Alleged Bounty Discussion

[AsylumGuido]

Here is what I posted in another thread:

The league dropped any pretense that the Saints ever had anything more than your run-of-the-mill pay for performance pool if you were aware of the facts.

That's crazy talk. Unless I missed something, I have never seen anything from the NFL saying that it was normal and that the whole bounty-gate was a mistake - because that's what you're implying. I have no dog in this fight, really. Just wanted to point out that you think Vilma, Payton, Williams and Vitt were suspended/banned for things that are common place, or "run-of-the-mill," in the NFL. I'm not saying it hasn't or doesn't happen elsewhere, but it was obviously a serious enough issue to have an example made out of the franchise.

Can you please share some "facts" that can help us understand that a pay-to-injure program is/was common place or that the league acknowledged it might not have been as bad as they expected?

As far as the signing goes, reminds me a lot of the Winfield signing last year with us. However, he's too old to really make an impact now. He's going to get shredded by quick guys in the slot, so I guess he'll just play zone/safety in the nickel? He can mentor some young guys, but I hope the Saints got him on the cheap.

Yes, you did miss something. After the initial proclamations and suspensions levied by Goodell based on some sort of elaborate "bounty" system, it turned out most of what had been counted upon as proof fell by the wayside. The league, other than Goodell himself, started referring to it as exactly what it was, a performance pool. Former commissioner Paul Tagliabue lambasted Goodell's handling of the affair and overturned all of the player suspensions. Unfortunately, Payton, Vitt and Williams, being without the support of a union, had no means for the same sort of independent arbitration and were forced to serve the bogus suspensions and keep their mouths shut.

The Saints were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Former players from all over the league admitted they had the exact same pools in their locker rooms. Goodell wanted to produce a show with the fast approaching concussion suit about to hit the fan.

Saints players have openly admitted they had a pool going on, but vehemently deny that there was ever any tie to injuries. The vast majority of the awards were for things like turnovers, sacks or tackles for losses. Hard hits were awarded, as there were in every team's pools. In fact, they all stressed that the only time a player could qualify for an award would be if 1) the Saints won the game, 2) there was no penalty on the play, 3) the play was not deemed illegal after the fact by the league, and 4) the play did not result in an injury.

You see, it turned out that the entirety of the "evidence" that prompted Goodell's initial decision was handed to him by one individual. Mike Cerullo. Cerullo was a defensive quality control coach during the 2009 season that was fired following the season for lying to management on multiple occasions to get leave from work. His "evidence" included a couple of handwritten "vouchers" with listed awards that could not be associated with any game played during that time. He later admitted that wasn't sure what they even meant and supposedly they were in his own handwriting!

Of course the league doesn't flaunt this. They quickly swept the whole ordeal under the rug. If you get a chance, you can read the lawsuit filed by Vilma which spells much of this out. But, that too has ended up for the most part "under the same rug."

Posted by "Cartire"

Pretty sure he got his 21 back a long time ago

I seriously doubt that. No NFL club is going to gamble with a salary cap violation. The league looks closely when dealing with fine payments. It has to come directly from the player and cannot be reimbursed by any third party.

Lol it was a bounty joke, Asylum

Considering there were never any bounties, it was a pretty weak attempt.

:roll:

You do realize there is still an actual recording of Gregg Williams right? The suspensions were overturned because there was never any proof that the players charged ACTUALLY participated. But the actual conversation was proven.

 

[AsylumGuido]

You do realize there is still an actual recording of Gregg Williams right? The suspensions were overturned because there was never any proof that the players charged ACTUALLY participated. But the actual conversation was proven.

Yes, not only am I aware of the tape, but I have heard it numerous times and have read the full transcript. Nowhere in that tape does it say anything about bounties.

What you need to understand about that tape is that is simply the way Gregg Williams talked. He dealt in hyperbole and emotion. I have heard a few of the players say that none of them ever took what he was saying literally. It had nothing whatsoever to do with any supposed bounties.

 

[mikeak]

Performance pools are not allowed, you can't even take someone out for steak dinner. Hard hits being part of the system leads to misuse - the coaches not only allowed but they managed the system.

The players should have received suspensions for activie participation in something they knew was not allowed and the coaches got appropriate punishment

Go back and look at the Minnesota game and all the late hit Favre took. Take off the rosecolored homer glasses and then tell me that was not one of the dirtiest performances by any team you have seen the past 10 years. I don't care what was proven - the way that the Saints played took part in the decision to punish them

 

[AsylumGuido]

Performance pools are not allowed, you can't even take someone out for steak dinner. Hard hits being part of the system leads to misuse - the coaches not only allowed but they managed the system.

