The 2012 NFL thread

I got a kick out of this. Stolen from King's MMQB article.

"Okay, so Peyton Manning was a tremendous MVP quarterback, but he's been injured. If that injury comes back, Denver will find itself without a quarterback. And in my opinion, it would serve them right."

-- Evangelist Pat Robertson of the 700 Club, talking about Denver's decision to sign Peyton Manning and trade Tebow

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/03/26/meetings/index.html#ixzz1qGYSseCM

JJLehto wrote: Not to be this guy but Catcher...you DO see where it's tough to believe you right?  Are you 100% sincere in that belief? If it was discovered the Niners had a bounty on Drew Brees, thus going out of their way to try and hurt him you would not be crying for penalties? Remember that any injury has a chance that player may never fully recover from it. It just looks kind of bad you are against the call AND so passionately and that it happens to affect your team Like I said in the above post...Drew Brees is a vet and the team can rally. I think the punishments were appropriate and the physical team won't suffer from it. Though sadly, ever hard hit even if its 100% clean there will be questions. Also Gregg Williams is done, depending on when his suspension is up. If it's like 2 years, I think there's a good chance no one will pick him up again. If the Giants were busted with this I'd be just as supportive as I am now. The whole bounty thing is wrong. We know it happens...the Pack managed to slide by, but this is certainly a warning...knock it off because if you do get caught the hammer will be brought.

Finnforest wrote: You guys probably don't agree, but I'm thrilled to see the Saints called on the bounty thing.  I still can't believe that championship game with the Vikings.  At the time it seemed so obvious to me that they were trying to injure Favre, as opposed to good clean hits.  I don't oppose hard hits in either hockey or football, but when there is specific intent to end someone's season or career, that is just so lame.

Obviously hard hits are fine, and aiming for injured body parts is part of the game. They WILL go after it. The Saints admitted after the game they were trying to hit his injured parts, and I forget who but someone once warned Sam Bradford about playing hurt saying "people will aim for your broken arm".
Obviously in theory it should be clean hard hits, but people do go out to to try and hurt you if possible.

The whole paying thing is kind of messed up, especially since it was a coach doing it.

If you recall, the Packers got in some water a few years ago for having a bounty...but I guess it was just "rumor" so nothing could be acted upon it. Ironic Favre was the QB of that team
Paying adds extra incentive to go for the kill and it's beyond the spirit of the game, it is indeed playing solely to hurt...not just playing hard. Hard and clean is fine, but when players are being paid extra to hurt people then obviously it's not "incidental". The Saints coaching staff got an appropriate punishment.

The team is of course still intact and they can even rally around this. Drew Brees will become the absolute leader now.

If you can't see that the intent in that game was to actually injure, as opposed to standard clean hard hits, I can't help you.  

Catcher10 wrote: I agree with MoM.......I think GODell took the easy way out in this whole issue. I'm not questioning the punishment because that is a separate topic. For sure the Saints knew something bad would happen.....and it has.   The NFL is trying their best to sweep this whole deal under the rug. Rather than address this issue which has been going on for eons in football. You seriously think that the Raiders back in the day did not do this also? And when you have former NFL players come out and testify that it has happened, will happen and never will stop happening and the NFL does not begin a full league all team investigation....its hogwash!   GODell is only interested in making sure his lucrative TV/Cable/Sponser contracts are not in jeopardy...as I am sure his salary/bonus is directly linked to this. Feces flows from the top, it always does and I think he should loose his job.....you can;t say he didn't know this has been going on for years and with no real plan to stop it.   It is effortless to punish someone......But it takes a lot of effort to educate someone to be better.   And thats horsedung about the Warner and Favre deals.   Warner threw an INT and panicked and got in the play as a tackler, he got hit hard and it was a legal hit, no flag was thrown......So I don't understand what the problem is? He should have been smarter and got outta the play as QBs are not trained to tackle anyone. And I promise you Favre would tell you thats football.....he was old and getting hit by a bunch of 20 somethings is not good for an old guy.   Belichek and Spygate, only they were doing it.....and they got a slap on the butt.......Bounty has been going on forever and all teams have done it........yet the NFL only punishes one team.   That makes no sense.

I disagree.  I watched that Saints/Vikings game with a bunch of fans who've been watching NFL for decades, and your implication that what happened in that game was the same as what happens in every game for years is hogwash.  The hits in that game were not NFL norm just like any other game. 

