Report: Gregg Williams had bounty with other teams

[52brandon]

I have a law degree, but will abstain from involving myself in a hundred point, counterpoints with someone hooked on Law and Order re-runs.

lol, I didn't get it from there

it was like 60 minutes or some news crap like that. But it was a UC posing as a hitman. There were multiple times that they did those kind of segments

 

[52brandon]

Fortunately for me, my knowledge of the legal system comes straight from the source (Grisham novels, of course). I say it's hard to prove and even if you can prove it, it might be moot. And according to the information Google just provided for me, more and more courts are requiring a covert action in addition to the agreement to commit a crime. If you can't trust Grisham and Google, who can you trust?

Steve

the government?















lol

 

[AzStevenCal]

the government?

lol

The three G's - Grisham, Google and the Government? Unfortunately, I only trust the shadow government and they take a completely different stance on conspiracies.

I think the Rams are pretty safe here.

Steve

 

[Crazy Canuck]

Fortunately for me, my knowledge of the legal system comes straight from the source (Grisham novels, of course). I say it's hard to prove and even if you can prove it, it might be moot. According to the information Google just provided for me, more and more courts are requiring a covert action in addition to the agreement to commit a crime. If you can't trust Grisham and Google, who can you trust?

Steve

 

[52brandon]

The three G's - Grisham, Google and the Government? Unfortunately, I only trust the shadow government and they take a completely different stance on conspiracies.

I think the Rams are pretty safe here.

Steve

I agree. I'd say there's less than a 10% chance that they get in any trouble. And even if they do, it won't be much. The harshest punishment they'll have to deal with is the loss of their newly hired DC. Which there's really nothing they can do about

 

[JeffGollin]

I get my legal info from Grisham and Google also. too.

After all, we live in a real world where actions have consequences (be they moral, legal or the "life's a bitch" variety) and therefore quasi-legal and "parlor-law" stuff is fascinating if not worth discussing.

I just listened to a half-hour of Mike Golic (Mike & Mike) rationalize about "why the bounty system is merely part of football." He was missing a huge point.

His case included arguments like: "The big hit is the single most enjoyable part of the game", "Other teams do it/Williams was just at the wrong place at the wrong time", "quite often the players do it on their own", etc.

The point Golic misses is that there is an important difference between (a) delivering a clean hit in order to change the course of a game (with the boundaries of the playing-rules) by forcing a fumble, breaking up a pass, robbing an opponent of down, distance & time and (b) deliberately trying to injure an opposing player.

If nothing were to be done about this by the League Office, what message would be sent to our children who play youth football (& the kids they'll be playing against) - that it's OK to single out an opposing kid for injury? (What if it was your own kid who was being targeted)?

When an "incentive program" makes injury its prime objective, sooner or later an NFL player is going to die. And if it can be proved that the death was caused by an individual or individuals seeking to injure the dead guy, I could see -at the very least -an attempt by an eager DA to prosecute for "wrongful death" and that, further, that anyone having full knowledge of or even indirectly was involved the bounty program & who did nothing about it could conceivably be drawn into a conspiracy to commit that crime.

I love big hits. I hate the injuries they sometimes cause. It's unlikely what seem to be 2 contradictory goals can be completely resolved. But at least we can start by differentiating between "hitting to make a play" and "hitting to deliberately injure."

Just sayin'.

 

[Totally_Red]

I get my legal info from Grisham and Google also. too.

After all, we live in a real world where actions have consequences (be they moral, legal or the "life's a bitch" variety) and therefore quasi-legal and "parlor-law" stuff is fascinating if not worth discussing.

I just listened to a half-hour of Mike Golic (Mike & Mike) rationalize about "why the bounty system is merely part of football." He was missing a huge point.

His case included arguments like: "The big hit is the single most enjoyable part of the game", "Other teams do it/Williams was just at the wrong place at the wrong time", "quite often the players do it on their own", etc.

The point Golic misses is that there is an important difference between (a) delivering a clean hit in order to change the course of a game (with the boundaries of the playing-rules) by forcing a fumble, breaking up a pass, robbing an opponent of down, distance & time and (b) deliberately trying to injure an opposing player.

If nothing were to be done about this by the League Office, what message would be sent to our children who play youth football (& the kids they'll be playing against) - that it's OK to single out an opposing kid for injury? (What if it was your own kid who was being targeted)?

When an "incentive program" makes injury its prime objective, sooner or later an NFL player is going to die. And if it can be proved that the death was caused by an individual or individuals seeking to injure the dead guy, I could see -at the very least -an attempt by an eager DA to prosecute for "wrongful death" and that, further, that anyone having full knowledge of or even indirectly was involved the bounty program & who did nothing about it could conceivably be drawn into a conspiracy to commit that crime.

I love big hits. I hate the injuries they sometimes cause. It's unlikely what seem to be 2 contradictory goals can be completely resolved. But at least we can start by differentiating between "hitting to make a play" and "hitting to deliberately injure."

Just sayin'.

