I just wanted to get everyone's thougts on this. Personally, I dont think any coaching staff should be enocuraging players to purposely injury anyone. Incentives for a "cart off" hit? Really? Its really not worth the risk. They finally have a good team and now they screw things up with this. Someone could lose their job, players could be suspended, etc. Its already going to be a mess.
Thoughts?
A few, but I need a real keyboard and not this swype crap.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on March 06, 2012, 05:38:51 PM
A few, but I need a real keyboard and not this swype crap.
Sorry to hear that NRW ;D
OK. No more cellphone.
My thoughts are that this is being blown way out of proportion. That these defensive players are paid a bounty to take the opposing players out of a game when they sign their contracts. That's their job.
I don't believe that a $5,000 bonus for taking Favre out of the game is any more incentive than a $5 bonus. Think 'Trading Places'. The guys in the locker room use it as motivation - too many people are getting worked up over the amount, but it's irrelevant. Hell, give them helmet stickers - you'll get the same results.
I also don't believe that 99% of these players actually go out to seriously injure one of their own. It's football. These are big, strong, fast guys colliding forcefully with other big, strong, fast guys and the only question is when and not if you're going to get busted up. Does the little bit of extra motivation push some guys to playing 'through' the whistle? Sure, but that's how they've played their entire careers to get to this point and now they're being told to stop doing what comes naturally. When I start seeing coaches in Pop Warner or Highschool start coaching kids to only give 85%, you know, just ease up and take it easy on the other guys - don't want anyone getting hurt, then I'll know that I'm seeing the end of football as we know it. I'm not a big fan of comparing football players to soldiers, but it's the equivalent of telling snipers to hit their target in the thigh - just tap 'em a little so they get the message.
The biggest problem that I see with it is the timing of the reports versus the direction/image that the NFL is trying to move towards. The last thing that the NFL needs while preaching a message of player safety whille there's pending litigation regarding player safety, is to have a verified report of 'headhunters' trying to take out the opposing teams QB using a bounty system. It sends a mixed message. But I think Goodell will be crystal clear on the message he sends when doling out punishment.
I think that if the commish does anything less than ban Williams for life, then he's not sending the correct message. Since he (Williams) should be financially set based on the millions that he's been payed over the years, and you sit him out for only a year or half-a-year, that's more like a vacation than a punishment. A life ban from the NFL will guarantee that it doesn't happen again. I think Loomis and Payton should be gone for at least 1 year for allowing it to happen. I don't think the players should be punished at all - they weren't doing anything differently from what they have been coached their whole life.
To sum it up DD, I think players have gotten rewarded for on field stuff their entire careers, whether it be $5 for getting a TD from Mom and Dad, a beer on the bus ride home for destroying a rival from their highschool coach or the envelopes stuffed with $20s that these kids picked up every Saturday night at the Boosters Club. Their in the big leagues and the reward is that much higher. It will continue, just in another fashion. But the league will set precedence with this one and try and further promote their image of safety in an inherently violent game. You can't have it both ways, but you can try to make an example of someone.
QuoteMy thoughts are that this is being blown way out of proportion.
+1
I think its a clear difference in playing tough defense, and trying to get someone carted off the field, and possiabley end their career if the injury is bad enough. To me that is actually selfish in a sense. Its kinda like " Hey your career is over but Im getting a fat pay check." I think player that would take a moment to put their self in that situation, they would think twice about it. It definately cant be prevented 100% for sure, but is not behavior that should be encouraged on any level either. IMO
Quote from: duvaldude08 on March 06, 2012, 10:29:07 PM
" Hey your career is over but Im getting a fat pay check."
Most already get a fat paycheck.
In reality, what difference does $1,000 make when you're already getting $500k for the game?
And I don't buy that crap that they were intentionally trying to injure the other players. You don't have to cheap shot someone to have them 'carted off the field'. Just hit them as hard as you can and let the laws of physics do the rest.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on March 06, 2012, 10:48:18 PM
Quote from: duvaldude08 on March 06, 2012, 10:29:07 PM
" Hey your career is over but Im getting a fat pay check."
Most already get a fat paycheck.
In reality, what difference does $1,000 make when you're already getting $500k for the game?
And I don't buy that crap that they were intentionally trying to injure the other players. You don't have to cheap shot someone to have them 'carted off the field'. Just hit them as hard as you can and let the laws of physics do the rest.
