Thats simple, because Baltimore and San Fransisco run a bounty system that has taken out numerous players, last year San Fran took out 6 RBs in the first 7 games. Thats no coincidence.

Meaning if it was Relevant (only to the NFL) then they would need to investigate the Habaugh brothers and probably some other coaches to like Dick Lebeau.

——

Ha! Funniest line I think I’ve ever read here!

All this is about (like most everything) is MONEY $$$. As far as the NFL is concerned, you can perform on Sundays, but you cannot be paid for it outside of what is outlined in the collective bargaining agreement (i.e. no non-contract bonuses).

Let me make one thing clear. Pay-for-performance v/s pay-for-injury is irrelevant. Paying cash to a player for a QB sack or an INT is a no-no to the league, as is paying cash for a hit (legal or illegal) that results in injury. However, I don’t think fans would think it a big deal if the NFL cracked down on QBs or RBs buying their O-Line Rolex watches at the end of the season.

So, the league brought up the injury angle, in part to show off the image that they’re taking “player safety” seriously now, especially in the face of ongoing litigation by former players. So rightfully, players like Vilma are gonna challenge the league on that front, because (according to them), they didn’t set out to injure with malice, but to play within the rules of the game and dole out some $$$ as an incentive for big plays.

All they did in their Super Bowl Season was force more turnovers than in any other year and Will Smith had a career year. And even then, the only reason they beat the Vikings was that they repeatedly hit Favre late in the NFC Championship.

And through this whole process, the players haven’t done anything to actually help themselves.

They repeatedly lied to NFL investigators; they complained about how overly-hard the suspensions are; they complained about how the process that their union agreed to is unfair; they refused to produce any REAL defense at their appeal; and now they’re saying that since nobody was hurt (and no money changed hands), that there must have been no system at all.

The concept of hitting or going “too hard” while still in the confines of the rules is silly on-face. How can you enforce such interpretations?

If the NFL has a problem with the way those players were playing on the field, they should make more rules to govern those hits. I’m sure eventually they will.

I think we all know what this is-the NFL covering their butts to avoid losing these concussion lawsuits…but I don’t think it helps their case to keep reminding us that clean, legal hits still cause injury.

This is all about getting in front of the concussion lawsuits and making a scapegoat out of the Saints, nothing more and nothing less…..

And it is all about illegal hits and injuries according to the media, if not why else would you and everybody else not be constantly fixated on that ONE hit on Brett Favre? The FACT that the Saints were the 2nd “cleanest” team in the NFL over a three year time period, second only to the Chargers, should mean something, shouldn’t it?

You can nail most RBs as hard as you like wherever you like, and most of the time theres no call.

Come on Vilma. Is there anything else you want to throw against the wall in this big old pile of sh?

So obviously you have an issue with incentive clauses in contracts that state if a defensive players gets a certain amount of tackles per year they get a bonus, or if a defensive player gets a certain amount of sacks they get a bonus? Both or done in the confines of clean, legal hits and ARE BINDING by a CONTRACT. How do the two differ, please explain?

They violated a rule and denied doing so (According to the league, anyway). That rates punishment. What the league handed down was excessive and I might even say personal.