Sometimes I wonder if Golic is really as dumb as he sounds. Your distinction is important and as usual Golic doesn't get it.

ESPN should have a picture of the late Daryl Stingley in his wheel chair while Golic is spewing his nonsense IMO.

 

[john h]

rotoworld.com

Perhaps I am just to naive. I find it totally STUPID for players and management to openly participating in rewards for injuring other players. It borders on being barbaric. I can see an individual player trying to lay it on someone for whatever reasons but I cannot imagine an organized group with management involved doing this. The law would call that a conspiracy. It is sort of like a boxer putting brass knuckles in his gloves. I wonder how much you got if the players career was ended? Do you do a dance over the fallen player laying on the ground? Other players on the team who were aware should have stood up and said something, at the least. I would fire anyone in management who was part of this. It is barbaric and a strong penalty should be levied and their names published. Wonder how many guys careers were ended or how many might be in a wheelchair or have concussions because of such action. I fought in a couple of wars where death was the ultimate penalty. We did not reward each other by torturing an enemy to death as opposed to just shooting him out of the sky.

Players are often traded so I can only assume that other teams have known of this for a long time. It is bad enough for even young players to be involved. For an older experienced coach to be involved should be criminal. What next give a policeman a reward for shooting a guy to death rather than use a stun gun? Society seems to sink to a new law as the years go by. NFL Football is a tough sport for tough people but this is not tough it is stupid. Would you teach your children to emulate such behavior in a peewee football game? I think not.

 

[chickenhead]

Makes me wonder: did Kerry Collins take some head shots as a Giant when he was playing Gregg Williams' Titans? Did Grossman take any head shots as a Bear when he was playing Gregg Williams' Redskins? How does it feel to be a new teammate of someone who might have won $$ from your injury in previous years?

And just think, if Dansby hadn't run that fumble into the endzone, the Saints would have had a bounty on Rodgers. Not only did they contribute to one HoFer's retirement, they could easily have taken time off of another possible HoFer's career, too.

 

[LVCARDFREAK]

Non -issue. He isnt rewarding them for hurting guys, but for big hits-completly different thing.

Been going on in the NFL for 30 years and will likely continue to go on.

 

[52brandon]

Non -issue. He isnt rewarding them for hurting guys, but for big hits-completly different thing.

Been going on in the NFL for 30 years and will likely continue to go on.

did you read the articles? One of the bounties he had set-up was $1,000 for a "knockout" and $1,500 for a cart-off. That is exactly rewarding them for hurting guys

 

[Chopper0080]

I think this entire "bounty" issue is so overblown by fans and the media. It is an issue because it spits in the face of the NFL's "flag football" mentality in regards to player safety. I want my players to try and knock opposing players out of the game as long as it is within the rules of the game. It is sad when coaches have to pay "incentives" to make their players want to play that way. I do not have an issue if the players are upset at this because it is their livelyhood that is in jeopardy, but the media and fans need to calm down. Football players get paid a great deal of money to play a violent game which is detrimental to their long term health. This has never been a secret.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

I think this entire "bounty" issue is so overblown by fans and the media. It is an issue because it spits in the face of the NFL's "flag football" mentality in regards to player safety. I want my players to try and knock opposing players out of the game as long as it is within the rules of the game. It is sad when coaches have to pay "incentives" to make their players want to play that way. I do not have an issue if the players are upset at this because it is their livelyhood that is in jeopardy, but the media and fans need to calm down. Football players get paid a great deal of money to play a violent game which is detrimental to their long term health. This has never been a secret.

They don't. These type of things are largely self-administered by players as a challenge. We were doing this in hockey decades ago. One season, we created a pot, which we called "The Gordie Howe" pot. If you had a goal, an assist and a fight in any game you got the cash. More often than not, you had the goal and assist first - and then for no apparent reason you jumped and pounded some guy.

 

[Chopper0080]

did you read the articles? One of the bounties he had set-up was $1,000 for a "knockout" and $1,500 for a cart-off. That is exactly rewarding them for hurting guys

The cart-off is the only part I question.

 

[52brandon]

I think this entire "bounty" issue is so overblown by fans and the media. It is an issue because it spits in the face of the NFL's "flag football" mentality in regards to player safety. I want my players to try and knock opposing players out of the game as long as it is within the rules of the game. It is sad when coaches have to pay "incentives" to make their players want to play that way. I do not have an issue if the players are upset at this because it is their livelyhood that is in jeopardy, but the media and fans need to calm down. Football players get paid a great deal of money to play a violent game which is detrimental to their long term health. This has never been a secret.

I agree that it is a violent game and defensive players trying to hurt guys is nothing new. But paying for it can lead to many gray areas for front offices too. I could see "bounties" for completions, catches, etc. that just basically allow you to pay players off the books to spend more on players while technically remaining under cap

not to mention that the timing while the NFL is really cracking down on hard hits (whether you agree with it or not, it's the reality of the situation), taking extra precautions with head injuries, and is being sued by past players basically forces Goodell to make an example of them