PDA

View Full Version : Tagliabue vacates Bounty players suspensions


gunns
12-11-2012, 10:44 AM
But found their conduct was detrimental to the league.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Paul-Tagliabue-New-Orleans-Saints-vacates-player-suspensions-121112

swaiy
12-11-2012, 10:48 AM
Sham. I hope Vilma sues the **** out of Goodell.

gyldenlove
12-11-2012, 10:55 AM
I don't get the logic behind this, so there was a bounty system and the players lied about it when questioned, but they are not punished despite violating their contractual terms to cooperate with NFL investigations?

gyldenlove
12-11-2012, 10:56 AM
Sham. I hope Vilma sues the **** out of Goodell.

For what? he hasn't missed a single game, has suffered no monetary losses due to the actions of Goodell. He already has a defamation suit going and that will be going nowhere.

swaiy
12-11-2012, 11:09 AM
For what? he hasn't missed a single game, has suffered no monetary losses due to the actions of Goodell. He already has a defamation suit going and that will be going nowhere.

The defamation suit was what I was talking about.

Lets be real here. Wasnt it the NFL that said they had over 18,000 pieces of evidence proving these players were in fact participating in a bounty program? If that is the case, why were the suspensions vacated? Why did he say the Saints as an organization contaminated the entire case? How is that possible if they submitted all the evidence to the league?

This doesnt vindicate the players at all. This basically says, "we will remove the suspensions but we cant admit we were wrong because that would give Vilma's defamation suit traction."

Also, by vacating the player suspensions and putting it on the coaches, they can still justify keeping Payton and Williams suspended.

gyldenlove
12-11-2012, 11:22 AM
The defamation suit was what I was talking about.

Lets be real here. Wasnt it the NFL that said they had over 18,000 pieces of evidence proving these players were in fact participating in a bounty program? If that is the case, why were the suspensions vacated? Why did he say the Saints as an organization contaminated the entire case? How is that possible if they submitted all the evidence to the league?

This doesnt vindicate the players at all. This basically says, "we will remove the suspensions but we cant admit we were wrong because that would give Vilma's defamation suit traction."

Also, by vacating the player suspensions and putting it on the coaches, they can still justify keeping Payton and Williams suspended.

Tagliabue said point blank that the players had committed acts detrimental to the league but he wouldn't punish them for reasons that only he currently understands.

The defamation suit contents that Goodell defamed Vilma by claiming that Vilma offered a bounty on Brett Favre. Tagliabue saying that the players and by extension Vilma did in fact commit acts detrimental to the league (he didn't specify what those acts might be) doesn't mean Vilma didn't offer a bounty on Favre and I doubt anyone would be able to successfully spin it that way.

There is no question there was a bounty program, only a few Saints fans and players seem to somehow live under the misguided notion that it didn't occur. The question is whether the players participated in said program actively beyond what could be expected by being pressured by the coaching staff and if they lied about it during the NFL investigation. It seems that Tagliabue has found that the players didn't participate more than what could be expected by pressure from the coaching staff and for some reason he doesn't feel the need to punish the players for lying.

Bigdawg26
12-11-2012, 11:28 AM
Sham. I hope Vilma sues the **** out of Goodell.

I just hope it will all be over with. That whole BS was exhausting! So it is Goodell's ego and control for that matter.

gunns
12-11-2012, 11:31 AM
I just don't understand the suspensions for the coaches and Belichick gets nabbed video taping, conduct detrimental to the league, and gets a fine.

swaiy
12-11-2012, 11:42 AM
This reeks of BS. Hey players, lets settle. If you admit guilt, we will drop the suspensions. The players rejected the settlement, and lo and behold, the suspensions were dropped.

Bigdawg26
12-11-2012, 12:54 PM
I just don't understand the suspensions for the coaches and Belichick gets nabbed video taping, conduct detrimental to the league, and gets a fine.

I donít want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I donít think all of that BS would have happened if the Super Bowl wasnít held in New Orleans. The saints could have been big contenders for the NFC championship if it wasnít for all this turmoil and suspending top coaches. Also, New Orleans is a cash cow for all major sports events because of its partying, low taxes for having events, close proximity of the Superdome to the Casino, French Quarter, Bourbon St., and convention center. The league would have lost A LOT of money if the Saints would have been in it. And we do know money drives the league now a days!

