Thread: NFL: Saints defense had 'bounty' fund

Originally Posted by Papa Bear

I might be alone on this, but I don't have a problem with the idea of getting bonuses for smacking someone good if it's a clean hit. As fans, aren't we just waiting for those bone crushing hits that just leave you cringing, but wanting more? Isn't that why a lot of us are Bears fan? We enjoy tough defenses and a strong running game. Isn't that why we love the '85 Bears? Now, if dirty plays are encouraged (or at least not discouraged a la the Lions) by a bonus system then I have a problem with it. There's absolutely no point in risking a guy's career with an illegal hit for a bonus that is the equivalent of pocket change. But, if clean hard hits within the rules bring you some extra spending money, go for it.

No problem with big hits... but its getting rewarded for knocking a guy out of the game and injuring them that is the problem. All these MFers suing the NFL because of the concussion issue and these MFers are helping it by rewarding each other for intentionally trying to injure other players.

I see nothing wrong knocking a guy or injuring a guy in a game. Football if a very violent sport and it is part of the game. What I see now is that the NFL is becoming a pussified league because you can't hit the qb. You can't drive a guy into the ground. You can't hit a player when they are vulnerable. I look at Dick Butkus putting some hits on players and that is the kind of football I want to see. The bounty program the saints have is no more than a bonus for playing good and knocking out a player.

Originally Posted by 4th and 26

I see nothing wrong knocking a guy or injuring a guy in a game. Football if a very violent sport and it is part of the game. What I see now is that the NFL is becoming a pussified league because you can't hit the qb. You can't drive a guy into the ground. You can't hit a player when they are vulnerable. I look at Dick Butkus putting some hits on players and that is the kind of football I want to see. The bounty program the saints have is no more than a bonus for playing good and knocking out a player.

But again, the problem is with players suing the league because it is a violent sport saying there is nothing being done to protect the players. Players seem to be talking out of both sides here.

Originally Posted by 4th and 26

I see nothing wrong knocking a guy or injuring a guy in a game. Football if a very violent sport and it is part of the game. What I see now is that the NFL is becoming a pussified league because you can't hit the qb. You can't drive a guy into the ground. You can't hit a player when they are vulnerable. I look at Dick Butkus putting some hits on players and that is the kind of football I want to see. The bounty program the saints have is no more than a bonus for playing good and knocking out a player.

The NFL is being pussified because former players are suing the league for allowing play like this in the first place. The more they allow the old style of play the greater the risk of injuries which will lead to more and more lawsuits which will lead to more and more rules being implemented that protect players from themselves. As fans we may not like it, but from a business standpoint I don't see any way they can avoid change to the rules any further than they have been already until the players realize they're the ones that signed up to play this game in the first place.

There's a big difference between the "old style of play" (spearing, facemasks, chop blocks, horse collars, shanking, etc.) and a good clean hard hit. Because it's a violent game you will always have hard hits. When there aren't it's called two-hand touch. What's wrong about rewarding guys to play hard as long as it's within the rules?As far as the lawsuits, I may be mistaken, but most of that anger from past players seems to stem from the NFL's apparent willingness to forget it's past players, not provide any sort of meaningful assistance with medical complications incurred while playing football, and their unwillingness to acknowledge things like the destructiveness of concussions. Don't forget, most of these past players that are now suing the NFL didn't make the millions of dollars that today's players make. I just don't see it as a double standard as long as the players are playing within the rules, I suppose.

Originally Posted by The Benjamin

This is similar to what happens all over the league. At least according to what some players/reporters say. Players tend to "reward" great play by their defensive teammates. Where this one differs, the DC (and in one city HC) was also taking part in "rewarding" great play. This is similar to what happened here years ago with DC Greg Blache where he handed out bullets for great play? Again, the difference is that in NO from most reports they were out to injure, not just make big plays.

However, most of the hits were said to be legal. Regardless, intent to injure is the key.

And thats the difference...this sends the message that injuring players = "great play."

Yes, Football is a violent sport, but there is a very thin line drawn in the sand that separates "hard hits, good plays" from destructive and injuring players.

If youre interested in the difference, look at the video of Butkus that 4th posted...most of those hits, he lined up, and hit the guy above the waste, after squaring off between him. Now, if i wanted to get a player taken off in a cart...there is an easy way to do that...go for the knees. Its one of the weakest parts of the body, and when you have a 200+ pound defender aiming for that, you can destroy it, which can end that players career. Does that make the defender any better of a football player, by ANY measure (using any decade for criteria)? Of course not.

So yeah...while "pussifying the league" is an issue, doing the exact opposite...encouraging behavior that crosses a line, is not the solution either, and is in fact, much more dangerous.