I look at it like my job. Yeah I dont play football, but thats not the point. LOL Its like someone doing all they can to get someone fired so they get a promotion aka more money. Is that morally acceptable? Of course not. Regardless, its against NFL policies and they should and will be punished. If you do something against your companies policy at work, the excuse "everybody does it" does not save you job at the end of the day.
Anyone who treats this lightly should be ashamed and remember....there are children listening and learning...is this a lesson anyone would want to teach?
Quote from: Garden guy on March 07, 2012, 07:12:50 AM
Anyone who treats this lightly should be ashamed and remember....there are children listening and learning...is this a lesson anyone would want to teach?
Sure. But think about it next time you tell your 12 year old you'll give them 5 bucks if the score a run. Extra motivation and maybe the difference between them sliding around a tag at home or going through the catcher to get to the plate.
I dont think it is being blown out of proportion at all. In fact what we are currently aware of may just be the tip of the iceberg. This practice needs to be stopped immediately... for the good of the game... for the good of the players. I expect Goddell to come down hard... >:(
I don't think this is getting blown out of proportion either.. this is bad. Beat the best player by your skill and gameplan.. don't put a bounty on him and have your players use cheap shots to get him out of the game.
Another question is... How are the bounties being funded? It's not part of the players' contracts I'm sure.. This will be very interesting to see how Mr. Goddell punishes the parties involved. I hear the punishment will be "unprecedented."
Quote from: Garden guy on March 07, 2012, 07:12:50 AM
Anyone who treats this lightly should be ashamed and remember....there are children listening and learning...is this a lesson anyone would want to teach?
With stories like this -- which I view as more a reflection on American football culture than an isolated incident in New Orleans -- coupled with the staggering research coming out of places like the Sports Legacy Institute on the long term effects of brain trauma and concussions, there's going to have to come a day where we, as a nation, have a real serious conversation about football and its place in our society, especially with our youth. It's a brutal, violent game, with potentially serious long term ramifications for the participants, even without the added risk these bounties present.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge football fan, but knowing what we know now about concussions in particular, if I had kids, I don't know if I'd be ok with them playing.
I'm curious, what do you parents out there think about the concussion issue when it comes to youth sports?
I agree that the punishment should be severe....
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on March 06, 2012, 06:58:21 PM
I think that if the commish does anything less than ban Williams for life, then he's not sending the correct message. Since he (Williams) should be financially set based on the millions that he's been payed over the years, and you sit him out for only a year or half-a-year, that's more like a vacation than a punishment. A life ban from the NFL will guarantee that it doesn't happen again. I think Loomis and Payton should be gone for at least 1 year for allowing it to happen. I don't think the players should be punished at all - they weren't doing anything differently from what they have been coached their whole life.
But I also think the term 'bounty' is being applied a little too liberally. Is it easier to win with Tom Brady on the field or with Brian Hoyer chucking the ball? The defense SHOULD already be hitting Brady with every intention of taking him out of the game - it's the nature of the sport. The fact that the coaches are using some $$$$ as extra motivation is not a problem for me, personally. We told our kids it was OK in Pop Warner, "I'll give you $5 for every touchdown you score." We told our kids it was OK in High School, "I'll give you $20 for every sack you get tonight." We told our kids it was OK in college, "Good game, son, now go thank Mr. Allen, he left something for you on the table." And now in the pros, on the biggest stage, we shouldn't have to tell them, but it worked so well before, why not continue the practice?
Sure, we tell our kids to give it 110% every play, but if they did, we wouldn't need to give Jr. the $5 for a TD - it's EXTRA MOTIVATION to do what they're already supposed to be doing, and from my perspective, what's going on in the pros is no different.
Quote from: KenFSU on March 07, 2012, 10:42:33 AM
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge football fan, but knowing what we know now about concussions in particular, if I had kids, I don't know if I'd be ok with them playing.
I'm curious, what do you parents out there think about the concussion issue when it comes to youth sports?
I don't think it's as great an issue until they start getting to the JV / Varsity level, when they all are big and fast or quickly getting there.
Everything else that I'm about to type isn't something I've thought of, it's from Vic Ketchman. IMO, he is a true historian of the sport and I'm really glad that I had the opportunity to read him while he covered the Jags, and I also believe that he's spot on with a lot of his thoughts.