SonOfLe-loLang
12-11-2012, 01:42 PM
I just don't understand the suspensions for the coaches and Belichick gets nabbed video taping, conduct detrimental to the league, and gets a fine.

I still dont think the videotaping done by the Patriots was a big deal. They were just taping someone everyone saw anyway, and something Belichick even stated didnt help much.

Lestat
12-11-2012, 03:03 PM
this whole process was stupid. they never really had any evidence to condemn the players. it was the coaches and GM that had the most damning actions.
they lied more so than anyone else.

bronco_diesel
12-11-2012, 03:11 PM
I just don't understand the suspensions for the coaches and Belichick gets nabbed video taping, conduct detrimental to the league, and gets a fine.

100% agree!

bronco_diesel
12-11-2012, 03:12 PM
I still dont think the videotaping done by the Patriots was a big deal. They were just taping someone everyone saw anyway, and something Belichick even stated didnt help much.

of course Belichick is going to say that.

SonOfLe-loLang
12-11-2012, 03:15 PM
of course Belichick is going to say that.

They video taped defensive hand signals. its all out in the open. The advantage had to be minimal. Need proof? 16-0 the next season

Lestat
12-11-2012, 03:21 PM
They video taped defensive hand signals. its all out in the open. The advantage had to be minimal. Need proof? 16-0 the next season

and yet their team hasn't won a super bowl since spygate ended.

SonOfLe-loLang
12-11-2012, 03:49 PM
and yet their team hasn't won a super bowl since spygate ended.

And yet they've been to two and havent skipped a beat since.

So, youre saying David Tyree's circus catch is a direct result of the Patriots not having video of defensive hand signals?

Dont be dumb.

Blueflame
12-11-2012, 05:12 PM
I still dont think the videotaping done by the Patriots was a big deal. They were just taping someone everyone saw anyway, and something Belichick even stated didnt help much.

Of course he's gonna say (after being caught) that "it didn't help much". I'd counter, however... that if it really didn't help much, then why would they have bothered to do it? It seems pretty clear to me that if it wasn't at least somewhat helpful, then they wouldn't have done it (and risked getting caught and sanctioned by the league). Common sense says that the only reason for breaking the rules is if you did, in fact, gain a competitive edge from it. To me, Belichick's statement appears to be nothing more than "damage control" after being caught.... "minimizing and rationalizing" what he chose to do. And had he not been caught, he would still be doing it.

gunns
12-11-2012, 05:18 PM
I still dont think the videotaping done by the Patriots was a big deal. They were just taping someone everyone saw anyway, and something Belichick even stated didnt help much.

I don't believe they would have fined Belichick $500,000 and the team if it wasn't a big deal. I bet Kraft paid it all.

SonOfLe-loLang
12-11-2012, 05:28 PM
I don't believe they would have fined Belichick $500,000 and the team if it wasn't a big deal. I bet Kraft paid it all.

It wasnt. Clearly it wasn't. He's the kind of guy that looks for any advantage he can, and he was wrong, but it was not the secret to their success. Have they skipped a beat since?

gunns
12-11-2012, 05:28 PM
And yet they've been to two and havent skipped a beat since.

So, youre saying David Tyree's circus catch is a direct result of the Patriots not having video of defensive hand signals?

Dont be dumb.

But is an 8-8 team and a 9-7 team beating them in the SB a result? Maybe, maybe not but a $500K fine is an indication of conduct detrimental to the league that compares to the Saints. Yet, he's allowed to keep coaching.

gunns
12-11-2012, 05:31 PM
It wasnt. Clearly it wasn't. He's the kind of guy that looks for any advantage he can, and he was wrong, but it was not the secret to their success. Have they skipped a beat since?

No matter how you look at it, the fact that they haven't won a SB, as dominant as they've remained, indicates somethings missing, especially when a 16-0 team loses to an 8-8 team.

gunns
12-11-2012, 05:32 PM
It wasnt. Clearly it wasn't. He's the kind of guy that looks for any advantage he can, and he was wrong, but it was not the secret to their success. Have they skipped a beat since?

$500K isn't a big deal???

SonOfLe-loLang
12-11-2012, 05:52 PM
No matter how you look at it, the fact that they haven't won a SB, as dominant as they've remained, indicates somethings missing, especially when a 16-0 team loses to an 8-8 team.

