Skelton looks like the starter. Even Kolb knows it.

Second, the idiotic “One rule they used to tell me: Kill the head and the body’s dead” statement by Warren was not ignored by the Browns–Warren was never allowed to be aggressive the rest of the year and was gone the next year. Teams like Pittsburgh and New Orleans can’t say the same. And Warren never alleged that it was the Browns’ coaches who told him that in the first place; it may have been his college coaches or even a team member. In any case, as pointed out, the NFL hardly ignored the statement. Nor did the media.

Third, I miss the point of this: “While we understand that the ability to earn some extra cash could prompt a guy to break the rules in the hopes of cashing in, the micro incentive to pocket a little extra walking-around money must be regarded simultaneously with the macro incentive of winning the war of attrition by hitting guys so hard — cleanly — that they can’t keep playing.”

It sounds as though a dirty hit for money (two illegal acts) “must be regarded simultaneously” with the legal incentive of winning the war of attrition by hitting hard but cleanly.

No, it has to do with intent, as the league has stated all along. If it was the payments, the discipline wouldn’t have been handled by Goodell. The league cannot have it both ways.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is both actually. The payments themselves are technically a salary cap violation but the reason(s) that prompted the payments is absolutely a disciplinary issue.

If intent is your main focus, I understand if you do not believe that players went out and specifically targeted a player for injury. However, based on “intent” what is the reason for the extra money for “cart-offs” etc.? Coaches and players have both admitted to those as being part of a pay for performance system and said they were merely a result of legal plays. Legal/illegal hits are a matter for the field officials and the league’s subsequent weekly review process. The issue is that these guys have denied and then admitted to being involved in a pool where players and coaches put up money for the pay for performance system. That is a disciplinary issue and a salary cap issue. That same system also paid players who (even inadvertently) caused an opponent to be injured and miss some game time. That is a bounty system and they have admitted as such while awkwardly trying to install a defense of semantics. $10k for Favre is a bounty. $500 for a “cart-off” is also a bounty. Both are premeditated. Both show intent. The league has not shown specific evidence about the Favre bounty (does not mean it is not there) but they have absolutely provided plenty of “evidence” about the cart-offs. The players have not said they didn’t have the cart-off payments (after their initial denials failed). They simply said they were a result of legal plays. The problem is that the type of play doesn’t really matter. Illegal plays would have had the typical fines on top of all the “bountygate” drama.

A defensive players job is not to hurt somebody, it is to tackle them. A lineman should not be rewarded for hurting somebody, but I see no reason why they can not be rewarded for doing there job, recording tackles and sack. There job is to make tackles, sack qb’s, force fumbles, intercept passes and so on, but NOT to hurt other players. That is where the line is drawn.

The Saints were coached to play dirty and deliberatetly maim opposing players for a extra financial incentive. When investigated, the coaches and players lied and continue to lie. They prefer to blame the NFL HQ more for being found out than changing their criminal behavior.
——————————–
And the sum total of your evidence that what you say is true is Roger Goodell’s statements that it is true. