit, and hit hard, dont freaking play.

purple guy wrote:Just read the NFLs release. Probably against the NFLs rules, but so is wearing the wrong socks. While they had a bounty "if" someone was injured or left the field, doesnt mean they intentionally hurt them, or if they were hurt, that the hit was dirty. AD was injured on a totally clean hit, had that been vs the Saints and the player collected the "bounty" would that make the hit "dirty"??? I understand its not within the NFLs rules, rightfully so, but it not a big deal to me, at all. Its football, if you dont want to get hit, and hit hard, dont freaking play.

Uhhh they were given bonuses if they injured someone...you may not care about the general health of NFL players, but the league sure does.

purple guy wrote:Just read the NFLs release. Probably against the NFLs rules, but so is wearing the wrong socks.

You're right. It's pretty much the same thing.

I'm all for agressive tackling, but there's a fundamental difference between a clean and dirty hit. Dirty hits can end seasons and careers. True, so can clean hits, but I'd be willing to bet the percentage goes down substantially. There's a reason they teach proper tackling techniques.

Viking Voodoo wrote: Uhhh they were given bonuses if they injured someone...you may not care about the general health of NFL players, but the league sure does.

Yup. The hit doesnt have to be a dirty hit to injure someone. I agree it isnt a good idea by the Saints, I realize that. But to me, I could not care less. As long as they were clean hits, and a player was injured, its a part of the game. IF one is going to use the Vikings vs the Saints playoff game as an example, then I have ABSOLUTELY no issues, they played aggressive, not dirty. Vikings fans didnt like it cuz the Vikings got whipped, bad. Having a "bounty" is obviously stupid, but I liked the way the Saints D played, physical and aggressive, a style the Vikings D has no idea on how to play.

purple guy wrote:Vikings fans didnt like it cuz the Vikings got whipped, bad.

You do recall it was the Vikings that whipped the Saints in nearly every statistical category in that game, right? And that they essentially beat themselves.

Having a "bounty" is obviously stupid, but I liked the way the Saints D played, physical and aggressive, a style the Vikings D has no idea on how to play.

If the choices are dirty or conservative, I choose conservative. I like rooting for a team that has integrity and would never resort to such measures.

dead_poet wrote: You're right. It's pretty much the same thing.

I'm all for agressive tackling, but there's a fundamental difference between a clean and dirty hit. Dirty hits can end seasons and careers. True, so can clean hits, but I'd be willing to bet the percentage goes down substantially. There's a reason they teach proper tackling techniques.

Didnt realize I said it was the same thing, only that the NFL has so many rules it gotten ridicolous. I agree having a "bounty" is stupid. Mostly cuz perception is the Saints will then play dirty to collect the bounty. Id disagree with that. Most NFL defenders dream of a good, solid slobber-knocker on an opponent. I did when I played in HS, Im sure they are no different. It doesnt have to be dirty to play hard, aggressive football. Just that watching the Vikings D softens a fan I guess. I loved the way Williams' D played.

Schefter on NFL Live: "In week of the NFCCG, Jonathan Vilma put $10K on a table & said 'this goes to the guy that knocks out Brett Favre.'"

Evan Silva on Twitter

purple guy wrote:
Yup. The hit doesnt have to be a dirty hit to injure someone. I agree it isnt a good idea by the Saints, I realize that. But to me, I could not care less. As long as they were clean hits, and a player was injured, its a part of the game. IF one is going to use the Vikings vs the Saints playoff game as an example, then I have ABSOLUTELY no issues, they played aggressive, not dirty. Vikings fans didnt like it cuz the Vikings got whipped, bad. Having a "bounty" is obviously stupid, but I liked the way the Saints D played, physical and aggressive, a style the Vikings D has no idea on how to play.

Actually their aggressive D wasn't working out to their benefit that game...it was probably Chilly's greatest game he ever called, they we're being WAY over aggressive in hopes of injuring and we were doing what we wanted on O (which unfortunately involved fumbling, putting 12 men out, and INT)...I'm just glad they are going to lose a little luster

dead_poet wrote: You do recall it was the Vikings that whipped the Saints in nearly every statistical category in that game, right? And that they essentially beat themselves.
If the choices are dirty or conservative, I choose conservative. I like rooting for a team that has integrity and would never resort to such measures.

Except the one that matters of course, the score board, kind of an important one there.

I dont think the Saints played dirty at all. Not one dirty play, IMO. Had Allen or Winfield done the EXACT same plays that were supposedly "dirty" Vikings fans would just call Saints fans whiners. Im a fan of the Vikings, I didnt see one play by the Saints I thought was dirty, zero. So Im not wanting to pick between conservitive or dirty, Id prefer to chose between aggressive and lame. The Saints played aggressive, they still did this season under Williams. The Vikings D is lame. Id prefer the Saints, 100% of the time.

Viking Voodoo wrote: Actually their aggressive D wasn't working out to their benefit that game...it was probably Chilly's greatest game he ever called, they we're being WAY over aggressive in hopes of injuring and we were doing what we wanted on O (which unfortunately involved fumbling, putting 12 men out, and INT)...I'm just glad they are going to lose a little luster

I dunno, they won the game, flustered our QB enough to make a throw my 9yr old daughter wouldnt make, seemed pretty effective to me. The fumbles werent without cause???? Their play/win wont lose any luster to me, at all. They played hard and to the whistle, they played well enough to win, thats all a D can be asked to do IMO.

We all knew they were doing it at the time, and Williams even leaked it himself on a local radio show, but Saints fans always claimed it was a load of crap.

They were pure thugs back in 2009. Their players were targeting players' weak points (ankles, knees, old injuries) and trying to put them out of the game to give themselves an advantage. There's a big difference between hitting someone hard and unintentionally injuring them and literally taking nasty shots in order to intentionally injure a player. The league fines you for taking those sorts of shots, every league punishes players for taking those sorts of shots for a reason: they ruin the competitiveness and entertainment value of the game for the fans.

You do this kind of stuff in any other league, you get in BIG trouble. You do this in college, high school, you're fired and you won't be rehired at a major program anytime soon. If Williams only gets a slap on the hand, Goodell is a failure as Commish.