Considering a gazillion variables go into winning a football game, youre really going to point to THAT as the reason they lost? You guys would have a point if the Patriots were suddenly 5-11 after Spygate, but thyre in the playoffs every year, have been in 2 super bowls that they could have just as easily have won, and havent skipped a beat.

It did nothing. Obviously the penalty is fine, you dont want to insinuate its ok, but taping defensive signals that probably change from game to game is essentially worthless. We all see them anyway!

gunns
12-11-2012, 06:08 PM
Considering a gazillion variables go into winning a football game, youre really going to point to THAT as the reason they lost? You guys would have a point if the Patriots were suddenly 5-11 after Spygate, but thyre in the playoffs every year, have been in 2 super bowls that they could have just as easily have won, and havent skipped a beat.

It did nothing. Obviously the penalty is fine, you dont want to insinuate its ok, but taping defensive signals that probably change from game to game is essentially worthless. We all see them anyway!

We each have our own opinions. My point was that if the league found it detrimental enough to fine that much money why the difference in the punishments.

Lestat
12-11-2012, 06:38 PM
And yet they've been to two and havent skipped a beat since.

So, youre saying David Tyree's circus catch is a direct result of the Patriots not having video of defensive hand signals?

Dont be dumb.

no, i'm saying karma is a bitch and they got it handed to them in heartbreaking fashion twice since their cheating was exposed.

maher_tyler
12-11-2012, 06:51 PM
Considering a gazillion variables go into winning a football game, youre really going to point to THAT as the reason they lost? You guys would have a point if the Patriots were suddenly 5-11 after Spygate, but thyre in the playoffs every year, have been in 2 super bowls that they could have just as easily have won, and havent skipped a beat.

It did nothing. Obviously the penalty is fine, you dont want to insinuate its ok, but taping defensive signals that probably change from game to game is essentially worthless. We all see them anyway!

If it didn't help enough to help then why would they do it so much??

SonOfLe-loLang
12-11-2012, 07:58 PM
If it didn't help enough to help then why would they do it so much??

Cause belichick tries to use every angle. I'm not saying it may not have assisted them every so often, but it couldn't have done much, and they clearly didn't need it.

And the nfl has to come down hard on this kind of stuff so it doesn't set a precedent, but you want to know why belichick wasn't suspended? Cause it wasn't that big of a deal

SonOfLe-loLang
12-11-2012, 07:58 PM
And karmas a bitch? If losing two Super Bowls is bad karma, I can't imagine what the broncos did to warm their past 13 crappy years

broncosteven
12-11-2012, 08:01 PM
I still dont think the videotaping done by the Patriots was a big deal. They were just taping someone everyone saw anyway, and something Belichick even stated didnt help much.

define much

Blueflame
12-11-2012, 08:15 PM
define much

"much" = enough that they kept doing it with sufficient consistency that a former assistant coach knew it would happen and arranged for them to be caught doing it.

ol#7
12-12-2012, 07:37 AM
"much" = enough that they kept doing it with sufficient consistency that a former assistant coach knew it would happen and arranged for them to be caught doing it.

This, exactly this. To think it made no difference is assinine. Videotaping the Rams gave them enough of an edge to be competitive against a team that vastly outclassed them. As they got better, along with the cheating, they became somewhat dominant. To think otherwise is just buying into what the NFL hopes you will think and forget all about it.

gunns
12-12-2012, 08:42 AM
This, exactly this. To think it made no difference is assinine. Videotaping the Rams gave them enough of an edge to be competitive against a team that vastly outclassed them. As they got better, along with the cheating, they became somewhat dominant. To think otherwise is just buying into what the NFL hopes you will think and forget all about it.

And if it wasn't much help why would an assistant coach pull the same thing when he got his own head coaching job? Frankly, I don't care if it helped or didn't, it's just an example of how the Patriots get a punishment that will not affect their team while the Saints get torn apart. Why?

SonOfLe-loLang
12-12-2012, 09:10 AM
This, exactly this. To think it made no difference is assinine. Videotaping the Rams gave them enough of an edge to be competitive against a team that vastly outclassed them. As they got better, along with the cheating, they became somewhat dominant. To think otherwise is just buying into what the NFL hopes you will think and forget all about it.

