badboy
Hall of Fame
Exactly! Headhunting & trying to put players out of games or careers should be worth jail time imo. Probably only time I'd agree with congressional investigation.
Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍
Sean Payton suspended one year.
- Thread starter False Start
- Start date
GP
Go Texans!
That's a pretty damn good point.
Showtime100
Got JJ?
The story as I last heard, and it might be different now, is that Benson heard what was up and told Gregg to cut it out post-haste and Gregg said he would.
It doesn't mean he didn't come to accept it later, though. I don't know if I would believe anyone from the Saints FO at this point.
TheMatrix31
Hall of Fame
Love seeing Saints fans in a tailspin. Screw 'em.
Playoffs
Hall of Fame
Sean Payton, Bill Parcells talk role
Chris Mortensen
ESPN
March 26, 2012
While seeking the counsel of his former boss and mentor, Bill Parcells, New Orleans Saints coach Sean Payton has broached the idea of Parcells becoming the interim head coach during Payton's suspension for the 2012 season, according to several league sources.
Payton and Parcells have spoken numerous times, sources said, since NFL commissioner Roger Goodell announced last Wednesday that the Saints coach was being suspended for the year because the league found that the team had engaged in a bounty program that included incentives to injure opposing players.
Payton is contemplating an appeal of his stiff sentence, sources said. His suspension begins April 1 and will end after the Super Bowl.
Payton's agent said Monday "no decisions have been made about an appeal..."
read more: http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=7738693&wjb
Chris Mortensen
ESPN
March 26, 2012
While seeking the counsel of his former boss and mentor, Bill Parcells, New Orleans Saints coach Sean Payton has broached the idea of Parcells becoming the interim head coach during Payton's suspension for the 2012 season, according to several league sources.
Payton and Parcells have spoken numerous times, sources said, since NFL commissioner Roger Goodell announced last Wednesday that the Saints coach was being suspended for the year because the league found that the team had engaged in a bounty program that included incentives to injure opposing players.
Payton is contemplating an appeal of his stiff sentence, sources said. His suspension begins April 1 and will end after the Super Bowl.
Payton's agent said Monday "no decisions have been made about an appeal..."
read more: http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=7738693&wjb
GP
Go Texans!
Did I miss something? Did Sean Payton become the owner of the Saints sometime in the past year or two? How is it that SEAN PAYTON, not the owner, is having conversations with Bill Parcells about coaching the Saints in Payton's absence??????
From the article in the previous post:
LOL. I guess since he's still technically the Saints' head coach, Sean Payton can pick his interim HC?
If I were Tom Benson, I'd have me and my front office (with Loomis and Payton uninvolved, btw) picking the interim HC. I would distance myself from Sean Payton. The last thing you want is your HC for 2012 on the sideline of games and the announcers/telecast commentators saying "There's _______, the interim head coach who was selected by Sean Payton to coach this season."
Sometimes I wonder if any of these teams even have a Public Relations department.
From the article in the previous post:
LOL. I guess since he's still technically the Saints' head coach, Sean Payton can pick his interim HC?
If I were Tom Benson, I'd have me and my front office (with Loomis and Payton uninvolved, btw) picking the interim HC. I would distance myself from Sean Payton. The last thing you want is your HC for 2012 on the sideline of games and the announcers/telecast commentators saying "There's _______, the interim head coach who was selected by Sean Payton to coach this season."
Sometimes I wonder if any of these teams even have a Public Relations department.
GP
Go Texans!
Methinks it's because Benson is
LMAO!
Brilliant.
Says I must spread rep before giving it to you again.
I would hire the HC that gave me the best chance to win a SB. Parcells would be at the top of my list.
I want my FO to give me the best chance to win and PR shouldn't be a part of the thought process. It appears as though Benson puts winning above PR. As it should be for all of the teams in the NFL.
I wish our home team didn't put PR 1st before winning.
