Saints Guilty of putting Bounties on Players

[AZ54]

Good point, but where do the players take responsibility for their actions?

 

Who is more wrong, the player who laid out the hit or the coach who looked the other way when their players are likely quite involved in making arrangements for an extra few bucks, which I might add they obviously sorely need, to put a bit hit on a fellow player?

 

Would you suggest that a coach get fired and allow the player to have a one-game suspension?

 

Ooops, I forgot, this is the age of no one taking responsibility for themselves and blaming authority for everything....never mind.

 

The people in the leadership position that were leading this activity are by definition more responsible. For the players to have their boss enforcing this program means they have to participate in order to, at a minimum, be in the coaches good graces. You reference that it isn't fair to take money from Williams but he put his played in a position where to take care of their families they had to participate in an illegal scheme designed to intentionally injure players on other teams. For players that are set in starters roles there is less pressure to engage in these activities but for guys looking up at their career if they don't want to participate or voice objections, then they could very well sit on the bench. Good luck getting your next contract.

 

If this was just a scheme run by players then that's one thing and those players should get punished. It all changes when it's the DC running the scheme and the HC is aware of it and condones it via his inaction over an extended time frame. In none of my posts have I ever said the players should be absolved of responsibility. From what I'm hearing today the league is going to come down very hard on this across the board, all the way from the top of the organization (losing draft picks), HC fined, and players also fined and possibly suspended.

 

Players around the league are coming out and talking about this. Bounties or rewards for big plays abound throughout the league. Yet many have said they've never had a coach actively encourage via financial bonuses to injure other players. OTOH I doubt Williams is alone in doing this.

[AZ54]

Good point, but where do the players take responsibility for their actions?

 

Who is more wrong, the player who laid out the hit or the coach who looked the other way when their players are likely quite involved in making arrangements for an extra few bucks, which I might add they obviously sorely need, to put a bit hit on a fellow player?

 

Would you suggest that a coach get fired and allow the player to have a one-game suspension?

 

Ooops, I forgot, this is the age of no one taking responsibility for themselves and blaming authority for everything....never mind.

 

 

Aside from your smart ass remarks towards me, which by the way had nothing to do with any comments I have made on this topic as I haven't addressed what I feel would be appropriate penalties for players involved. I have simply chosen to focus on the leadership being involved because I do believe that is a bigger problem. It does not mean there should be no accountability toward players who were running the scheme as well. You assume my position is based on blameless players when in fact I never stated that. If you truly think that players are more to blame than their boss who created the expectation they participate in this then I disagree. I simply place more value on leadership.

 

Nonetheless, since you are so sympathetic and against severely fining or penalizing the coaches because it takes away their ability to take care of their family then take the opportunity to explain how Williams' policy of intentionally injuring opponents did not impair those injured players' ability to take care of their family.

[Mongo3451]

Aside from your smart ass remarks towards me, which by the way had nothing to do with any comments I have made on this topic as I haven't addressed what I feel would be appropriate penalties for players involved. I have simply chosen to focus on the leadership being involved because I do believe that is a bigger problem. It does not mean there should be no accountability toward players who were running the scheme as well. You assume my position is based on blameless players when in fact I never stated that. If you truly think that players are more to blame than their boss who created the expectation they participate in this then I disagree. I simply place more value on leadership.

 

Nonetheless, since you are so sympathetic and against severely fining or penalizing the coaches because it takes away their ability to take care of their family then take the opportunity to explain how Williams' policy of intentionally injuring opponents did not impair those injured players' ability to take care of their family.

It all starts with leadership! Great posts. I got your back!

[jason]

It all starts with leadership! Great posts. I got your back!

 

It may start with leadership, but the players not have the ultimate say when it comes to following through?

 

Getting a bonus for a big, legal hit/play I don't have a problem with. It's against the CBA, but morally there is no problem in my mind. Ultimately it's the same as getting a sticker on your helmet in college.

 

Getting a bonus for a big, illegal hit/play I have a big problem with. It's rotten to the core, dangerous, against the concept of sportsmanship, but ultimately the decision of the player. Otherwise we can get into the discussion of why the Pittsburgh coaches haven't been fined/suspended for retraining their players on the art of tackling without using the helmet as a weapon. If the coaches are teaching a player to hit a certain way, and not correcting in-practice mistakes, is this not the same thing? Isn't the only difference a spoken word? As has already been mentioned, the financial incentives being offered are minimal enough that it's not about the money.

