Saints accused of "Bounty Program". Thoughts?

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Wanger

I have to agree with Subvet on this one. I love to see a hard hit just as much as anyone, but when you're paying guys to take out Player X, Y, or Z, that's just not right, IMO. And before you jump into it, yes, I've played the game. I never went out on the field with the intent to injure someone.

I'm sure that there are other teams that have done this, too. But it just doesn't have a place in the game, IMO. Hit them hard, bruise them up, and make them think about getting hit and change the decisions they're going to make to what you want them to do. Bounty's tell me that you don't think you can beat the other team fairly, without trying to injure the players on the other team. That's what this is about. It's not about hitting someone hard. It's about the intent to cause a physical injury and end their game (and potentially season/career, if they get hurt badly enough).

One of the things I've heard in listening to some sports talk about this is that the NFL is behind the 8ball here. They are being sued by former (and current) players for failing to protect them enough. Goodell really has no choice but to drop the hammer on Williams/et al. A slap on the wrist will not be enough, and would only add fuel to the pending lawsuits. Not only that, they warned them when they investigated previously to NOT do it (at least as far as I know).

Playing within the rules of the game, you're just as likely to injure someone on a vicious hit, intent or no, wouldn't you agree? That's why this is politics run amuck and nothing more. People are getting caught up with, "intent" and not, "applicability."

Originally Posted by Stephen

Playing within the rules of the game, you're just as likely to injure someone on a vicious hit, intent or no, wouldn't you agree? That's why this is politics run amuck and nothing more. People are getting caught up with, "intent" and not, "applicability."

I will say yes and no to that one. A vicious, clean body shot is different that a targeted shot to a knee or ankle (or other body part, for that matter) or a head shot. If a guy has it in his mind that he wants to collect a bounty, then the shots he takes are going to be targeted differently, IMO. It's not as likely to be the "clean", textbook way that you are supposed to be tackling. It's going to be a shoulder or forearm to the leg. It's going to be a blindside hit that's borderline in legality. Now the result of this targeting may end up with more missed tackles.

I don't personally view it as politics run amok. I guess I'm just one of those that would rather the game be played clean, without the intent to injure. Yes, I used "intent" again. Hit them hard and clean and help them back up. There's a lot of money at stake for everyone on the field. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to end someone's career with something like that.

I will say that it would help the argument to whether it made a difference if we knew what players were targeted and if bountys were actually paid out. Even though I am a Vikings fan, it sure seemed like they got away with a lot of questionable hits on the old man in that title game. But we still had a chance to win, and blew it. The coach made a typical bungling move (12 men in the huddle), and called a pass play that ended up with the old man doing what he did best...end games with a critical interception.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Wanger

I will say yes and no to that one. A vicious, clean body shot is different that a targeted shot to a knee or ankle (or other body part, for that matter) or a head shot. If a guy has it in his mind that he wants to collect a bounty, then the shots he takes are going to be targeted differently, IMO. It's not as likely to be the "clean", textbook way that you are supposed to be tackling. It's going to be a shoulder or forearm to the leg. It's going to be a blindside hit that's borderline in legality. Now the result of this targeting may end up with more missed tackles.

I'd agree with most of this. The parts that I don't aren't pertinent to the current discussion.

Originally Posted by Wanger

I don't personally view it as politics run amok. I guess I'm just one of those that would rather the game be played clean, without the intent to injure. Yes, I used "intent" again. Hit them hard and clean and help them back up. There's a lot of money at stake for everyone on the field. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to end someone's career with something like that.

It'd be interesting to see how many (if any) players suffered a season or career ending injury while playing the Saints during Greg Williams tenure. And from those, how many could be attested to a, "questionable" hit/tackle.

Originally Posted by Wanger

I will say that it would help the argument to whether it made a difference if we knew what players were targeted and if bountys were actually paid out. Even though I am a Vikings fan, it sure seemed like they got away with a lot of questionable hits on the old man in that title game. But we still had a chance to win, and blew it. The coach made a typical bungling move (12 men in the huddle), and called a pass play that ended up with the old man doing what he did best...end games with a critical interception.

Yep. I mentioned Favre earlier. He was so banged up that night he could only send pictures of his legs and not his junk.