Vinny
shiny happy fan
Payton comes from the Parcells system so I'd bet Bill Parcells wouldn't have to come in and learn the language...Benson doesn't have that kind of a connection to Parcells. I'm sure Payton asked Benson if he could talk to his friend about being an interim and I'd bet he said go for it. I don't see how that is so weird.
GP
Go Texans!
It's weird in the sense that as an owner in Benson's position, a compromised position to say the least, the owner needs to be wayyyyyy out in front of this deal and not allowing his suspended head coach to be getting the air time he's getting. Especially in the sense of him picking his guy to replace him.
Standard P.R. practice, well....except for the Saints.
If this had been with the Texans, no way in hell would McNair be letting Sean Payton go anywhere near this decision-making territory. Benson has balls, or is ignorant of public sentiment/scrutiny, or both. My bet is on "both."
Vinny
shiny happy fan
you always make things soap opera quality....er, kudos to that?
I donno, Payton is generally not seen as an evildooer nor does anyone think that he was the driving force behind all this stuff but was punished for covering it up mostly. I don't think Payton taints anything and why wouldn't you want to bring in a guy who taught Payton much of the system he runs himself? That would likely give you a better shot at staying competitive than otherwise. When I read your stuff sometimes I think it comes across as something Boss Hogg and his sidekick Rosco P. Coltrane would post.
I find that reading your posts in Boss Hogg voice helps.
GP
Go Texans!
you always make things soap opera quality....er, kudos to that?
I donno, Payton is generally not seen as an evildooer nor does anyone think that he was the driving force behind all this stuff but was punished for covering it up mostly. I don't think Payton taints anything and why wouldn't you want to bring in a guy who taught Payton much of the system he runs himself? That would likely give you a better shot at staying competitive than otherwise. When I read your stuff sometimes I think it comes across as something Boss Hogg and his sidekick Rosco P. Coltrane would post.
I find that reading your posts in Boss Hogg voice helps.
Awww, that's so nice of you to say that to me. Very becoming of a respected member of a board whose policy is to not name-call and deride a poster. Way to go, Vinny! Keep up the good fight.
Based on your posts, I'm not sure that you see the value in what people perceive anyways. So I can see why my posts are puzzling to you. (That's my little way of getting a "dig" in on you since you want to play that way. Isn't this fun?!? LOL).
Back to the topic: Perception is reality. Period. For better or for worse, the Texans have made it their goal to place their product into the minds of the public as being (a) Wholesome, (b) Quality-driven in terms of basic fan happiness, and (c) Committed to doing right things no matter the situation, i.e. Respecting a guy like Mario by not signing any of our other FAs while he was out getting his Mega Deal with the Bills.
If I am Joe Football Fan and I see that the guy who is suspended for a year, Payton, is choosing his successor for the year...I scratch my head and wonder why the owner isn't making that decision since the original HC, Payton, screwed up so badly in the first place and isn't supposed to be making football decisions...though Goodell is allowing him to since Payton will appeal the verdict.
It's as if Payton is wagging the dog there in Nawlins. That's my perception. Dude effed up and the owner needs to take over and be the man of his household...rather than letting Payton be a visible leader right now.
I always wanted to be Luke Duke, btw. So you really crushed my spirit, Vinny.
Why would Bob McNair even want Sean Payton go anywhere near this decision-making territory?
To be honest, man, I think there is a little wink/wink at owners meetings about this stuff. I really do not think owners are as indignant about these kinds of things as the public assumes.
Yeah, the commish has to put the hammer down, but only due to public relations and 'protecting the shield' and all that jazz. The reality is that bounty programs have been in the NFL for a long time, and it is only somewhat recent that politically correctness has permeated the marketing of the sport to a wider audience.
Payton is picking his replacement coach because his owner and front office want him to pick his replacement coach. Occam's razor.
Dutchrudder
Hall of Fame
Fify.