I dont think taping defensive signals, which change, is that big of a deal. And i'll stand by that. They deserve their penalty, its still cheating, but CLEARLY they didnt need it because they've been just as dominant ever since.

And spare me the "they havent won a super bowl" bs. They've been to two more since then (including a 16-0 season) and could have easily won those games if a couple of balls bounced their way.

SonOfLe-loLang
12-12-2012, 09:11 AM
And if it wasn't much help why would an assistant coach pull the same thing when he got his own head coaching job? Frankly, I don't care if it helped or didn't, it's just an example of how the Patriots get a punishment that will not affect their team while the Saints get torn apart. Why?

This is probably due to poor timing. Bounties are nothing new in the NFL, but at a time when the concussion issue is front and center and threatening the league, they had to act strongly.

Blueflame
12-12-2012, 12:05 PM
I dont think taping defensive signals, which change, is that big of a deal. And i'll stand by that. They deserve their penalty, its still cheating, but CLEARLY they didnt need it because they've been just as dominant ever since.

And spare me the "they havent won a super bowl" bs. They've been to two more since then (including a 16-0 season) and could have easily won those games if a couple of balls bounced their way.

So your position is that it doesn't help an offense much to know in advance what the defense is going to do? I'd counter that with... it's ludicrous to presume that knowing (in advance) precisely what the other team is gonna do wasn't a huge advantage to Gruden's Tampa Bay Buccaneers in the SB vs. his former team.

You certainly have the right to be a Patriot apologist if you wish... but the fact is, if the rule-breaking had not yielded a significant competitive edge, Belicheat wouldn't have kept doing it.

SonOfLe-loLang
12-12-2012, 12:21 PM
So your position is that it doesn't help an offense much to know in advance what the defense is going to do? I'd counter that with... it's ludicrous to presume that knowing (in advance) precisely what the other team is gonna do wasn't a huge advantage to Gruden's Tampa Bay Buccaneers in the SB vs. his former team.

You certainly have the right to be a Patriot apologist if you wish... but the fact is, if the rule-breaking had not yielded a significant competitive edge, Belicheat wouldn't have kept doing it.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. Yes, if you knew exactly what the defense was going to do beforehand, then youd have a huge advantage, but i dont think they did, and i dont know how often they even used them. Again, all this **** is OUT IN THE OPEN. Its not like they were taping locker room conversations.

And again, they havent skipped a beat since being caught. In fact, they went 16-0 the year after and were within a circus catch away from the Super Bowl. I'm not a "Patriots Apologist," im just saying if you think taping defensive signals is what made them great, even though their offense actually got BETTER after they stopped, then thats absurd.

Blueflame
12-12-2012, 12:35 PM
We're going to have to agree to disagree. Yes, if you knew exactly what the defense was going to do beforehand, then youd have a huge advantage, but i dont think they did, and i dont know how often they even used them. Again, all this **** is OUT IN THE OPEN. Its not like they were taping locker room conversations.

And again, they havent skipped a beat since being caught. In fact, they went 16-0 the year after and were within a circus catch away from the Super Bowl. I'm not a "Patriots Apologist," im just saying if you think taping defensive signals is what made them great, even though their offense actually got BETTER after they stopped, then thats absurd.

Yes, we can agree to disagree.

If the payoff for breaking league rules was truly insignificant (as you and Bill Belichick claim), then why take the risk? The advantage gained had to have been "worth it" to Belicheat or he would not have done it so consistently. It was the height of hubris to do it to a former assistant's team and he got what he deserved (caught in the act).

SonOfLe-loLang
12-12-2012, 02:11 PM
Yes, we can agree to disagree.

If the payoff for breaking league rules was truly insignificant (as you and Bill Belichick claim), then why take the risk? The advantage gained had to have been "worth it" to Belicheat or he would not have done it so consistently. It was the height of hubris to do it to a former assistant's team and he got what he deserved (caught in the act).

Because some control freaks like to have every advantage at their disposal regardless of it's effect

Blueflame
12-12-2012, 03:48 PM
Because some control freaks like to have every advantage at their disposal regardless of it's effect

Well, again, I'm gonna have to disagree... the fact that he continued to do it would indicate to me that he saw enough advantage to make any risks "worth it".