Can't help but wonder if Sharper had not retired that his name would be on the suspended list. With his big mouth he had to throwing out $$$$. However, when he avoids much contact he wouldn't get paid anyway.
Don't ever change!quote:Originally posted by kworst:
What do expect from someone that is now with his 5th team. Nothing but a journeyman bum. They should never have signed this bum and should cutt his a$$ right now. What a stupid decision to sign this bum
You wrote Murphy's Laws, right?
quote:Originally posted by Packiderm:Dang! I never new cleaning bathrooms at the rest stop paid so well!quote:Originally posted by DeepChicago:
I made 85K last year, going to hopefully crack 100 this year.
**psst, he mans the glory hole***
Yea, the refs were showing the Packers all kinds of favors that day.
Warner is still pissed the Packers cut him... and for wearing beer goggles the night he proposed to his wife.
I think Warner enjoyed that win over the Packers more than he enjoyed his Super Bowl win
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
I think Warner enjoyed that win over the Packers more than he enjoyed his Super Bowl win
I highly doubt that.
I don't remember the Packers hitting him that day 
U
I know some fans did.
You're the only one. That was Warners last great game in the league.
While it may not be #1, I'll bet beers it's no worse than top 3.
quote:Originally posted by chickenboy:quote:Originally posted by Boris:
I think Warner enjoyed that win over the Packers more than he enjoyed his Super Bowl win
I highly doubt that.
I know some fans did.
You're the only one. That was Warners last great game in the league.
While it may not be #1, I'll bet beers it's no worse than top 3.
Skirt Warner got a flag when Jenkins brushed a bug off his helmet.
I just never tire of the pithy nicknames.
It's a talant.
It's a talant.
Amazing that Warner would even consider this crap, when Darnell Dockett speared Rodgers in the chin and was fined a few days later for the hit.
He's just pissed his wife needed more plastic than Barbie to make her marginally appealing.
He's just pissed his wife needed more plastic than Barbie to make her marginally appealing.
quote:Originally posted by sschumer:
Coach, excellent analysis. I am hopeful Guy will surprise.
Thank you very much for the compliment.
Packer fans share that hope. He didn't show much last year, and he has an opportunity now to get in the mix for a roster spot.
Either one of these guys has a chance to become the Howard Green of 2012. The best case scenario for either suspended dumdum is that one or both of them comes back when the rookies are hitting the wall. It's nice to actually have some depth on the DL, and there are fewer stiffs.
I don't recall the Packers hitting Warner much at all in that playoff game.
Seems to me the NFLPA has a case here.
@adbrandt
NFLPA has filed grievance vs. NFL challenging Commissioner Goodell's authority to suspend the four players he did.
@adbrandt
NFLPA grievance: "In connection with 2011 CBA, the NFL released all players from conduct prior to execution of CBA on August 4, 2011."
@adbrandt
NFLPA grievance appears to take 3 tacts: (1) conduct prior to new CBA - August 4, 2011 - not subject to discipline by NFL.
@adbrandt
(2) That only the CBA "System Arbitrator", not the Commissioner, should be able to punish the players for these actions.
@adbrandt
(3) That even if the first two are somehow not controlling, the appeals should be handled by Art Shell/Ted Cottrell, not Goodell.
@adbrandt
NFLPA has filed grievance vs. NFL challenging Commissioner Goodell's authority to suspend the four players he did.
@adbrandt
NFLPA grievance: "In connection with 2011 CBA, the NFL released all players from conduct prior to execution of CBA on August 4, 2011."
@adbrandt
NFLPA grievance appears to take 3 tacts: (1) conduct prior to new CBA - August 4, 2011 - not subject to discipline by NFL.
@adbrandt
(2) That only the CBA "System Arbitrator", not the Commissioner, should be able to punish the players for these actions.
@adbrandt
(3) That even if the first two are somehow not controlling, the appeals should be handled by Art Shell/Ted Cottrell, not Goodell.
cmoun, badell would never overstep his authority. 
sure looks like he did tho.
sure looks like he did tho.
I think the players might have a decent shot at this appeal.
I'd agree, the players have a shot. If I were a player that was targeted, though I would pissed, and want to sure the Union, for not "protecting my interests".
Appeal
Appeal
The NFLPA may have a case. I'm not sure why they would choose to try it. With all the former players lining up looking to sue the league I would think the NFLPA would want to allign itself with the NFL on this one so there's a united front over protecting player safety. If Goodell has evidence and backs down or this get's reversed over a CBA technicality it could come back and bite everyone in the ass when they all end up in court. This has "win the battle lose the war" written all over it.
And as for Vilma, who is crying out for justice.