1.) Take away the facemask and shrink the helmet. The reason you're seeing more helmet first contact is due to the size and padding that the helmet provides. Players are wearing smaller shoulder pads - to be able to run faster and have more freedom of movement, but the helmets are larger than they were even 7-8 years ago. Take the facemasks off, and guys would be a little more hesitant to lead with their face if they knew they might break a nose. Right now, their heads are a tank.
2.) Shrink the field. I don't mean adjust the size, just adjust the way the game is played. When they brought the hashmarks in closer to the middle, it opened up a lot of wide space in the passing lanes. Freedom of space allow guys to gain more speed.... Another thing is the style of play - it used to be that a DB could stay in contact with the reciever until the ball was in the air, bump-and-run coverage, now they're not allowed to have any contact beyond 5 yds of the line of scrimmage. It forces the defense to play a looser coverage that is being compensated by a safety playing centerfield, waiting on the QB to pick a target and then act like a heat-seeking-missle to the WR. Instead of being tackled by the guy running with you, the WRs are getting hit by a guy running full speed in the opposite direction.
3.) Take the handcuffs off of the pass-rushers. You can't hit the QB in the head. You can't hit him below the knees. You can't hit him after an INT. Guess what, that's allowing QBs more freedom in the pocket, allowing more time for guys to get separation, allowing more DBs to get to full speed before contact. If the D was allowed to harass the QB as they did in years past, the passing game wouldn't be as emphasized and more teams would run the ball on more downs. As it stands now, they might as well put a red jersey on the QB and tie some flags around his waist.
I see it this way. You can be an effective defense without "taking people out the game". Our Defense this past season is a perfect example. We stayed in the top five all season. Our defense wasnt knocking people heads off, but they were tough and effective. The didnt do anything special and they didnt blitz the QB's like crazy, but they got the job done. You dont have to those types of intentions to be an effective defense.
Quote from: duvaldude08 on March 07, 2012, 11:43:49 AM
I see it this way. You can be an effective defense without "taking people out the game". Our Defense this past season is a perfect example. We stayed in the top five all season. Our defense wasnt knocking people heads off, but they were tough and effective. The didnt do anything special and they didnt blitz the QB's like crazy, but they got the job done. You dont have to those types of intentions to be an effective defense.
No you don't. And I believe when they say 'take out the QB', it doesn't mean to do anything outside of the realm of normal football, just don't leave anything on the field and hit him as often as possible.
I'm sure there is some sport fan/numbers guy out there who already worked on this but it would be interesting to see the comparison of "cart off" hits before and during Gregg Williams time with the Saints.
NRW, I don't buy it. In pop warner or high school football, players are not (or at least shouldn't be) told to purposefully cause injuries or take cheap shots to take people out of the game.
They are taught to play the damn sport. Injuries are sometimes a consequence of the sport, they aren't the goal of it.
Fortunately, the NFL is likely to make the right move here.
Quote from: Tacachale on March 07, 2012, 02:53:07 PM
NRW, I don't buy it. In pop warner or high school football, players are not (or at least shouldn't be) told to purposefully cause injuries or take cheap shots to take people out of the game.
They're not being told to 'purposefully' injure or take 'cheap shots' in the NFL either - I think that's where the misconception is really starting to creep in. It's called playing 'through' the whistle, and yes, it's taught at an early age.
Where else can you earn millions of dollars to act like the immature brat that you were in grade school? Most NFL players do not earn my respect because TV has made them millionaires, yet they play the same tough game many better, more talented players have played, but who do not have the millions due to TV.
Billionaires act like babies, so how else should millionaires act? Its a game, let 'em play. Otherwise, let women play the game with the men. They do want equal rights!
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on March 07, 2012, 02:58:25 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on March 07, 2012, 02:53:07 PM
NRW, I don't buy it. In pop warner or high school football, players are not (or at least shouldn't be) told to purposefully cause injuries or take cheap shots to take people out of the game.
They're not being told to 'purposefully' injure or take 'cheap shots' in the NFL either - I think that's where the misconception is really starting to creep in. It's called playing 'through' the whistle, and yes, it's taught at an early age.
From what I've read, I disagree.
Quote
The New Orleans Saints were found to have operated a bounty system in which players were paid bonuses for, among other things, hard hits and deliberately injuring opposing players.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/topics/_/page/new-orleans-saints-bounty-scandal
Quote
According to the league, the additional investigation established the following facts:
"1. During the 2009, 2010 and 2011 seasons, the players and other participants involved used their own money to fund a 'Pay for Performance' program. Players earned cash awards for plays such as interceptions or fumble recoveries. They also earned 'bounty' payments for 'cart-offs' and 'knockouts.' All such payments violate league rules for non-contract bonuses.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-nfl-saints-paid-players-to-injure-opponents-20120302,0,3490083.story
"Playing through the whistle" this is not.
