Saints Player Suspensions Announced

[NCRAVEN]

I'm pretty sure that I said Gregg Williams is not the topic of discussion. I used that link to show that his speech was not too far away from the norm, and as such, supply credence to my point that Jonathon Vilma is not Gregg Williams and should be judged by his own actions and not Gregg Williams actions. You bringing Gregg Williams into the conversation implies that Vilma heard some sort of unbelievably out there speech and should have become aware of how out of control Williams was.

Now, contrary to the opinions of some, I'm leaving work now. I will gladly take this up tomorrow. n

Gregg Williams led the bounty program that Vilma participated in and put down 10k of his own money. You conveniently don't want Williams to be part of this (since it CLEARLY hurts your flawed argument) but he is a major player as are the players who took part.

[blacknpurplepain]

Every team is trying to purposefully 'hurt' a player. You don't think Suggs is trying to 'hurt' Big Ben or Brady?

No because if he was the only thing he would have to do is take a shot at his knees. If I am correct Suggs has the most hits on Ben as far as the Ravens goes and they are legal. As far as your sticker example you're in incorrect, players get stickers for performance not illegal hits. By your logic a FS would get a sticker if he gave up the winning touchdown but in the process of getting beat there is helmet to helmet contact which the player has to be carted off.. You're getting clean hard hitting confused with illegal hits especially targeting another players previous injury. I am sorry you're not understanding what everyone is trying to explain to you.

[festivus]

I'm pretty sure that I said Gregg Williams is not the topic of discussion. I used that link to show that his speech was not too far away from the norm, and as such, supply credence to my point that Jonathon Vilma is not Gregg Williams and should be judged by his own actions and not Gregg Williams actions. You bringing Gregg Williams into the conversation implies that Vilma heard some sort of unbelievably out there speech and should have become aware of how out of control Williams was.

Now, contrary to the opinions of some, I'm leaving work now. I will gladly take this up tomorrow. n

That argument is ridiculous. The article does not say the speech "was not too far away from the norm," it specifically says the speech was "overboard" when it went into discussing specific players and injuries and that's *precisely* what Vilma was suspended for participating in. Your article does not support your argument.

I suppose I'll take you at you're word that you aren't some arrogant kid, which means you and I are both better off if I put you back on ignore.

[arnie_uk]

blah, so what do you propose should have been vilmas punishment for putting down 10k to anyone who injured Warner (or favre i cant remember which)? they have video evidence off this... so whats the punishment? or is that allowed?

[Mista T]

My only complaints about today's announcement are:

- Vilma should have been banned for life

- the other 25 or so Saints players who were involved to a lesser extent should all have at least a wrist slap, or declared to be fully exonerated.

[Haloti92]

The issue is: Is it okay to try to knock a guy out of the game with a really hard but legal hit? If the answer is yes (and I think it is, or at least up until now has been the accepted answer), then I think Vilma's penalty is way overboard.

Of course, I may have missed some testimony or evidence where Vilma mentioned someone's knees or condoned illegal hits; if so, then I think his penalty is justified (at least in terms of trying to make an example out of this ordeal to prevent it from ever happening again).

[festivus]

The issue is: Is it okay to try to knock a guy out of the game with a really hard but legal hit? If the answer is yes (and I think it is, or at least up until now has been the accepted answer), then I think Wilma's penalty is way overboard.

Of course, I may have missed some testimony or evidence where Wilma mentioned someone's knees or condoned illegal hits; if so, then I think his penalty is justified (at least in terms of trying to make an example out of this ordeal to prevent it from ever happening again).

Yeah, well, if you think that's the issue (and that's the guy's name) I can see how you can arrive at that conclusion. Like blah3, you can change the facts to match the narrative.

What is it with this thread?

/done with it

[Haloti92]

Yeah, well, if you think that's the issue (and that's the guy's name) I can see how you can arrive at that conclusion. Like blah3, you can change the facts to match the narrative.

What is it with this thread?

/done with it

Of course it is the main issue regarding Vilma. How about you answer the question. Is it acceptable to attempt to knock a guy out with a legal hit? Yes or no?

And how does mistyping his name mean what I said is less important? Or were you being cute?

What "facts" am I changing by asking that question?

What is it with this thread, indeed? Some people get a little too sensitive when it comes to differing opinions/points. That is for sure.

[HoustonRaven]

The issue is: Is it okay to try to knock a guy out of the game with a really hard but legal hit? If the answer is yes (and I think it is, or at least up until now has been the accepted answer), then I think Vilma's penalty is way overboard.

Of course, I may have missed some testimony or evidence where Vilma mentioned someone's knees or condoned illegal hits; if so, then I think his penalty is justified (at least in terms of trying to make an example out of this ordeal to prevent it from ever happening again).

Except that's not why they were suspended.

They were suspended for colluding to injure players, created a player pool, was told to stop by the league, lied about stopping and got caught.

[Haloti92]

Except that's not why they were suspended.

They were suspended for colluding to injure players, created a player pool, was told to stop by the league, lied about stopping and got caught.

I am talking about the player, not the coaches.

I am aware the pool is against the rules. I would say that if the pool awarded $10k for touchdowns (also against the rules) there is no way the player gets a year suspension. Which leaves your first claim, which is the one in doubt. And which is why my question is important.

Is it acceptable to try to knock a player out of the game with a legal hit? Yes or no?

[HoustonRaven]

I am talking about the player, not the coaches.