Quote:
"I am shocked and extremely disappointed by the NFL's decision to suspend me for the 2012 season, Commissioner Roger Goodell has refused to share any of the supposed evidence he claims supports this unprecedented punishment."
Vilma and bounties have spent quite a bit of time together. I would toss this POS out of the league. Then again, he'd probably immediately sign onto the list of players suing the NFL over concussions.
And as for Vilma, who is crying out for justice.
Quote:
"I am shocked and extremely disappointed by the NFL's decision to suspend me for the 2012 season, Commissioner Roger Goodell has refused to share any of the supposed evidence he claims supports this unprecedented punishment."
Vilma and bounties have spent quite a bit of time together. I would toss this POS out of the league. Then again, he'd probably immediately sign onto the list of players suing the NFL over concussions.
The NFLPA is not questioning whether bounty-gate was right or wrong, they are arguing that the Commish does not have the authority to impose punishments for bounty-gate based on the CBA that the PA and League were working under at that time.
The NFLPA could still impose their own punishment for this... but I doubt they do.
The NFLPA could still impose their own punishment for this... but I doubt they do.
I found this interesting:
Mike Golic (ESPN) looked up the suspended players penalties for the last THREE YEARS, and here is what he found for regular season games over that entire time period:
Vilma: 2 “unnecessary roughness” type penalties called against him (1 roughing the passer, 1 personal foul)
Will Smith: 1 Roughing the Passer, 0 personal fouls
Hargrove: No regular season “unnecessary roughness” type fouls. ZERO
Mike Golic (ESPN) looked up the suspended players penalties for the last THREE YEARS, and here is what he found for regular season games over that entire time period:
Vilma: 2 “unnecessary roughness” type penalties called against him (1 roughing the passer, 1 personal foul)
Will Smith: 1 Roughing the Passer, 0 personal fouls
Hargrove: No regular season “unnecessary roughness” type fouls. ZERO
Tdog, this just bolsters Goodell's suspensions. Goodell says this was off the field, thus is his jurisdiction. The suspensions are not due to their own on-field conduct, as Golic points out; the suspension was due to payments made to other players (in the case of Vilma), and lies told to the NFL off the field (in the case of Hargrove).
Also, you can't ignore Hargrove's hit of Favre of the playoffs. That was dirty.
Also, you can't ignore Hargrove's hit of Favre of the playoffs. That was dirty.
I found it interesting cuz if these guys were being so villainous on the field you'd think they'd be getting flagged up at a high rate. What's the point of trying to injure someone for a bounty if you never accomplish your goal?
don't agree about Hargrove. physical, yes. within the rules, yes. dirty, not to me. then again, I'm not gonna be a fan of badell's NFL on down the line either.
don't agree about Hargrove. physical, yes. within the rules, yes. dirty, not to me. then again, I'm not gonna be a fan of badell's NFL on down the line either.
Maybe I'm getting the plays mixed up, but wasn't it Hargrove that hit Favre on that handoff? That was a penalty and clearly not within the rules. QB's shouldn't be hit on a simple hand off.
And regarding your first comment, you're saying there is only a crime if you accomplish your goal. That's just not true in our legal system; it's about intent (ie: attempted murder is still a crime even if you failed). I haven't seen the evidence, but the NFL clearly believes that Vilma's actions showed intent to injure opposing players with use of a bounty pool. Whether it worked doesn't matter; what matters is that the intent was there.
If you don't like the place the NFL is going, then you might want to be prepared to move on to a new sport soon. Goodell isn't trying to protect the game; he's trying to protect the league. There is a difference.
And regarding your first comment, you're saying there is only a crime if you accomplish your goal. That's just not true in our legal system; it's about intent (ie: attempted murder is still a crime even if you failed). I haven't seen the evidence, but the NFL clearly believes that Vilma's actions showed intent to injure opposing players with use of a bounty pool. Whether it worked doesn't matter; what matters is that the intent was there.
If you don't like the place the NFL is going, then you might want to be prepared to move on to a new sport soon. Goodell isn't trying to protect the game; he's trying to protect the league. There is a difference.