The players should have received suspensions for activie participation in something they knew was not allowed and the coaches got appropriate punishment

Go back and look at the Minnesota game and all the late hit Favre took. Take off the rosecolored homer glasses and then tell me that was not one of the dirtiest performances by any team you have seen the past 10 years. I don't care what was proven - the way that the Saints played took part in the decision to punish them

Thank you. You stated exactly what the league eventually started calling it. It was your run of the mill performance pool that existed in virtually every locker room. Was it against the rules? By all means! Was it bounties placed on specific players targeted for intentional injury as Roger Goodell initially claimed? No it was not.

Yes, Favre was hit hard that game and more than one hit was at least close to being late, but it has always been the job of the defense to pound the offense. Kam Chancellor punishes opponents on a weekly basis and some are forced to leave the game. There is nothing wrong with that. It is part of the game. But, does that mean there are bounties involved? Of course not.

 

[mikeak]

Kam hits legal hard hits

"close to late" that is funny

Performance pool was proved doesn't mean there wasn't a bounty pool - but I get your point, but don't make it out to be that they weren't caught proven to do something that is not allowed. You can say that it happens in every locker room but not at the scale that the Saints were doing it and they got caught and paid the penalties. While on the coaching side it was very heavy the players got off way light

 

[AsylumGuido]

Kam hits legal hard hits

"close to late" that is funny

Performance pool was proved doesn't mean there wasn't a bounty pool - but I get your point, but don't make it out to be that they weren't caught proven to do something that is not allowed. You can say that it happens in every locker room but not at the scale that the Saints were doing it and they got caught and paid the penalties. While on the coaching side it was very heavy the players got off way light

Nobody ever claimed they weren't doing something against the rules. The players all readily admitted that. But, they all vehemently denied ever trying to injure anyone and totally denied the existence of bounties. More than a dozen of the players and coaches even testified to this fact under oath in US District Court.

Oh, and yes, one was clearly late and drew the flag, but a couple of others were perfectly timed. You cannot tell me that a Seahawk player wouldn't love to light up Drew Brees and if he did that the Seattle sideline wouldn't explode.

But, it all comes back around to this. There were never any bounties. Because of Goodell's mishandling of the whole situation the Saints and their players have been unjustly mislabeled. The vast majority of people have no idea what all transpired in the many months following Goodell's initial public declaration.

Oh, and if you look above in the opening post you'll see where no player qualified for any of the pool if the play was not a "hard legal hit", just like Kam's.

 

[mikeak]

^ Not proven does not mean it didn't happen

I agree with you to the extent that there was never enough proof to confirm a bounty system

I am not going to say that there wasn't any bounties.........

 

[AsylumGuido]

^ Not proven does not mean it didn't happen

I agree with you to the extent that there was never enough proof to confirm a bounty system

I am not going to say that there wasn't any bounties.........

Nor does it mean that there were. I tend to believe a dozen men who swore under oath in a US court under the penalty of perjury over the word of one man who was fired for lying on multiple occasions and never once was allowed to testify under oath or cross-examination. Does that seem fair?

There is a reason why in this country people are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Too bad it doesn't work the same way in the NFL or the media.

 

[mikeak]

^ In general I agree with you

BUT

10 years ago I sat in a bar with my cousin and got into a heated argument about Lance Armstrong. I had followed cycling closely during the early 90's and had seen him before most people knew who he was. I saw him get demolished in the Alps at a point where he had recently won a world championship.

Then a few years later I saw him crush the opponents in those mountains and I knew he had cheated. I knew that nobody made that kind of change on their own it was simply impossible. So while I never expected society to judge him without evidence I retained my personal right to be convinced that he was guilty. My cousin disagreed as there was no evidence.

In the long run I came out right

So as it relates to the Saints - I agree with you they should not be guilty in the eyes of everyone based on the evidence that was presented. In my eyes and in my opinion I have seen them play enough ugly football to believe that there was something there and I have the right to judge the organization for what I have seen but I don't expect the system to penalize them.....

Makes sense? Overall on the same page? And I am not saying I want them to get more penalties. I think it would have been fair to give the coaches less of a penalty but the players 4 games each. The NFL ended up being harsher on coaches and letting players off the hook so overall it came out fair for the organization based on the evidence presented

 

[AsylumGuido]

^ In general I agree with you

BUT

10 years ago I sat in a bar with my cousin and got into a heated argument about Lance Armstrong. I had followed cycling closely during the early 90's and had seen him before most people knew who he was. I saw him get demolished in the Alps at a point where he had recently won a world championship.

Then a few years later I saw him crush the opponents in those mountains and I knew he had cheated. I knew that nobody made that kind of change on their own it was simply impossible. So while I never expected society to judge him without evidence I retained my personal right to be convinced that he was guilty. My cousin disagreed as there was no evidence.