Bill Parcells is no threat to taking Payton's job. Bill Cowher, Jon Gruden and Spagnuolo that are. Payton just needs a guy who can keep the seat warm for him, and Parcells is perfect for that. He's well respected, knows the system, and is too old to do this long term. Excellent move by the brilliant Mr. Payton.
'eh, I honestly do not think Benson has any intention of losing Sean Payton. He's a savior of sorts in that town, and this story barely event dents the goodwill he has built up in the fanbase.
I've got about a dozen friends who are Saints fans, and none of them think ill of Payton. Almost all entertain a conspiracy by the league against New Orleans, in spite of the regular visits to their city by the Super Bowl.
I think if Benson wanted Cowher, Gruden, etc., he would take this opportunity to fire Payton and hire one of them. What we are seeing is the exact opposite. They are handing the reigns of the franchise to a soon-to-be exiled head coach.
Texans_Chick
Utopian Dreamer
I have a different point of view on this situation:
Why the New Orleans Saints Bounty Penalties are Too Harsh
Before you react to the headline, I'd ask you to read the reasoning. I'm not sure it persuades anybody to anything--I think the bounty punishment thing is something that people react one way or another to, and get locked into their point of view. Like many things in life.
Sean Payton can't talk much publicly. As it is, Peter King noted on Twitter that the NFL was not happy he briefly talked to the media at the owners meeting. In some of the few words he said, he said that he did not believe he lied to Goodell at their two meetings.
It is quite possible that both Goodell and Payton honestly believe their points of view. That is the difficult thing about investigations. People remember things differently. People perceive others actions differently. And nobody has a detector that can discover what is truly in someone's heart.
Why the New Orleans Saints Bounty Penalties are Too Harsh
Before you react to the headline, I'd ask you to read the reasoning. I'm not sure it persuades anybody to anything--I think the bounty punishment thing is something that people react one way or another to, and get locked into their point of view. Like many things in life.
Sean Payton can't talk much publicly. As it is, Peter King noted on Twitter that the NFL was not happy he briefly talked to the media at the owners meeting. In some of the few words he said, he said that he did not believe he lied to Goodell at their two meetings.
It is quite possible that both Goodell and Payton honestly believe their points of view. That is the difficult thing about investigations. People remember things differently. People perceive others actions differently. And nobody has a detector that can discover what is truly in someone's heart.
Texan_Bill
Hall of Fame
I disagree with that sentiment, for this reason:
I went to New Orleans for a Texans game and other then the obligatory drunk dick, most fans were cool.. That said, I give a damn about the rats ass with regards to the Saints organization.
Texans_Chick
Utopian Dreamer
I disagree with that sentiment because if Goodell can use the nuclear option against the Saints with fans in the crossfire, he can use it against any team.
I dont consider what the Saints got to be such a nuclear option , in fact I think they got off light.
They broke the rule of sportsmanship. The things we try to instill in our kids from sports at an early age. Its not whether you win or lose , its how you play the game .... Win or lose with dignity & grace.
Yes , you play to win the game .... but you go about it in the right way.
Maybe I expect too much from people .... I cant stand a cheater or a liar.
I guess they are a pretty good example of our society as a whole today tho , winning is all that matters , no matter the cost.
For what its worth , I wouldnt think it too harsh for every coach and player who was involved to be banned for life.
Dutchrudder
Hall of Fame
Why do the fans matter? They aren't involved in the equation at all, but are more like bystanders. The team hired people who did bad things, the team suffers for the bad things that their employees did. They ignored warnings from the commish several times, the commish was within his rights under the new CBA to assess the punishments given. Every punishment is legal within the CBA, the argument is merely subjective towards the commish's assessment. Whine and moan all you want about the extent of the punishment, but the owner signed off on the CBA and knew the capabilities given to the commish. Maybe next CBA they will revisit the powers bestowed upon him, but right now it's all sour grapes, just like the Cowboys/Redskins cap issues.
majestrate
Rookie
Rep'd
SheTexan
Hall of Fame
rep"d!
