- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Could Goodell be forced to resign if the allegations are proven false?
Posted on 5/2/12 at 8:48 pm
Posted on 5/2/12 at 8:48 pm
LINK
Specifically, if the allegations that the Saints continued a bounty program after the Vikings game are proven false, should Goodell resign?
According to the company line, Payton was suspended for a year, Loomis for 8 games, and Vitt for 6 games because the bounty program continued despite the league's orders for it to stop.
But when the player suspensions came down, Fujita (who didn't play with the Saints beyond the 2009 season) and Hargrove (who didn't play with the Saints beyond the 2010 season) were penalized for their roles in TWO playoff games BEFORE the commissioner ordered the program stopped.
But more importantly, there's THIS BIT OF INFORMATION:
Now, I would like to learn WHO this source is, and I would LOVE to see what will happen when the NFLPA and the suspended players appeal and then take this shite to court, because if it's true that the league essentially made a lot of shite up, well...
Specifically, if the allegations that the Saints continued a bounty program after the Vikings game are proven false, should Goodell resign?
According to the company line, Payton was suspended for a year, Loomis for 8 games, and Vitt for 6 games because the bounty program continued despite the league's orders for it to stop.
But when the player suspensions came down, Fujita (who didn't play with the Saints beyond the 2009 season) and Hargrove (who didn't play with the Saints beyond the 2010 season) were penalized for their roles in TWO playoff games BEFORE the commissioner ordered the program stopped.
But more importantly, there's THIS BIT OF INFORMATION:
quote:
A Saints source who testified during the league's investigation told ESPN's Ed Werder on Wednesday that he believed the league's findings are exaggerated. The source said that while the report said the program existed for three seasons, it was limited to playoff games in the Superdome against Arizona and Minnesota in 2009.
The source told Werder that the program began when Williams was concerned about creating a higher level of motivation for his defensive players as they prepared for the postseason. Before a team meeting, Williams told Vilma that he had a plan, and that the coach provided Vilma with the 10,000 dollars he offered to any teammate who knocked out Warner. The source said Vilma returned the money to Williams following the meeting.
According to the source, Williams believed the financial reward created the proper defensive mindset. So Williams and Vilma repeated the scenario the next week before playing the Vikings and Favre, who was the victim of several illegal hits, had to be helped from the field, but finished the game.
Now, I would like to learn WHO this source is, and I would LOVE to see what will happen when the NFLPA and the suspended players appeal and then take this shite to court, because if it's true that the league essentially made a lot of shite up, well...
10
Posted on 5/2/12 at 8:51 pm to Sophandros
They can used unnamed sources, why can't we? And yes this would be a dream of mine. Subtract the bounty mess, I've hated what Goodell has done to the game. I don't know one of my friends (I don't live in Saints country) that likes him.
Posted on 5/2/12 at 8:54 pm to Sophandros
quote:
A Saints source who testified during the league's investigation told ESPN's Ed Werder on Wednesday that he believed the league's findings are exaggerated. The source said that while the report said the program existed for three seasons, it was limited to playoff games in the Superdome against Arizona and Minnesota in 2009.
YOU DAMN RIGHT HE DID!!!!
Posted on 5/2/12 at 9:05 pm to Patrick O Rly
quote:
I've hated what Goodell has done to the game. I don't know one of my friends (I don't live in Saints country) that likes him.
Go check out the falcons life board. There is a thread about how Goodell is the best commissioner the NFL has ever had, and he is the best commish of the big 3 sports. Every single person agrees.
Posted on 5/2/12 at 9:07 pm to Vinny V
quote:
Go check out the falcons life board. There is a thread about how Goodell is the best commissioner the NFL has ever had, and he is the best commish of the big 3 sports. Every single person agrees.
It was the best of times. It was the worst of times...
Actually they're the ones having the worst of times.
Posted on 5/2/12 at 9:11 pm to Sophandros
quote:Wasn't there one hit that was flagged (McCray) and another high-low that was not (Hargrove and another)?
several illegal hits
What else was there?
Posted on 5/2/12 at 9:13 pm to Vinny V
Of course they do. They're rival fans and they think this whole thing is gonna give them this huge competitive advantage. They're being extremely short sited though.
Posted on 5/2/12 at 9:14 pm to Sophandros
The fact Greg Williams did not appeal Goodell's decision, makes it appear that GW accepts the fact that he is guilty of something.
If you're guilty of 2009, and stopped once you were asked, ten he would have great grounds to appeal. This tells me he did not stop.
I would discount the "source" based on GW's actions.
I would need proof from the "source".
If you're guilty of 2009, and stopped once you were asked, ten he would have great grounds to appeal. This tells me he did not stop.
I would discount the "source" based on GW's actions.
