T1B

Granted there is an NFL forum here but I never go there.

Saints coach suspended for a season and former DC suspended indefinitely. They also lost 2 second round draft picks. Huge penalty to the Saints. Don't mess with the shield.

Is this the strongest penalty ever handed down by the NFL? I can't recall anything worse.

Van wrote:Is this the strongest penalty ever handed down by the NFL? I can't recall anything worse.

Sup?

Goodell hit the Saints like he was trying to collect a bounty.

The Saints just got JACKED UP!!


Sin,
Michael Irvin





I miss that segment before Monday Night games...

Indy, I don't recall what sort of penalty the NFL hit Manley with. You're saying it was worse than this? Payton will lose a year of salary, Williams will lose at least a year, and the team was fined $500,000 plus two second-round picks.

That's a helluva lot, especially with Payton's salary.

Manley, Schlichter, and Stanley Wilson were all banned from the NFL for life.

Stanley Wilson!

Gawd, was that dude one major fuckup! It was a Super Bowl, you idiot! A Super Bowl! Find a way, moron!

Yeah, I actually forgot about him. I knew the other two. I guess Bengal players are much more forgetable.

Paul Hornung and Alex Karras also received indefinite suspensions though they were reinstated after a year.

Sounds like Goodell got this right.

The troubling thing here is that the Saints' year will be completely destroyed by this, and this sort of "bounty hunting" is supposedly widespread throughout the league. They just got caught, is all.

Van wrote:The troubling thing here is that the Saints' year will be completely destroyed by this,

Tough shit.

Van wrote: That's a helluva lot, especially with Payton's salary.

7 million. Ouch...

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:Manley, Schlichter, and Stanley Wilson were all banned from the NFL for life.

Chuck Hughes got the Death Penalty.

Van wrote:The troubling thing here is that the Saints' year will be completely destroyed by this, and this sort of "bounty hunting" is supposedly widespread throughout the league. They just got caught, is all.

SMU agrees.

Left Seater wrote:

Van wrote:The troubling thing here is that the Saints' year will be completely destroyed by this, and this sort of "bounty hunting" is supposedly widespread throughout the league. They just got caught, is all.

SMU agrees.

So does USC.

- Toejam

Van wrote:The troubling thing here.

What, exactly, is troubling here?

Were you troubled the Patriots got penalized for the manner in which they taped (not from an enclosed on all sides location with a roof overhead... which was allowed?) I mean, everyone else did it too... New England just got caught. Awesome rationale.

Hmmm... I will have to look back at your takes on that subject.

Mace, I almost posted the exact same sort of Toejam quip.



ucant, the Patriots weren't penalized anywhere near this heavily for something that's supposedly widespread throughout the league. The only part I find troubling is the severity of the penalty, considering how many players in the NFL have come out and said that what New Orleans did is hardly unique.

It just seems awfully heavy-handed, is all. I'd equate it to taking one guy from baseball's steroid era and setting him before a firing squad, with all of his equally guilty fellow players silently looking on in smug amusement.

Don't try to trivialize this bounty program. You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about.
The Taints got exactly what they deserved.

Left Seater wrote:Granted there is an NFL forum here but I never go there.

Why?

I stopped reading this thread right there.

Go fuck yourself.

The Taperiots were trying to steal plays. The Saints were giving out bonuses for ending people. Hope that clears up the difference in the levels of penalty.

War Wagon wrote:

Left Seater wrote:Granted there is an NFL forum here but I never go there.

Why?

I stopped reading this thread right there.

Go fuck yourself.

You did just start a Mitt Romney thread here and not in the political forum BTW.

R-Jack wrote:The Saints were giving out bonuses for ending people. Hope that clears up the difference in the levels of penalty.

Not to mention lying and stonewalling the investigation for the last two years.

mvscal wrote:

R-Jack wrote:The Saints were giving out bonuses for ending people. Hope that clears up the difference in the levels of penalty.

Not to mention lying and stonewalling the investigation for the last two years.

Bullshit. They did it for three.

Sin,
R-Jack

R-Jack wrote:You did just start a Mitt Romney thread here and not in the political forum BTW.

This is the political forum and has been since 'tart ran Bitchshice.

The NFL forum, otoh, is an ongoing concern... can't imagine why Left Seater wouldn't deign to post there, so fuck him and the Aerobus he rode in on.

mvscal wrote:Don't try to trivialize this bounty program.

I'm not trying to trivialize anything, asshole. I'm saying it's hardly unique to the New Orleans Saints. If you think otherwise, well...you don't, so never mind.

You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about.

Neither do you, but fortunately we have people like Chris Mortensen, Mike Lombardi, Peter King and Adam Shefter and others who cover the league every fucking day from the inside out, and they do know what they're talking about. And guess what? They're all 100% in agreement that "bounty hunting" has gone on in the NFL for many years, with many teams.

The Taints got exactly what they deserved.

Maybe so, yet the general consensus around the league seems to be uniform shock at the severity of the penalty. We're talking writers, analysts, players, etc.

I suppose they should've just consulted you, though, then this would've all been about as surprising as yet another episode of your swollen lips sliding happily up and down the metaphorical Tebone.