Fans have to suck it up and take crap all the time! What makes Saints fans so special? The NFL is a BUSINESS, which is a term that has been used repeatedly this year, esp since Demeco's trade. A business makes rules and is EXPECTED to follow them. The Saints broke the rules in a major way, and Sean Payton was a major player in a horrendous scheme to deliberately injure players. He doesn't deserve to be in the NFL PERIOD!! JMO!!! The penalty is way to light! Using the "fans" as an excuse is just wrong..IMHO anyway!
My question is: If this is such a heinous "crime" and the NFL has been watching it and warning teams about this since at least 2007 (that's damn near five years) why now? Why did Goodell not start handing out suspensions in 2008 or 2009?? What other teams were on his "radar" and why haven't those teams/names been brought to light??
Let's be real. The severity of the punishment is not about the crime. The punishment was severe because Goodell thought he'd been lied to. It's about Goodell's ego plain & simple.
Let's be real. The severity of the punishment is not about the crime. The punishment was severe because Goodell thought he'd been lied to. It's about Goodell's ego plain & simple.
Of course, the bring lied to is adding to the penalty. Most of us know that from chlldhood and we even have the trite statement "the cover-up is worse than the crime." In this way, goddell is acting no different than most people do.
That said, the overall emphasis on player safety is not some grand humanitarian awakening by the NFL. The league is getting sued currently by former players and these will continue if the NFL does not show that it is trying to make the game "safe" as possible.
Yep
The coverup is almost always worse than the crime.
For the record, If I were a Saints fan the punishment is well worth a Lombardi Trophy. Nobody got killed/career ended)
Goodell is ruining the game I love. Even though I agree with the punishment in this case.
Last edited:
Dutchrudder
Hall of Fame
Kurt Warner and Brett Favre would beg to differ.
Malloy
Hall of Fame
SheTexan
Hall of Fame
Must spread rep Thorn! I agree!! Won't happen, but, it should!
I agree. Due to the nature of the sport, the risk for career ending injuries can occur during any practice or gameday. IMO, placing bounties to speed up the process should not be acceptable.
CloakNNNdagger
Hall of Fame
Appeals may focus on disconnect between bounties, on-field actions
QUOTE]The NFLs internal dispute resolution system carries with it an added benefit, above and beyond the fact that the Commissioner gets to make the decision and then determine whether he made the right decision: The in-house appeal process keeps most of the arguments and facts out of the public eye.
In contrast to courtroom proceedings, which are subject to full public exposure, the only way well know anything about anything that happens during the Saints bounty appeals is if someone leaks something.
Heres a little something that has leaked in advance of the hearings.
According to a source with knowledge of the situation, the appeals may consist of arguments based on the fundamental difference between the placement of bounties on players and the actual infliction of injury. If, in other words, the offer of cash for a cart-off didnt actually result in a player being carted off, the situation arguably becomes a case of intent without a crime.
Then theres the possibility that, as it relates to the infliction of injuries, the bounty concept was more hyperbole than reality, with the promise of payments for knocking offensive players out of the game simply a device for getting the defensive players properly motivated to play with reckless abandon and appropriate zeal, different in form but no different in substance from the many other ways that teams get players fired up before games.
Also, one or more of the appeals could focus on the unexplored question of whether other teams did the same or similar things, and thus whether its objectively fair to nail the Saints simply because, more than two years after the league investigated the situation and got nowhere, a whistleblower blew the case open. Nailing the Saints for something that other teams quite possibly have been doing, but that the NFL hasnt fully investigated, could be painted as inequitable.
Moreover, theres an unwillingness to accept without scrutiny the work of NFL Security, which somehow was duped by the Saints in 2010, and which otherwise was unable to catch the Saints without the help of a whistleblower. The raw data generated by NFL Security undoubtedly will be studied and picked apart and, wherever justified, attacked as flawed.