I only wish the Vikes had returned the favor.  I would have taken a suspension to drill Brees square in the back, out of bounds, when he wasn't looking.  That's not how I like football to be, but if the Saints like no-standards football, then it should go both ways. 

You want Hanson Brothers, then lets get it on.

manofmystery wrote: Really, you don't think that knowing what the other team is going the run affects the outcome?  It's not as though they dominated teams during their run.  They "won" their 3 Super Bowls by a combined 6 points and you can't tell me that cheating on the scale they did doesn't mean everything in such close games.  I know that ex-players said it wasn't that big of a deal and didn't give that much of an advantage. I know ex-coaches said the same thing. So I really don't know how much of a difference it would make. How much does it raise your probability of winning? That's relevant.   There is no way in hell Spygate was conducted without the knowledge of the head coach.  That's awesome bro, but the evidential link is weaker so it's moot. How can you say that Team B will almost certainly score a TD?  You are assuming a lot with this scenario.  The coin doesn't determine the game the players do.  You don't get 3 points for winning the coin toss you still have to earn them. First off, it's a hypothetical scenario so I know. Say the defense gave up a TD on 60% of its drives. Say the offense scored one of 60% of its drives. Correct for strength of opponents. It seems highly likely. You still ignored my other question. One half of the teams involved have a chance of winning without ever fielding their defense no matter how big of a glaring hole it may be. In baseball if the team batting first in the 10th inning gets a run, should the game just end? I disagree with that assessment.  The carpetbagger culture of modern pro sports is a shame for the fans.   We're at an impasse here. It's not a shame for the fans. It's a shame for some fans. I love it.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I'm pretty sure that ruins the integrity of the game. There's no proof that Spygate affected any outcomes either. There was intent and action to affect outcomes in both cases.   Really, you don't think that knowing what the other team is going the run affects the outcome?  It's not as though they dominated teams during their run.  They "won" their 3 Super Bowls by a combined 6 points and you can't tell me that cheating on the scale they did doesn't mean everything in such close games.  From all evidence which has been released, it seems like there was a weaker link the Spygate saga. That surely should be factored into the punishment.   There is no way in hell Spygate was conducted without the knowledge of the head coach.   So with the overtime rules. You have two teams constructed like this. Team A: Elite offense, no defense Team B: Very good offense, Very good defense Team A wins the coin toss. Team B holds them to a field goal. Team B would almost surely score a touchdown on their next possession. Team A wins the game? I'm sorry. I'm not comfortable having a coin determine the game. You say defense is part of the game, but you will allow overtime rules which completely eliminate the defensive aspect for one team. That's inane.   How can you say that Team B will almost certainly score a TD?  You are assuming a lot with this scenario.  The coin doesn't determine the game the players do.  You don't get 3 points for winning the coin toss you still have to earn them.  The trade deadline is the best part of baseball. What's wrong with having teams be able to improve themselves midseason? I disagree with that assessment.  The carpetbagger culture of modern pro sports is a shame for the fans.

I'm pretty sure that ruins the integrity of the game. There's no proof that Spygate affected any outcomes either. There was intent and action to affect outcomes in both cases.

From all evidence which has been released, it seems like there was a weaker link the Spygate saga. That surely should be factored into the punishment.

So with the overtime rules. You have two teams constructed like this.
Team A: Elite offense, no defense
Team B: Very good offense, Very good defense

Team A wins the coin toss. Team B holds them to a field goal. Team B would almost surely score a touchdown on their next possession. Team A wins the game? I'm sorry. I'm not comfortable having a coin determine the game.

You say defense is part of the game, but you will allow overtime rules which completely eliminate the defensive aspect for one team. That's inane.

The trade deadline is the best part of baseball. What's wrong with having teams be able to improve themselves midseason?


Edited by Equality 7-2521 - March 22 2012 at 09:21

You are right, just because Shockey is an ass does not mean he had malicious intent, he could've honestly wanted to do what's right. There is of course no way to know, and I guess it's just easy to jump to the negative side with him!


I thought it was a bit distasteful myself (Sapp) but that's how it seems to be today. I was also a little confused that it was Sapp but who knows, we'll see. Not sure it can even be proven so it will always be speculation. Regardless, I am glad it came out.

I think those are all fine suggestions.