And it's besides the fact that any pool of this kind, even for legitimate good plays, is flatly against the NFL's contract agreements and is potentially damaging to the entire league's labor relations, which is something else that is often glossed over in this whole discussion.
Words and meanings are being misconstrued for effect.
If you ask ANY player if they 'deliberately' try to injure someone, the answer will always be a resounding, NEVER.
Ask the same player if they 'deliberately' try to hit the opposition as hard as possible, the answer will always be a resounding, EVERYTIME.
It's cause and effect, and it's football.
The money is nothing more than a motivational tool (I acknowledge that it's illegal) and I don't see anything nefarious happening. Unfortunately, this isn't our father's football game anymore and the image the league is pushing is the reason that I doubt Williams will ever see an NFL sideline again as a coach. If Bill Romanowski and Reggie Miller and even Larry Csonka (a fullback, mind you) played today, they would be spending more time suspended than on the field. It's just the way things are. I can accept it, but I don't have to like it.
Quote from: Tacachale on March 07, 2012, 03:34:08 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on March 07, 2012, 02:58:25 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on March 07, 2012, 02:53:07 PM
NRW, I don't buy it. In pop warner or high school football, players are not (or at least shouldn't be) told to purposefully cause injuries or take cheap shots to take people out of the game.
They're not being told to 'purposefully' injure or take 'cheap shots' in the NFL either - I think that's where the misconception is really starting to creep in. It's called playing 'through' the whistle, and yes, it's taught at an early age.
From what I've read, I disagree.
Quote
The New Orleans Saints were found to have operated a bounty system in which players were paid bonuses for, among other things, hard hits and deliberately injuring opposing players.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/topics/_/page/new-orleans-saints-bounty-scandal
Quote
According to the league, the additional investigation established the following facts:
"1. During the 2009, 2010 and 2011 seasons, the players and other participants involved used their own money to fund a 'Pay for Performance' program. Players earned cash awards for plays such as interceptions or fumble recoveries. They also earned 'bounty' payments for 'cart-offs' and 'knockouts.' All such payments violate league rules for non-contract bonuses.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-nfl-saints-paid-players-to-injure-opponents-20120302,0,3490083.story
"Playing through the whistle" this is not.
And it's besides the fact that any pool of this kind, even for legitimate good plays, is flatly against the NFL's contract agreements and is potentially damaging to the entire league's labor relations, which is something else that is often glossed over in this whole discussion.
Good points!
Acutally these types of pools are against any companies policy. I know I would put out the door for any type of pool at my employer. Any cash that's floating around that is not from payroll, is a violation. I dont care what your profession is. At my previous job one of my co-workers use to pay me to key their applications for them because I was fast. Had my manager found that out, I would have been fired. :o
Quote from: duvaldude08 on March 07, 2012, 03:54:40 PM
Acutally these types of pools are against any companies policy. I know I would put out the door for any type of pool at my employer. Any cash that's floating around that is not from payroll, is a violation. I dont care what your profession is. At my previous job one of my co-workers use to pay me to key their applications for them because I was fast. Had my manager found that out, I would have been fired. :o
So you're guilty of collecting a 'bounty' for keyed up applications? No soup for you!
Quote from: Tacachale on March 07, 2012, 03:34:08 PM
And it's besides the fact that any pool of this kind, even for legitimate good plays, is flatly against the NFL's contract agreements and is potentially damaging to the entire league's labor relations, which is something else that is often glossed over in this whole discussion.
Guys, I'm not glossing over this intentionally, but according to DD08, it's OK. According to most office Celebrity Death Pools, NFL Picks, NCAA Brackets it's OK, even though your HR manager says it's against company policy as they hand you $10 for next week's sheet. It's a non-issue.
BTW, did you know that a lot of pro golfers have side-bets going during their tournaments? Maybe Tim Finchem should suspend those guys from a few tournaments.
NRW... even the saints have acknowleged their wrong doing...
QuoteMetairie, LA â€" New Orleans Saints' head coach Sean Payton and general manager Mickey Loomis released a joint statement Tuesday regarding the bounty progam.
They took "full responsibility" for "violations disclosed by the NFL during their investigation of our club."