I think if you dig down a bit, one of the underlying issues here is not just the over the top hits - it was the intent to injure AND the fact that outsiders were tossing money into the pot ala Ornstein
The League simply cannot allow anything that impacts the integrity of the game and letting low life wise guys throw down $10k to influence the outcome of a game is a non-starter on every level
$10k to take out a starting QB is a helluva lot cheaper and easier than buying a Ref. With some of the latest revelations about Miami boosters offering pay in college for Vilma as well as the Ornstein involvement with the Saints - this crap could take down a multi-billion dollar industry and turn it into WWF real fast
Zero chance the league, the networks or the advertisers sit still while these numbskulls scuttle it all for a couple of measly bounties. The players are the pawns and will pay the price, but this is a lot bigger than some questionable hits and tough talk by a coach IMO
The League simply cannot allow anything that impacts the integrity of the game and letting low life wise guys throw down $10k to influence the outcome of a game is a non-starter on every level
$10k to take out a starting QB is a helluva lot cheaper and easier than buying a Ref. With some of the latest revelations about Miami boosters offering pay in college for Vilma as well as the Ornstein involvement with the Saints - this crap could take down a multi-billion dollar industry and turn it into WWF real fast
Zero chance the league, the networks or the advertisers sit still while these numbskulls scuttle it all for a couple of measly bounties. The players are the pawns and will pay the price, but this is a lot bigger than some questionable hits and tough talk by a coach IMO
quote:Goodell isn't trying to protect the game; he's trying to protect the league. There is a difference.
I guess I don't understand why any difference is relevant- if the game is deemed illegal because of the violence, then the league dissolved because it is based on the game.
The long standing culture of the game is there were dirty players, dirty plays, and the worst that could happen is you get 15 yards and ejected/suspended for something really egregious (Charles Martin). And while there is a physical nature to the game, plays that were excessively violent and the culture of apathy towards it to me is what Goodell is combating. I don't think that is pussifying the game... it's making it viable for the future.
And what is fascinating to me is the glaring contradiction on full display on the part of the players. They are outraged at the suspensions of the players in the Saints case and scream about the "pussification" of the game when Goodell comes down on excessive hits (James Harrison); meanwhile dozens of players are lining up in a lawsuit saying that the NFL never told them of the dangers of head injuries. Huh???
Two things I don't understand:
1. I don't understand why the NFL continues to withhold the evidence? If it is as cut and dried as they made it sound, why won't they show it? Don't the accused have a right to review the evidence presented against them? Perhaps our X4 legal could enlighten me.
2. If the real issue is the payments made to players by the team (and not the on-field conduct), because Greg Williams represents the team then shouldn't the issue be with the Saints and Greg Williams and not the players? What's the difference between getting $10,000 for getting a sack in a game as part of your contract and getting $10,000 for knocking the QB out as far as the players are concerned? Moral implications aside, it's a business proposition for them made by the team that they accepted. As far as players paying players, does that kind of issue actually fall under the leagues jurisdiction? They don't frown on players paying other players for the rights to their jersey number, what's the difference? They aren't gambling.
I'm asking these questions honestly.
1. I don't understand why the NFL continues to withhold the evidence? If it is as cut and dried as they made it sound, why won't they show it? Don't the accused have a right to review the evidence presented against them? Perhaps our X4 legal could enlighten me.
2. If the real issue is the payments made to players by the team (and not the on-field conduct), because Greg Williams represents the team then shouldn't the issue be with the Saints and Greg Williams and not the players? What's the difference between getting $10,000 for getting a sack in a game as part of your contract and getting $10,000 for knocking the QB out as far as the players are concerned? Moral implications aside, it's a business proposition for them made by the team that they accepted. As far as players paying players, does that kind of issue actually fall under the leagues jurisdiction? They don't frown on players paying other players for the rights to their jersey number, what's the difference? They aren't gambling.
I'm asking these questions honestly.
Your first question goes to the specifics of the CBA in terms of rights, standards and evidence. I don't know what the CBA specifically says with regards to all of this when it comes to discipline, but this isn't a courtroom, so we shouldn't apply those norms to this situation unless or until something like this gets to court.
The second question seems simple to me - Rog needed to bring the hammer down to set a precedent on both management and the players. After this, players will from now on be expected to refuse to take part in any team-wide bounty program. Is that somewhat idealistic? Sure, and IMHO JMO that's part of the union's beef here - WTF are the players supposed to do going forward? Rat out their coaches and risk getting cut unless they're stars?
The second question seems simple to me - Rog needed to bring the hammer down to set a precedent on both management and the players. After this, players will from now on be expected to refuse to take part in any team-wide bounty program. Is that somewhat idealistic? Sure, and IMHO JMO that's part of the union's beef here - WTF are the players supposed to do going forward? Rat out their coaches and risk getting cut unless they're stars?
Think about what your feelings were about this bounty episode - before and after hearing the audio recording of Gregg Williams pre-game speech
The NFL has a lot of motivation to keep this out of the public view; its an eye opener for many and no good can come of it. Look at how the NFL hired independent prosecutors to review the info and then comment that the evidence was "very strong"
They want to show the strength of their hand without having to open up the sausage-making to the general public to see. Some of it might be pretty damaging not only for the league, but for some of the players and their endorsement deals
The less detail they reveal the better and that's why they've taken that tact.