This topic needs to be moved.

I was surprised this wasn't in the NFL forum to begin with.

Who cares which forum it's in? What does it matter?

Van wrote: I'm saying it's hardly unique to the New Orleans Saints.

Yeah, it seems pretty common among teams which employed Gregg Williams. Other teams? Not so much.

Maybe so, yet the general consensus around the league seems.

What "general consensus"? Do you subscribe to General Consensus Quarterly or something?

obviously, I care.

Or why even bother to have multiple forums up in this bitch.

Why do you care? What difference does it make, as long as you can find it and people are posting to it?

You're right, mvscal. There is no general consensus we've been hearing from all quarters of the NFL today. My eyes and ears must have been playing tricks on me.

Really, I'm not sure why anyone even bothers. It would be so much easier simply to consult you in these and seemingly all other "in the know" matters. Clearly, you're privy to infinitely more than the people who live it and breathe it every day.

Well, either that, or you're an obnoxious blowhard who smugly affects to know things you couldn't possibly know.

Yeah...one of those two.

Van wrote:My eyes and ears must have been playing tricks on me.

Try removing them from your ass.

Everyone knew that Goodell was going to drop the hammer on these assclowns...and he did. The reactions I've seen are mixed. Some think it was too excessive, some are pleased with the ruling. There is no general consensus.

I think the only safe general consensus is that people who use the term are talking out their asses. It is semantically null verbiage that is an intellectually lazy substitute for actual facts and figures.

Papa Willie wrote:Being a life-long Falcon fan, all I can say - is - that this makes my cock stiff from BWAHAHAHAing. :grin:

Your words are hurtful!

mvscal wrote:Everyone knew that Goodell was going to drop the hammer on these assclowns...and he did. The reactions I've seen are mixed. Some think it was too excessive, some are pleased with the ruling. There is no general consensus.

I think the only safe general consensus is that people who use the term are talking out their asses. It is semantically null verbiage that is an intellectually lazy substitute for actual facts and figures.

Actual facts and figures? You mean like "everyone" and "the reactions you've seen" and "some"?

Those kinds of intellectually earnest choices of precise verbiage? They're the ones that carry so much more impressive credibility than "consensus" with the all-knowing mvscal?

War Wagon wrote:

R-Jack wrote:You did just start a Mitt Romney thread here and not in the political forum BTW.

This is the political forum and has been since 'tart ran Bitchshice.

So what you're saying is, we have a politics forum, but you never go there.

Granted nobody goes there, but the point stands.

Nice to see thread placement is this weeks "sand in Wags labia" stance. What do you have in store for us next week, you petulant wet blanket?

R-Jack wrote:
So what you're saying is, we have a politics forum, but you never go there.

Granted nobody goes there, but the point stands.

Nice to see thread placement is this weeks "sand in Wags labia" stance. What do you have in store for us next week, you petulant wet blanket?

Didn't you marry a horse ?

Whitey's not bright... but, you're not close to being the sharpest tool in the shed.

You do come from "Rodeo" (wrong side of the Bay) ... am I right ?


Being that I'm a good guy... I'll lay out some breakfast for your wife tomorrow...

War Wagon wrote:

R-Jack wrote:You did just start a Mitt Romney thread here and not in the political forum BTW.

This is the political forum and has been since 'tart ran Bitchshice.

The NFL forum, otoh, is an ongoing concern... can't imagine why Left Seater wouldn't deign to post there, so fuck him and the Aerobus he rode in on.

I don't post there because I choose not to post there. NFL football is third in my football watching behind College and HS. Spend my time on Sunday watching DVR'ed games I missed while I was officiating or working. Plus, this is the type of news that goes beyond the topical forum and those of us that don't post in said NFL forum might still have opinions.

Also, the next time I ride in on an Aerobus will be the first. Fucking shit ass slow plane won't find me up front. You can have all those POS. Hell, they even look stupid sitting at the gate what with the tail section sitting lower than the front.

Left Seater wrote:Also, the next time I ride in on an Aerobus will be the first. Fucking shit ass slow plane won't find me up front. You can have all those POS. Hell, they even look stupid sitting at the gate what with the tail section sitting lower than the front.

ok, that gets a RACK!

Do other pilots feel the same and if you don't mind me asking, what's your favorite commercial plane to fly?

Do other pilots feel the same? Guess that depends on who you ask. The guys that are driving the 'buses like them ok I guess. But if you ask a 747 or 777 pilot who is stuck behind an A330 or A340 on a northern pacific track you will get a totally different story. The 'bus gets along at .81 while the 747 makes .86 May not seem like a lot on paper but ask the guy stuck in the middle seat of coach going from LAX to Hong Kong. The bus also can't climb for crap when fully loaded. Not surprising there aren't many A340s left.

Also notice most of my PET threads have views out the window of a Boeing. I hate being a pax on the 'buses and hearing the damn hydros for the whole flight. Wonder what that does to those afraid to fly?


I don't fly many "commercial" birds, but I have been behind the controls of an old 727 that was in private service. I have also sat in the right seat of a BBJ which is a Boeing 737 for the most part. I have also been able to fly both a DC-3 and a Connie.

Would love to fly a 757 sometime.