The NFL on Friday found that between 22 and 27 defensive players, as well as at least one assistant coach, maintained an illegal bounty program from 2009-2011, which included payments to players for inflicting game-ending injuries on competitors.
"These are serious violations and we understand the negative impact it [sic] has had on our game," Payton and Loomis said in the statement. "Both of us have made it clear within our organization that this will never happen again, and make that same promise to the NFL and most importantly to all of our fans."
"This has brought undue hardship on [Saints owner Tom] Benson, who had nothing to do with this activity. He has been nothing but supportive and for that we both apologize to him."
I was attempting to reply last night but was kidnapped by some random assailants and forced to drink these beverages of sorts until my mind was fuzzy and my speech was slurred. Next thing I know, I was in getting out of this random car with a light on top at my house. Harrowing experience, yet somehow, I think I wouldn't mind if it happened again. ;)
On this topic, we're going to have to agree to disagree.
Everyone on this thread reads, "...payments to players for inflicting game-ending injuries on competitors." and automatically assumes phrases like malicious intent, willful harm, cheap shots, etc.
I read it and think that it's just part of the game. I understand that they're getting a payment (albiet illegal) for knocking a player out, but I think it's more to the tune of having 11 lumberjacks, each with an ax to take turns chopping down a tree and rewarding the guy who actually fells it. (Please no JDR comment about chopping wood) Everyone gets a few shots until the tree has had enough. I feel it's the same on the field. They each get their shots, but the guy with the last shot gets paid.
Taking out the opposing QB is in the gameplan every week, bounties or not, it just so happens that their motivational tool, $$$$, and not the hits themselves, are outside of the rules of the game.
I guess we will just have to wait on the final outcome of the case... :-X
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on March 06, 2012, 10:48:18 PM
And I don't buy that crap that they were intentionally trying to injure the other players. You don't have to cheap shot someone to have them 'carted off the field'. Just hit them as hard as you can and let the laws of physics do the rest.
I agree with this statement. When you're playing football at a professional level, the expectation is that every hit is going to be full force. It's a barbaric game, and the rules and equipment are the only real protection that the players have. I don't think an NFL player consciously thinks, "I'm going to hit my opponent at 70% force on this play to protect him." Instead, he's attacking like a runaway locomotive on every hit. For this reason, even though I don't like the spirit of the bounties, I don't know if I necessarily agree that -- given each hit is damn near full force already -- a bounty would necessarily translate to any harder hits or added injury on the field.
I look at it like boxing or mixed martial arts. I'm sure very few participants actually relish the thought of going out there and badly injuring someone, but it's a physical sport, violence comes with the territory, and if you pull your punches or hits, your going to be one carted off on a stretcher. And on a similar note, what's the difference between an NFL bounty and the knockout bonuses that fighters are regularly awarded for knocking out their opponents?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 08, 2012, 12:36:55 PM
I guess we will just have to wait on the final outcome of the case... :-X
Not really. If you read my first post, you'll see that I believe that Goodell is going to crucify Williams and will make an extreme example out of the rest involved so it doesn't tarnish the image of His league again. (see what I did there with the capital 'H' 8) )
I realize that what they've done is illegal and could be viewed as something that shouldn't be a part of football or any other sport, but I see it as a motivational tool and nothing more.
I don't agree with cheap shots outside of the rules, but a lot of what I've seen is just football. It just happens to have an illegal stigma attached to it.
I guess my main point is that without the 'bounty' it's just good, hard-hitting football, but when you associate the two, most view the same hits as malicious. I don't.
Quote from: KenFSU on March 08, 2012, 12:50:26 PM
And on a similar note, what's the difference between an NFL bounty and the knockout bonuses that fighters are regularly awarded for knocking out their opponents?
Only that one is ok per the rules and one is not.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on March 06, 2012, 06:58:21 PM
I think that if the commish does anything less than ban Williams for life, then he's not sending the correct message. Since he (Williams) should be financially set based on the millions that he's been payed over the years, and you sit him out for only a year or half-a-year, that's more like a vacation than a punishment. A life ban from the NFL will guarantee that it doesn't happen again. I think Loomis and Payton should be gone for at least 1 year for allowing it to happen. I don't think the players should be punished at all - they weren't doing anything differently from what they have been coached their whole life.
Well Williams in indefinitely out - to be reviewed after the end of the year. Payton is gone for a year, Loomis for 3/4s of a year. I was close on this one.