In the end, it may not matter, given that the same office that imposed the penalties is reviewing them. At this point, any softening of the penalties will create the impression that the league has decided to tolerate bounties.
So while it may not be fair for the Saints to be the scapegoats, the league has little choice. And the league will undoubtedly justify the punishment based on the fact that the Saints lied about the existence of the bounty system in 2009 and that the Saints continued to brazenly use bounties for two seasons after the league investigated the situation.[/QUOTE]
QUOTE]The NFLs internal dispute resolution system carries with it an added benefit, above and beyond the fact that the Commissioner gets to make the decision and then determine whether he made the right decision: The in-house appeal process keeps most of the arguments and facts out of the public eye.
In contrast to courtroom proceedings, which are subject to full public exposure, the only way well know anything about anything that happens during the Saints bounty appeals is if someone leaks something.
Heres a little something that has leaked in advance of the hearings.
According to a source with knowledge of the situation, the appeals may consist of arguments based on the fundamental difference between the placement of bounties on players and the actual infliction of injury. If, in other words, the offer of cash for a cart-off didnt actually result in a player being carted off, the situation arguably becomes a case of intent without a crime.
Then theres the possibility that, as it relates to the infliction of injuries, the bounty concept was more hyperbole than reality, with the promise of payments for knocking offensive players out of the game simply a device for getting the defensive players properly motivated to play with reckless abandon and appropriate zeal, different in form but no different in substance from the many other ways that teams get players fired up before games.
Also, one or more of the appeals could focus on the unexplored question of whether other teams did the same or similar things, and thus whether its objectively fair to nail the Saints simply because, more than two years after the league investigated the situation and got nowhere, a whistleblower blew the case open. Nailing the Saints for something that other teams quite possibly have been doing, but that the NFL hasnt fully investigated, could be painted as inequitable.
Moreover, theres an unwillingness to accept without scrutiny the work of NFL Security, which somehow was duped by the Saints in 2010, and which otherwise was unable to catch the Saints without the help of a whistleblower. The raw data generated by NFL Security undoubtedly will be studied and picked apart and, wherever justified, attacked as flawed.
In the end, it may not matter, given that the same office that imposed the penalties is reviewing them. At this point, any softening of the penalties will create the impression that the league has decided to tolerate bounties.
So while it may not be fair for the Saints to be the scapegoats, the league has little choice. And the league will undoubtedly justify the punishment based on the fact that the Saints lied about the existence of the bounty system in 2009 and that the Saints continued to brazenly use bounties for two seasons after the league investigated the situation.[/QUOTE]
welsh texan
You may say I’m a dreamer but I’m not the only one
Intent to commit a crime constitutes a crime in itself though no?
Thorn
Dirty Old Man
My feelings is anyone, and that means ANYONE, who has participated in any program that has the intent to injure other players, should be out of the NFL for good.
Playing hard and hitting hard is one thing, we all like that. We also love the slow motion violence the NFL provides us during game coverage. That's just the way it is. But playing with the INTENT TO INJURE another player is just wrong, and should never be tolerated.
Never.
Dutchrudder
Hall of Fame
I agree that it is wrong, and that it shouldn't be tolerated, but I don't think the player should be banned from the league. What do you think AJ was trying to do here? Get a mosquito off Finnegan's ear?
They were obviously trying to injure each other, and I would have been fine with them getting suspended a couple games, but any more than that would be excessive. There are guys who go out there trying to hurt other players, it happens in a tough contact sport, but it's difficult to identify the intent to do so.
I think the coaches are much more culpable in this instance because it was a system designed and implemented by the DC. I don't think many of the players involved would have been attacking opposing players the way they did without this system and the direction of the coaches. The players are soldiers and are somewhat products of the team culture. Throw these same players into the mix at Houston, and they won't be playing the same way.
The HC and GM tacitly approved the system too, so that's why they deserve the fines and suspensions. Also, there is the whole lying to the commish thing. I'm sure that didn't help their cases.