 

It's just like in the military; a person has the individual responsibility to follow moral orders and disobey immoral orders.

[Daventry]

Aside from your smart ass remarks towards me, which by the way had nothing to do with any comments I have made on this topic as I haven't addressed what I feel would be appropriate penalties for players involved. I have simply chosen to focus on the leadership being involved because I do believe that is a bigger problem. It does not mean there should be no accountability toward players who were running the scheme as well. You assume my position is based on blameless players when in fact I never stated that. If you truly think that players are more to blame than their boss who created the expectation they participate in this then I disagree. I simply place more value on leadership.

 

Nonetheless, since you are so sympathetic and against severely fining or penalizing the coaches because it takes away their ability to take care of their family then take the opportunity to explain how Williams' policy of intentionally injuring opponents did not impair those injured players' ability to take care of their family.

 

 

How to penalise those guilty of harming other players is a difficult question, but the first place I would be looking is the player.

 

And in relation to the coaches, how does one define exactly what they knew and to what extent they endorsed specific actions? Are they giving money for big hits or injuries?

 

Overall, I place more emphasis on personal responsibility. No matter what a leader says, the person is accountable. Not to say the leader has no responsibility, but certainly less than the actual person who committed the act.

 

If someone made a plan to kill someone and someone else carried it out, who would go to jail?

 

[madlithuanian]

You may need a better analogy.

 

What's going on with the Saints more closely resembles a group of guys that agree to steal. Let's use a military reference for ease... These guys are privates and corporals. Now, the staff sgt. knows of the plan. But instead of alerting the MP's or his Lt., he does nothing. In fact, his Lt. asks him if he knows anything...and he says no. Now the group of privates and corporals go and steal. Yes, the privates & corporals are guilty. But, by not doing anything to stop it and especially lying to the Lt., the sgt. is basically as guilty, if not more so. It is expected that someone in that position of power set a greater example.

 

 

 

If someone made a plan to kill someone and someone else carried it out, who would go to jail?

 

[jason]

You may need a better analogy.

 

What's going on with the Saints more closely resembles a group of guys that agree to steal. Let's use a military reference for ease... These guys are privates and corporals. Now, the staff sgt. knows of the plan. But instead of alerting the MP's or his Lt., he does nothing. In fact, his Lt. asks him if he knows anything...and he says no. Now the group of privates and corporals go and steal. Yes, the privates & corporals are guilty. But, by not doing anything to stop it and especially lying to the Lt., the sgt. is basically as guilty, if not more so. It is expected that someone in that position of power set a greater example.

 

We agree on nearly everything, but you're just plain wrong on this one. Check out, for instance, what happened at Abu Ghraib.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_to...tive_reprimands

 

BG Karpinski - Demoted.

COL Pappas - Fined.

LTC Jordan - Remprimanded.

SPC Graner - 10 years in prison (served 6.5).

SSG Frederick - 8 years in prison.

SPC Sivits - 1 year in prison.

SGT Davis - 6 months in prison.

 

The list goes on and on. Shit, most definitely, rolled downhill. Like it almost always does in the military. Those who were responsible for running a tighter ship were punished, but those who actually committed the actions were punished much more severely.

 

Same goes for the Saints players and their actions.

[madlithuanian]

I stand corrected. I was talking more in theory or as it should be. Sadly, it appears reality doesn't work that way.

 

But I think my basic point still holds up. Those in charge knew of the issues, boldly lied that they did not, and condoned the issues. I think we can agree that blame is to placed. To what extent, we can differ.

 

We agree on nearly everything, but you're just plain wrong on this one. Check out, for instance, what happened at Abu Ghraib.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_to...tive_reprimands

 

BG Karpinski - Demoted.

COL Pappas - Fined.

LTC Jordan - Remprimanded.

SPC Graner - 10 years in prison (served 6.5).

SSG Frederick - 8 years in prison.

SPC Sivits - 1 year in prison.

SGT Davis - 6 months in prison.

 

The list goes on and on. Shit, most definitely, rolled downhill. Like it almost always does in the military. Those who were responsible for running a tighter ship were punished, but those who actually committed the actions were punished much more severely.

 

Same goes for the Saints players and their actions.