The penalties at first glance are pretty shocking... But this kind of behavior needs to be stopped...cold. While you may never be able to stop "incentives" privately agreed to amongst players... institutional approval of such activities cannot be condoned. Ignoring the commissioner's order to stop the practice is a grave offense... as is lying to the commissioner's office during the investigation.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 22, 2012, 08:43:09 AM
The penalties at first glance are pretty shocking... But this kind of behavior needs to be stopped...cold. While you may never be able to stop "incentives" privately agreed to amongst players... institutional approval of such activities cannot be condoned. Ignoring the commissioner's order to stop the practice is a grave offense... as is lying to the commissioner's office during the investigation.
The penalties were in-line with what I expected because of the NFLs trending towards a 'safer' league. They were going to be made examples of, plain & simple. As the reports keep coming, I'm seeing that the Saints were in the top 5 of all teams over the Williams period for Unecessary Roughness, Roughing the Passer, type penalties, so as I'm on record for not being against the bounty program per se, I am also on record for being against the hits outside of the rules, which is what the league is attempting to prove.
I'm a little disappointed with the language in Williams' suspension - indefinitely. That means there is a possibility for him to be re-instated, which I don't agree with. I also think that I've read somewhere that the NFL can't use a lifetime suspension due to the collusion rules amongst the individual teams, so that part still has to play out.
Based on the suspension of the coaches and management, and though I don't think it's right, I'll find myself surprised at the harshness of the suspensions for the players themselves. IMO, they were following company policy, but I guess if the company tells you to cheat on your taxes you'll go down, too. We'll see.
I think they should have lost more draft picks and a heftier fine against the team.
Quote from: mtraininjax on March 22, 2012, 04:41:17 PM
I think they should have lost more draft picks and a heftier fine against the team.
Why? The team played the denial card from the get-go. Issued a cease & desist to the coaches and then washed thier hands of it. No knowledge of it continuing.
2 Second Round picks sound about right.
Cry me a river New Orleans. So what , you lose your coach and some cheesy draft picks. At least you don't have Jeff Ireland in your front office. Will the NFL please suspend the Miami Dolphins GM for eternity due to complete incompetence?
(http://coedbc.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/dolphins-protest-4.jpg)
Quote from: thelakelander on March 22, 2012, 04:58:03 PM
Cry me a river New Orleans. So what , you lose your coach and some cheesy draft picks. At least you don't have Jeff Ireland in your front office. Will the NFL please suspend the Miami Dolphins GM for eternity due to complete incompetence?
(http://coedbc.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/dolphins-protest-4.jpg)
HA! Simmer down Lake! Thats not nice! ;D
http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2012-12-12/gregg-williams-testified-that-he-wanted-to-stop-bounties
Leaked testimony...
QuoteGregg Williams testified that he wanted to stop bounties
Former New Orleans defensive coordinator Gregg Williams testified that he tried to shut down the team's bounty system when the NFL began investigating but was overruled by interim Saints head coach Joe Vitt, according to transcripts from appeals hearings obtained by The Associated Press.
According to the transcripts, Williams said that then-assistant Vitt responded to a suggestion that the pay-for-pain setup be abandoned with an obscenity-filled speech about how NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell "wasn't going to ... tell us to ... stop doing what won us the Super Bowl. This has been going on in the ... National Football League forever, and it will go on here forever, when they run (me) out of there, it will still go on."
Williams and Vitt were among a number of witnesses whose testimony was heard by former NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue, who on Tuesday overturned four player suspensions in the case. Tagliabue was appointed by Goodell to handle the final round of appeals. The AP obtained transcripts of Tagliabue's closed-door hearings through a person with a role in the case.
Vitt was a Saints assistant who was banned for six games for his part in the scandal but now is filling in for head coach Sean Payton, who was suspended for the entire season. Williams was suspended indefinitely by Goodell. Others who testified included former defensive assistant Mike Cerullo, the initial whistleblower and considered a key NFL witness.
Transcripts portray the former coaching colleagues, all part of the Saints' 2010 Super Bowl championship, as bitterly disagreeing with one another and occasionally contradicting how the NFL depicted the bounty system.
Vitt, Williams and Cerullo appeared separately before Tagliabue and were questioned by lawyers for the NFL and lawyers representing the players originally suspended by Goodell: Jonathan Vilma, Will Smith, Scott Fujita and Anthony Hargrove.