Dutchrudder
Hall of Fame
Yeah, I wouldn't put it past them to put a real bounty on that guy's head...
Thorn
Dirty Old Man
Interesting point, one in which I wasn't thinking of when I made my post. But AJ and Finnegan was a spur of the moment fight in one game, not a long lasting conspiracy over multiple seasons to deliberately injure other players. I think an easily defined distinction can be made between the two cases.
Dutchrudder
Hall of Fame
So basically don't try to hurt someone in the course of the play, instead throw haymakers and beat the guy in the head like a hockey fight? C'mon, this is the most obvious form of "intent to injure" you can find in the NFL. Heat of the moment and all that for sure, but we have the difference of a couple individuals losing their cool, and a bunch of coaches directing and paying players to make cheap hits on opponents to take them out of the game.
So is it the money incentives, the coach's direction, or the player's 'intent to injure' that is the defining factor? Because AJ/Finnegan fight meets only 1 of those criteria.
Showtime100
Got JJ?
I don't know about the "haymaker" comment but that's another thing.
That aside, aren't you two in agreement here in the big grand scheme of this thread's issue?
Dutchrudder
Hall of Fame
Banning all the players involved from the league forever? No, I think that's excessive. Suspensions and fines? Sure I'm in favor of that.
The distinction I'm leading up to is that the coaches created, enforced, supported and incentivized the program that led to these players to the 'intent to injure' opponents. We see 'intent to injure' in some plays whether it's the AJ/Finnegan fight, or any number of vicious hits from players that are look like they fit the profile. The NFL already fines and suspends players who do that, so I think that makes sense as many of those questionable hits were fined when they happened.
The problem to me is that coaches are supposed to be people that players look to for direction, people they want to play for, and use as mentors. Those guys breaking the rules, encouraging poor sportsmanship and showing a general lack of morality are the guys who really need to be punished. They are supposed to be upholding the league rules, which is why they are given the authority to fine their own players for stepping out of line. They have a much higher level of responsibility within the league than the guys taking orders on the field. That's where I draw the line with the ban vs suspension debate. I'm fine with any coach/GM they want to ban over this, but I have a hard time saying the players should get banned. The NFLPA would never let that happen anyways.
Showtime100
Got JJ?
Certainly, and I agree your post, especially with the bolded. A life sentence sounds a bit harsh. A year for Peyton is really all one should expect given the history of punishments in the NFL. More than a year, maybe even five years would work better, but that's me.
I can say I did like the "indefinite" part for Loomis. Question is, what will indefinite unltimately mean in this case?
GlassHalfFull
Hall of Fame
Premeditation.
That is the difference. And it is recognized in our legal system as well.
welsh texan
You may say I’m a dreamer but I’m not the only one
I kind of have sympathy for the players on this one, if your coach tells you to play a certain way then you've got to go out and do what your told.
In a league thats 'not for long', you do everything you can to impress your coaches and get them to keep giving you that next contract.
What is the difference, from the players side, in acting on an instruction to try to injure your opponent at every given opportunity, to acting on an instruction to back-pedal with a different technique?
The difference is on the coach, not the player. IMO
In a league thats 'not for long', you do everything you can to impress your coaches and get them to keep giving you that next contract.
What is the difference, from the players side, in acting on an instruction to try to injure your opponent at every given opportunity, to acting on an instruction to back-pedal with a different technique?
The difference is on the coach, not the player. IMO
infantrycak
Hall of Fame
Glass nailed it and Dutch partially answered his own question. Two huge differences - premeditation and the involvement of the coaching staff.
CloakNNNdagger
Hall of Fame
Government seems to have to get their fingers in the pie.
From the Times-Picayune: Senate panel passes resolution asking NFL to reconsider sanctions on New Orleans Saints
From the Times-Picayune: Senate panel passes resolution asking NFL to reconsider sanctions on New Orleans Saints