 

[balta1701-A]

In case no one saw this:

His name is Michael Ornstein.

 

You may not know him, but he is an integral piece to the ‘bounty’ investigation that currently surrounds the Saints.

 

According to a report, on at least four occasions, Ornstein, a twice-convicted felon, pledged his own money to the Saints’ bounty fund. In 2009, he gave $10,000 toward knocking an opposing quarterback out of the game. In 2011, there were two separate contributions for targeting the quarterback. And on at least one other occasion, Ornstein pledged his money in an email to head coach Sean Payton, which spelled out the details of the bounty program.

 

The NFL now has a copy of this email. The report indicates this highly incriminating paper trail makes it almost impossible for Payton to argue his innocence, or for the Saints to claim the bounty never left the locker room.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

Wow, that link Balta provided can spell doom for the Saints. We all knew they were probably going to lose their 2nd round pick this year, and a 1st and 3rd next year + fines for Benson, Loomis, and Payton (plus a 1-3 game suspension for Payton), but this might mean Payton will be suspended all year, and Gregg Williams might be banned for life. Not only this, but their key defensive players who were involved might even get 1-3 games, like Vilma. Also, don't be surprised if Brees gets 1 or 2 games. He's like an assistant head coach there and if Payton knew about this, Brees probably did too.

 

On top of all of this, Brees is supposedly "livid" about the franchise tag.

 

The Saints become the Saints before 2006 that we all grew to know and beat 40-0 weekly.

[balta1701-A]

What you didn't note there is the unwritten part...if you've got a felon providing money to players...in some way, that almost certainly involves the gambling world.

[Mongo3451]

We agree on nearly everything, but you're just plain wrong on this one. Check out, for instance, what happened at Abu Ghraib.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_to...tive_reprimands

 

BG Karpinski - Demoted.

COL Pappas - Fined.

LTC Jordan - Remprimanded.

SPC Graner - 10 years in prison (served 6.5).

SSG Frederick - 8 years in prison.

SPC Sivits - 1 year in prison.

SGT Davis - 6 months in prison.

 

The list goes on and on. Shit, most definitely, rolled downhill. Like it almost always does in the military. Those who were responsible for running a tighter ship were punished, but those who actually committed the actions were punished much more severely.

 

Same goes for the Saints players and their actions.

"You want the truth!? You can't handle the truth!" The high ranking officials were not found guilty of the same charges as the others. Due process was served. Howbeit, people got hosed. The Nicholson quote above, however, does ring true. If you are proven guilty of orchestrating the code red, you will pay the higher price.

 

In the NFL, your moms' old saying, "if so an so jumped off a cliff, would you?", does not apply. We are talking about people deciding carreer choices for others. If I don't deliver the hit, coach WILL find someone who will. It's obvious to former players and coaches as well. The consensus is, the coaches are the most guilty, if indeed the stories are true.

[AZ54]

How to penalise those guilty of harming other players is a difficult question, but the first place I would be looking is the player.

 

And in relation to the coaches, how does one define exactly what they knew and to what extent they endorsed specific actions? Are they giving money for big hits or injuries?

 

Overall, I place more emphasis on personal responsibility. No matter what a leader says, the person is accountable. Not to say the leader has no responsibility, but certainly less than the actual person who committed the act.

 

If someone made a plan to kill someone and someone else carried it out, who would go to jail?

 

If you were correct in that its hard to define what exactly Gregg Willians knew of this then yes, I'd agree, you must be innocent until found guilty. However here's the problem Gregg Williams has...he kept records and so far it seems clear he administered the program.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcsouth/post?id=31925

 

This column says Williams didn’t invent the use of the bounty system, which almost certainly is true. But it says his big mistake was keeping such detailed records. No doubt about that. The NFL says it has 50,000 pages of evidence, including 18,000 emails.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

For those who put up the Abu Ghraib analogy, despite all the media's best efforts to portray it as such, there was never any proof that was an official policy administered by the officers in charge. The troops in charge of the detention facility were acting on their own, however, many were involved. The officers were guilty of negligence in failing to monitor the activities of those who reported to them.

In contrast it appears Gregg Williams was in charge of the bounty program and it seems clear he was running the show therefore it was an expectation of all who worked for him to participate. To follow on to your analogy if someone hires a person to kill someone else then who is more guilty? The usually go after the person who hired the assassin more aggressively although both get punished.