In the long run I came out right

So as it relates to the Saints - I agree with you they should not be guilty in the eyes of everyone based on the evidence that was presented. In my eyes and in my opinion I have seen them play enough ugly football to believe that there was something there and I have the right to judge the organization for what I have seen but I don't expect the system to penalize them.....

Makes sense? Overall on the same page? And I am not saying I want them to get more penalties. I think it would have been fair to give the coaches less of a penalty but the players 4 games each. The NFL ended up being harsher on coaches and letting players off the hook so overall it came out fair for the organization based on the evidence presented

When exactly have you seen "ugly" play that would tend to make you believe that a bounty could have existed?

In 2009, the year that Cerullo, the accuser, was with the Saints these were the defensive penalty numbers for those acts which might be labeled as "ugly":

Roughing the passer - 6 - 3rd ranking (Bucs 1st with 8 )
Personal fouls - 0 - tied for last ranking
Unnecessary roughness - 7 - 20th (Rams 1st with 15)

Does that look like an "ugly" team to you? Heck, Seattle had more than that in 2009 with 2, 1 and 13 in the same categories. If a team actually had bounties out there wouldn't you expect them to be among the leaders in the league for defensive penalties?

Source

 

[Recon_Hawk]

I'll jump into the discussion. I'll try to keep an open mind. I'm open to the possibility I might be using old information in my research, here, so correct me if I'm wrong.

There's are a couple things that stand out in terms of coaches and players participating in a pay-for-performance or BountyGate. Some of these are direct quotes from articles:

1. The pre-game tape from GW does not sound good. You can say he speaks in hyperbole and emotion and that players didn't take him serious, but...

2. Former players of Greg Williams DID take him serious and got paid as a result of a "similar system while serving as the Redskins' defensive coordinator." You could say GW changed his ways while with the Saints link, but...

3. According to the New York Times, Anthony Hargrove, "submitted a signed admission of knowing about and participating in the Saints’ bounty program" Link - Is that information wrong?

4. "The PowerPoint slide collected from a sweep of the Saints' computer system, from the night before the Saints' playoff loss at Seattle in January 2011, complete with a picture of TV bounty hunter Duane "Dog'' Chapman, that said, "Now is the time to do our job ... collect bounty $$$! No apologies! Let's go hunting!'' Link - So the words Bounty money were brought up, even if it was in a comical manner.

5. "The ledger sheet from an October 2009 game that showed safety Roman Harper due $1,000 for a "cart-off'' of Giants running back Brandon Jacobs in the second quarter, forcing Jacobs to leave the field for several plays." - Same link as #4 -

It all seems to suggest where there's smoke there's fire.

really, I've got no problem in NFL players trying to hit someone so hard they are hurt for a month! But it's the money incentive to knock players out of games, or "cart-off", and it's the direct targeting of a player's specific injury that I don't want to see in the game, which Williams' tape suggests he is having his players doing.

 

[SouthSoundHawk]

Lol. I get that the off season is long...but damn.

Does anyone really care about what happened in 2010? Really?

 

[AsylumGuido]

I'll jump into the discussion. I'll try to keep an open mind. I'm open to the possibility I might be using old information in my research, here, so correct me if I'm wrong.

There's are a couple things that stand out in terms of coaches and players participating in a pay-for-performance or BountyGate. Some of these are direct quotes from articles:

1. The pre-game tape from GW does not sound good. You can say he speaks in hyperbole and emotion and that players didn't take him serious, but...

Yes, the tape does not sound good. Much of what goes on in those meetings don't sound good. But it still does not mean there were bounties in place.

2. Former players of Greg Williams DID take him serious and got paid as a result of a "similar system while serving as the Redskins' defensive coordinator." You could say GW changed his ways while with the Saints link, but...

Go back through and read that article closely. The Washington players said they had a performance pool that included payments for hits that hurt an opponent and caused him to leave the game. None of their quotes mentioned bounties and targeting players for injury. This is consistent with what the Saints were doing. Every mention of the word "bounty" or "injure" was by the writer and never part of a quote from a player. Defensive players on every team are always trying to "hurt" their opponent. A good hard legal hit that knocked a player off his feet was known as a "knockout" by the players. A good legal hit that caused a player to miss at least one play was known as a "cart-off". Any play that resulted in an injury was not eligible for an award. Any play that received a flag was not eligible. Any play that was later deemed illegal by the league was not eligible. And any play that occurred in a game lost by the Saints was not eligible.

3. According to the New York Times, Anthony Hargrove, "submitted a signed admission of knowing about and participating in the Saints’ bounty program" Link - Is that information wrong?