I am aware the pool is against the rules. I would say that if the pool awarded $10k for touchdowns (laos against the rules) there is no way the player gets a year suspension. Which leaves your first claim, which is the one in doubt. And which is why my question is important.

You're manufacturing why the players were suspended. The players were suspended for everything I mentioned above:

“In assessing player discipline,” Commissioner Goodell said, “I focused on players who were in leadership positions at the Saints; contributed a particularly large sum of money toward the program; specifically contributed to a bounty on an opposing player; demonstrated a clear intent to participate in a program that potentially injured opposing players; sought rewards for doing so; and/or obstructed the 2010 investigation.”

Goodell would go on to say in that same statement that each of the players suspended met at least one of those four criteria.

Is it acceptable to try to knock a player out of the game with a legal hit? Yes or no?

In of itself, I'd say yes, although you'd most likely run afoul of the new rules regarding player safety and concussion awareness. Except that's not what they were doing.

[Haloti92]

You're manufacturing why the players were suspended. The players were suspended for everything I mentioned above:

“In assessing player discipline,” Commissioner Goodell said, “I focused on players who were in leadership positions at the Saints; contributed a particularly large sum of money toward the program; specifically contributed to a bounty on an opposing player; demonstrated a clear intent to participate in a program that potentially injured opposing players; sought rewards for doing so; and/or obstructed the 2010 investigation.”



In of itself, I'd say yes, although you'd most likely run afoul of the new rules regarding player safety and concussion awareness. Except that's not what they were doing.

Only the bolded point is remotely possible to warrant a year suspension in my view, and I have yet to hear any evidence about Vilma engaging in a cover-up. But if he did then I guess the suspension should be serious; I still think 1 year is too much, then again I don't know what he did (in terms of obstructing).

Being a leader on the team, having a pool, and contributing an arbitrarily defined "large amount" are all extremely minor things considering they all would apply to a pool for touchdowns and interceptions, etc.

As for what "they" were doing, who is the "they" you are talking about? I am fully on board with Payton and Williams suspensions because they were in charge, and they received the league warning. As for Vilma, I have yet to see any claim that he did anything other than offer money for legally knocking a guy out of the game. If he condoned illegal hits and/or obstructed the investigation then I would have less of a problem with the 1-year penalty.

[HoustonRaven]

The evidence was signed off on by a former United States Attorney, who conducted an independent review and gave her thumbs up.

That, and Williams already confessed.

[Haloti92]

The evidence was signed off on by a former United States Attorney, who conducted an independent review and gave her thumbs up.

That, and Williams already confessed.

We are talking about Vilma, not Williams, at least I am. I already mentioned Williams deserves what he got.

[HoustonRaven]

We are talking about Vilma, not Williams, at least I am. I already mentioned Williams deserves what he got.

So am I.

The United States Attorney signed off on the entire investigation -- coaches AND players.

[wickedsolo]

This thread just goes around and around in circles.

[HoustonRaven]

This thread just goes around and around in circles.

[Haloti92]

So am I.

The United States Attorney signed off on the entire investigation -- coaches AND players.

What exactly does that ("signing off") mean?

And from what I have seen, Vilma wasn't the one accused of covering up, Hargrove was.

[HoustonRaven]

And by the way, the NFLPA was offered to view the evidence to which they refused.

So this whole "lets see the evidence" is bunk. If they cared that much, they would have at least took a look at what the league found out. Instead, they refused so they can posture themselves into a "the coach told me to do it" / "he said, she said" type of denial.

[festivus]

Of course it is the main issue regarding Vilma. How about you answer the question. Is it acceptable to attempt to knock a guy out with a legal hit? Yes or no?

And how does mistyping his name mean what I said is less important? Or were you being cute?

What "facts" am I changing by asking that question?

What is it with this thread, indeed? Some people get a little too sensitive when it comes to differing opinions/points. That is for sure.

Dial back the sarcasm. You are the one who didn't read the thread or think about the issue before you posted, so pump the brakes a little, ok?

And "mistyping" is the C and V, or the E and the R. You don't "mistype" Vilma to Wilma, you screwed up the guy's name. Own it, move on.

Here is how I explained it a couple of pages back to blah3.

In the context of criminal law, a conspiracy exists when there is an agreement to violate the law. You do not need to show an *actual* murder in a prosecution for conspiracy to commit murder. Just the agreement to break the law, and some action taken as part of the conspiracy.

If you conspire to circumvent the salary cap, and conspire to injure players, and conspire to obstruct an investigation, and conspire to be a p.o.s. of a human being, there does not need to be a demonstration that a single hit or a single group of hits was legal or illegal.

It's enough that there was a conspiracy.

You are assuming there was not enough evidence, which is quite a startling and unreasonable assumption. There was no public trial and none of these clowns is entitled to a public trial. I will not, though, assume it didn't happen just because I never received a personal invitation from Goodell to observe the meetings and read the memos.

It's not about playing hard, as you suggest.

It's about (a) circumventing the salary cap with (b) outside money to (c) enter into an agreement (d) with other players (e) and coaches (f) and others (g) to supplement a player's pay (h) by rewarding the player for injuring other players (i) specifically targeting *specific* players with *specific* injury concerns (j) including head injuries.

And then (k) lying their asses off and pretending it didn't happen when the league came knocking.

Playing hard, as you suggest, is not what they were being punished for.

There. I reposted it from two pages ago and explained it again.

Now do you understand?