I would need proof from the "source".
Posted on 5/2/12 at 9:14 pm to Patrick O Rly
quote:
They're being extremely short sited though.
They'll start seeing much more clearly the first time Lofton comes through and pastes Matty for a 10-yard sack.
Posted on 5/2/12 at 9:14 pm to Ice Cold
quote:
Wasn't there one hit that was flagged (McCray) and another high-low that was not (Hargrove and another)?
They threw a flag on one where Hargrove picked Favre up and "drove him into the ground", but it didn't look dirty to me.
Posted on 5/2/12 at 9:15 pm to djmicrobe
quote:
The fact Greg Williams did not appeal Goodell's decision, makes it appear that GW accepts the fact that he is guilty of something.
If you're guilty of 2009, and stopped once you were asked, ten he would have great grounds to appeal. This tells me he did not stop.
I would discount the "source" based on GW's actions.
I would need proof from the "source".
There's a lot of assumptions in that analysis.
Posted on 5/2/12 at 9:18 pm to THRILLHO
quote:
They threw a flag on one where Hargrove picked Favre up and "drove him into the ground", but it didn't look dirty to me.
Yeah I remember thinking at the time it was a chickenshite call.
But then I wanted them to knock Favre out of the game.
Posted on 5/2/12 at 9:21 pm to Sophandros
Better chance of the pope abducating for eating meat on Friday than Goodell resigning
Posted on 5/2/12 at 9:27 pm to Sophandros
What can we prove? Wouldnt this have come up during Payton's suspension?
Posted on 5/2/12 at 9:30 pm to BilJ
What can they prove?
And this has come up continually.
And this has come up continually.
Posted on 5/2/12 at 9:31 pm to djmicrobe
quote:
The fact Greg Williams did not appeal Goodell's decision, makes it appear that GW accepts the fact that he is guilty of something.
If you're guilty of 2009, and stopped once you were asked, ten he would have great grounds to appeal. This tells me he did not stop.
I would discount the "source" based on GW's actions.
I would need proof from the "source".
The fact Goodell did not make public any of the evidence he claims to have, makes it appear that RG made up supposed evidence.
If you're going to claims that someone is guilty of breaking the rules and suspending them costing them a year's salary, and not providing the evidence or a chance to refute the evidence. This tells me he did greatly exaggerate what happened.
I would discount the "source" based on RG's actions.
I would need proof from the "source".
... I can play this game too
Posted on 5/2/12 at 9:36 pm to ctalati32
Unfortunately, just about everything I've heard and read today points to Goodell having the power to do what he wants. Didn't have to talk to Will Smith. Didn't have to share evidence with the accused. Didn't have to give them a courtesy phone call and head's-up before the league decided to break the news through the media. And didn't have to have his rulings vetted by the union or any other entity.
I don't know what's in the CBA, but they better hope there's a "good faith" clause or some other mechanism for player discipline, or the courts will throw them out.
Collectively bargained rights are presumed to have the force of law between the parties, and cannot be discarded because of an unpopular outcome.
I don't know what's in the CBA, but they better hope there's a "good faith" clause or some other mechanism for player discipline, or the courts will throw them out.
Collectively bargained rights are presumed to have the force of law between the parties, and cannot be discarded because of an unpopular outcome.
Posted on 5/2/12 at 9:45 pm to Sophandros
Let's say they take them to court.
Besides Goodell being removed, coaches back to work,..what could sweeten the deal for the Saints if they sued and worked out some deals, etc etc
would be cool to maybe get some #1 draft picks
Besides Goodell being removed, coaches back to work,..what could sweeten the deal for the Saints if they sued and worked out some deals, etc etc
would be cool to maybe get some #1 draft picks
This post was edited on 5/2/12 at 9:50 pm
Posted on 5/2/12 at 9:50 pm to Sophandros
i assume this will be swiftly swept under the rug. But mother of god could you image if it was true?
the shite storm that would ensue. for starters im sure we could get payton back. Goodell would of course have to step down. he has suspended coaches and players, costing them millions of dollars and their reputations.
On that note, Why would Goodell risk all of that? doesnt add up. As proven by the Mickey Loomis "eavesdropping" ESPN will run anything these days.
the shite storm that would ensue. for starters im sure we could get payton back. Goodell would of course have to step down. he has suspended coaches and players, costing them millions of dollars and their reputations.
On that note, Why would Goodell risk all of that? doesnt add up. As proven by the Mickey Loomis "eavesdropping" ESPN will run anything these days.
Posted on 5/2/12 at 9:56 pm to BlacknGold
quote:
Why would Goodell risk all of that?
so he could put his own name in the same sentence as "player safety"..and this whole Seau thing will probably be exploited for his cause on the importances of..player safety.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News