Actually, it is. Click here for the actual declaration by Hargrove. No where does it say anything about "knowing about and participating in the Saints’ bounty program". In fact, after the article you posted came out here was his reply, ”Call me naive, but I did not expect them to publicize the fact that I had sent them ‘the Declaration.’ But since they did, and because they grossly mischaracterized my words, it obviously became a hot item and subsequently was leaked by someone,” Hargrove’s statement said.

4. "The PowerPoint slide collected from a sweep of the Saints' computer system, from the night before the Saints' playoff loss at Seattle in January 2011, complete with a picture of TV bounty hunter Duane "Dog'' Chapman, that said, "Now is the time to do our job ... collect bounty $$$! No apologies! Let's go hunting!'' Link - So the words Bounty money were brought up, even if it was in a comical manner.

The Duane "Dog'' Chapman show was popular at the time and was just more hyperbole in a slideshow used to emphasize stopping key players.

5. "The ledger sheet from an October 2009 game that showed safety Roman Harper due $1,000 for a "cart-off'' of Giants running back Brandon Jacobs in the second quarter, forcing Jacobs to leave the field for several plays." - Same link as #4 -

Yes, that is correct. That was a piece of the "evidence" provided by Mike Cerullo. Brandon Jacobs was hurt in that game, but got off and walked off the field under his own power. The fact that it was Darren Sharper and Remi Ayodele that were credited with the tackle really warranted nothing for Harper even if it did exist. Another voucher supposedly "detailing payments made for additional “cart-offs” against the Buffalo Bills. When it was discovered that of the four Buffalo Bills injured during that 2009 contest, three were defensive players, the story was amended to say that those injuries, and thus those “cart-offs,” occurred during a Carolina game later that season." The story debunking these so-called vouchers can be found here. Later, Cerullo admitted he didn't know what the vouchers were about, yet he had supposedly had them until he presented them to Goodell in December 2011.

It all seems to suggest where there's smoke there's fire.

Or, as I mentioned elsewhere, sometimes there is smoke when someone wants you to believe there is a fire.

really, I've got no problem in NFL players trying to hit someone so hard they are hurt for a month! But it's the money incentive to knock players out of games, or "cart-off", and it's the direct targeting of a player's specific injury that I don't want to see in the game, which Williams' tape suggests he is having his players doing.

I agree with this, as I am sure all players do, as well.

 

[OffseasonChampions]

Oh look a Saints fan still in denial and insecure like I said.

 

[AsylumGuido]

Oh look a Saints fan still in denial and insecure like I said.

Nice to see you back. You're pretty entertaining. I am looking forward to many pleasant conversations with you here in the NFL Nation folder.

Speaking of "Offseason", how are your 49er's looking so far?

 

[chrispy]

So this argument is all language....

It seems like everyone agrees that there was a payoff when a legal hit resulted in an opponent being carted off the field. If that player wasn't officially "injured" (however you define that) the payoff was made. I'm understanding that there is currently no proof that a play that resulted in an official injury was financially rewarded. So in some people's minds, that's not a "bounty program" and in others' it is.

It sits wrong with me that a defensive player gets a financial reward for knocking an opponent out of a game. That seems wrong to me. It may happen all the time. I may be naive. I very well could be pollyannish and too girly. But I have no problem with the sanctions, even if that's all that was going on. If it happens in other locker rooms, including the Hawks, there should be more sanctions. - my opinion.

If you're paid a salary to hit hard, do it. There's no benefit to the game when a player is laying unconscious in the field. To reward that outcome isn't OK with me. That's not in reference to just the Saints. I like the Saints. But if they, the Hawks, or any other team functions this way, I hope Goodell burns them.

 

[253hawk]

All I take from this is that this is considered legal and that Kam Chancellor should be able to do it all day long without getting fined.

 

[OffseasonChampions]

Oh look a Saints fan still in denial and insecure like I said.

Nice to see you back. You're pretty entertaining. I am looking forward to many pleasant conversations with you here in the NFL Nation folder.

Speaking of "Offseason", how are your 49er's looking so far?

Not a 49ers fan

 

[-The Glove-]

Oh look a Saints fan still in denial and insecure like I said.

Nice to see you back. You're pretty entertaining. I am looking forward to many pleasant conversations with you here in the NFL Nation folder.

Speaking of "Offseason", how are your 49er's looking so far?

Not a 49ers fan.

You might as well register for the Webzone

 

[hawk45]

Guido, much respect, yes the powerpoint slides were comical but the tortured explanation that cart-offs were somehow not meant to actually imply injury...those slides linked money with terms that implied injury. Essentially your argument is well yes but that was hyperbole.

If that's so then the Saints are guilty of stupidity and bad luck, but I can't fault the league for employing the obvious interpretation and can't really buy the Saints as victimized by the league. If they didn't use that tainted language and link it to money *themselves* there would have been no problem.