Tagliabue's ruling found that "Saints' coaches and managers led a deliberate, unprecedented and effective effort to obstruct the NFL's investigation. ..."
The transcripts, which could be entered as evidence in Vilma's pending defamation case against Goodell, include numerous testy, and sometimes humorous, exchanges between witnesses and attorneys â€" and between Tagliabue and the attorneys.
Offering to take a lie detector test, Vitt challenged versions given by Williams and Cerullo. Vitt vowed to sue Cerullo and described Williams as "narcissistic." He referred to both as disgruntled former employees who were fired, even though, publicly, the Saints said Williams' departure for St. Louis was by mutual agreement. Vitt depicted Cerullo as incompetent and said he missed work numerous times and offered bizarre, fabricated excuses for his absences.
Vitt was asked whether he oversaw Cerullo's attempts to destroy evidence related to bounties, which the NFL determined the Saints sanctioned from 2009 to 2011, with thousands of dollars offered for hits that injured opponents and knocked them out of games.
"No. The answer is no," Vitt said. "Cerullo is an idiot."
Williams referred to the case as "somewhat of a witch hunt." He said he wants to coach in the NFL again, "took responsibility so that nobody else had to," and that Vilma has "been made a scapegoat."
Williams stood by his earlier sworn statement that Vilma pledged a $10,000 bounty on quarterback Brett Favre in the Saints' game against the Minnesota Vikings for the NFC championship. But Williams also said that the performance pool he ran was aimed at team bonding, not bounties, and that he saw a difference between asking players to hit hard legally, which he said he did, and asking them to purposely injure an opponent, which he said no one in the organization condoned.
"The game is about a mental toughness on top of a physical toughness," Williams testified at one point. "You know, it's not golf."
Williams, however, acknowledged he suggested Favre should be knocked out of the game.
"We want to play tough, hard-nosed football and look to get ready to play against the next guy. ... Brett is a friend of mine, and so that's just part of this business," Williams said. "You know, at no time, you know, are we looking to try to end anybody's career."
Williams described player pledges to the pool as "nominal" and said they rarely kept the money they earned, either putting it back in the pool or offering it as tips to equipment personnel. In the case of the large amounts pledged during the playoffs, Williams described it as "air" or "funny money" or "banter," adding that he never actually saw any cash collected or distributed and had no idea what would have happened to the money if Cerullo collected it.
Cerullo testified that league investigators misrepresented what he told them, and that, during the playoffs following the 2009 regular season, he kept track of large playoff pledges on note pads but didn't collect the money.
Cerullo said hits for cash started with Williams telling the staff that "Sean kind of put him in charge of bringing back a swagger to the defense ... so he wanted to brainstorm with us as coaches what we thought we could do. ... At one point in one of those meetings, Joe Vitt suggested (his previous teams) had a pay-for-play, pay-for-incentive program that the guys kind of bought into and kind of had fun with, and, you know, that was his suggestion. At that point, Gregg also admitted that other places he was at, they had the same type of thing. And at that point, Gregg kind of ran with it."
Cerullo described pregame meetings during the playoffs, when the Saints faced quarterback Kurt Warner of the Arizona Cardinals and then Favre.
He said Vitt told players Warner "should have been retired" and "we're going to end the career tomorrow of Kurt Warner." Cerullo also quoted Vitt as saying of Favre: "That old man should have retired when I was there. Is he retiring, isn't he retiring â€" that whole (thing) is over, you know, tomorrow. ... We'll end the career tomorrow. We'll force him to retire. ..."
Cerullo testified that, once word came that the NFL was investigating, Williams told him to delete computer files about bounty amounts and that Vitt checked on his progress.
Asked what motivated him to come forward as a whistleblower with an email to the league in November 2011, Cerullo replied: "I was angry for being let go from the Saints."
Later, he testified: "I was angry at Joe Vitt, and I wanted to show that I was fired for lying and I witnessed Joe Vitt lying and he still had a job. So, that was my goal of reaching out to the NFL."
The transcripts also portray Tagliabue's command of the proceedings, including his efforts to rein in the lawyers.
"I'm going to intervene much more significantly, going forward," Tagliabue interjected at one point, "because I am extremely concerned that this is getting to be cumulative, confusing and useless, and I do not preside over proceedings that are cumulative, confusing and useless."
There also were lighter moments, such as when Tagliabue announced: "I thought I was going to get through this proceeding only by drinking coffee. I'm getting to the point where I need a Bloody Mary."