 

As a former officer I can tell I know we can go to jail for implementing illegal activities such as what happened at Abu Ghraib. Since so many believe officers get off lightly I can state for a fact a coworker mine who failed a drug test spent a year in Ft. Leavenworth. No enlisted personnel on my base ever had a similar penalty for the same offense.

[adam]

[madlithuanian]

Thanks for sharing that info. I wasn't fully aware of the details. And am glad you shared some of your knowledge w/ the rest of us.

 

If you were correct in that its hard to define what exactly Gregg Willians knew of this then yes, I'd agree, you must be innocent until found guilty. However here's the problem Gregg Williams has...he kept records and so far it seems clear he administered the program.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcsouth/post?id=31925

 

This column says Williams didn’t invent the use of the bounty system, which almost certainly is true. But it says his big mistake was keeping such detailed records. No doubt about that. The NFL says it has 50,000 pages of evidence, including 18,000 emails.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

For those who put up the Abu Ghraib analogy, despite all the media's best efforts to portray it as such, there was never any proof that was an official policy administered by the officers in charge. The troops in charge of the detention facility were acting on their own, however, many were involved. The officers were guilty of negligence in failing to monitor the activities of those who reported to them.

In contrast it appears Gregg Williams was in charge of the bounty program and it seems clear he was running the show therefore it was an expectation of all who worked for him to participate. To follow on to your analogy if someone hires a person to kill someone else then who is more guilty? The usually go after the person who hired the assassin more aggressively although both get punished.

 

As a former officer I can tell I know we can go to jail for implementing illegal activities such as what happened at Abu Ghraib. Since so many believe officers get off lightly I can state for a fact a coworker mine who failed a drug test spent a year in Ft. Leavenworth. No enlisted personnel on my base ever had a similar penalty for the same offense.

 

[jason]

If you were correct in that its hard to define what exactly Gregg Willians knew of this then yes, I'd agree, you must be innocent until found guilty. However here's the problem Gregg Williams has...he kept records and so far it seems clear he administered the program.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcsouth/post?id=31925

 

This column says Williams didn’t invent the use of the bounty system, which almost certainly is true. But it says his big mistake was keeping such detailed records. No doubt about that. The NFL says it has 50,000 pages of evidence, including 18,000 emails.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

For those who put up the Abu Ghraib analogy, despite all the media's best efforts to portray it as such, there was never any proof that was an official policy administered by the officers in charge. The troops in charge of the detention facility were acting on their own, however, many were involved. The officers were guilty of negligence in failing to monitor the activities of those who reported to them.

In contrast it appears Gregg Williams was in charge of the bounty program and it seems clear he was running the show therefore it was an expectation of all who worked for him to participate. To follow on to your analogy if someone hires a person to kill someone else then who is more guilty? The usually go after the person who hired the assassin more aggressively although both get punished.

 

As a former officer I can tell I know we can go to jail for implementing illegal activities such as what happened at Abu Ghraib. Since so many believe officers get off lightly I can state for a fact a coworker mine who failed a drug test spent a year in Ft. Leavenworth. No enlisted personnel on my base ever had a similar penalty for the same offense.

 

Interesting anecdote at the end there. I can tell you from my experience on the other end of the rank spectrum, I saw higher ranks often get off with less punishment or chastisement (or a bad eval) and lower ranks made example (UCMJ) of because as many saw it, harsher punishment on the higher ranks effectively ended their career. Where the lower ranked individuals could easily climb back up to their former rank. This was at numerous locations with numerous units. As for Abu Ghraib, I put up the analogy because military was mentioned. And without this getting into a weapons-grade pissing match or ID card battle, I think the fact that the officers got off with a slap on the wrist and a legal shell game of blame between Pappas, Wood, and Jordan proves my point and disproves the opposite. The fact that you say "can go to jail" and that none of the officers actually did go to jail says a lot.

 

In regards to the Saints, Sean Payton is the COL, Gregg Williams is the LTC, and the players are the enlisted ranks. The primary difference of course is that a military officer has a lot more control over their troops, and an NFL player is still a millionaire who can unequivocally disobey his coaches immoral orders without nearly the repurcussions that would be felt by a soldier with similar actions. Is everyone involved with each of the situations wrong? Absolutely. But it still takes physical effort by the person committing the act.