The NFLPA in its infinite wisdom went back to the "show us your books" meme that was so successful in the court of public opinion during the lockout.
The League is smart enough to know the evidence will hurt all parties and its best to keep it under wraps as long as possible
The NFL has a lot of motivation to keep this out of the public view; its an eye opener for many and no good can come of it. Look at how the NFL hired independent prosecutors to review the info and then comment that the evidence was "very strong"
They want to show the strength of their hand without having to open up the sausage-making to the general public to see. Some of it might be pretty damaging not only for the league, but for some of the players and their endorsement deals
The less detail they reveal the better and that's why they've taken that tact.
The NFLPA in its infinite wisdom went back to the "show us your books" meme that was so successful in the court of public opinion during the lockout.
The League is smart enough to know the evidence will hurt all parties and its best to keep it under wraps as long as possible
quote:Originally posted by JJSD:
WTF are the players supposed to do going forward? Rat out their coaches and risk getting cut unless they're stars?
Yes. This has happened in the business world, where you can report fraudulent activity at the executive level at a public company directly to the SEC without fear of repercussions. The whistleblower even gets a reward if it's proven true. Obviously a different world compared to the NFL, but I think Roger would say that yes, he wants players to come forward if a coach is doing anything that would harm the league. Whether that's realistic is another issue, but he's trying to change the culture.
If a player is asked to break league rules by a member of management (i.e., coaches), isn't their recourse to go to the union steward (or in this case, the player rep) and escalate the incident to the union? That should be the check in place to eliminate any fear of "snitching", right?
quote:Originally posted by DeepChicago:
1. We cut Sam Hurd and eventually Tank Johnson.
2. Marsh and Cutler are going to be great and you know it.
3. I made 85K last year, going to hopefully crack 100 this year.
Male prostitution will get you no where son.
quote:The League simply cannot allow anything that impacts the integrity of the game and letting low life wise guys throw down $10k to influence the outcome of a game is a non-starter on every level. $10k to take out a starting QB is a helluva lot cheaper and easier than buying a Ref. With some of the latest revelations about Miami boosters offering pay in college for Vilma as well as the Ornstein involvement with the Saints - this crap could take down a multi-billion dollar industry and turn it into WWF real fast
I guess if it were truly about the integrity of the game the league would certainly be trying to push PED testing more than they are. IMO, it sure looks to me that the size/speed/strength of a lot of players appear to be influenced by PEDs in the NFL.
I also question a league that spends more time fining players about whether or not their uniforms and socks are up to code than whether or not their employees can behave on or off the field.
I think this is really about the NFL wanting to protect its image and not let the cat out of the bag that on a basic level, you have a lot of thugs and dirtbags that play the sport- and that includes some coaches. The NFL is ridiculously successful, but they sure don't want the general public to see or hear some of the not so good aspects of what goes on behind closed doors.
quote:The NFLPA in its infinite wisdom went back to the "show us your books" meme that was so successful in the court of public opinion during the lockout.
This is true, but it's also a simple and basic reality of contract negotiations. Disclosing financials is nothing new and it supports the concept of bargaining in good faith.
I thought he was dealing crack.quote:Originally posted by Diggr14:quote:Originally posted by DeepChicago:
1. We cut Sam Hurd and eventually Tank Johnson.
2. Marsh and Cutler are going to be great and you know it.
3. I made 85K last year, going to hopefully crack 100 this year.
Male prostitution will get you no where son.
I'm not sure what to think about this? If he was told to lie to the cops about a murder would he do it?
Told to play "dumb"????
Told to play "dumb"????
Hargrove told to deny bounty program
Williams and Vitt have dug themselves an impressive hole.
Not quite Greg !!
Will be interesting to see how this plays out for Hargrove. Would be great for the Packers if he can get his suspension reduced. Did the league give him 8 games due to participating in the bounty program and the fact that he was caught lying ? If so, this reduces the lying component to the argument, but now directly implicates him in participation in the bounty program.
Stay tuned !!
Williams and Vitt have dug themselves an impressive hole.
quote:Hargrove said Williams then said he was going to deny the existence of any bounty system, and that both Williams and Vitt instructed Hargrove to do the same. Williams also said: "Those [expletives at the NFL] have been trying to get me for years" and if all the Saints "stay on the same page, this will blow over."
Not quite Greg !!
Will be interesting to see how this plays out for Hargrove. Would be great for the Packers if he can get his suspension reduced. Did the league give him 8 games due to participating in the bounty program and the fact that he was caught lying ? If so, this reduces the lying component to the argument, but now directly implicates him in participation in the bounty program.
Stay tuned !!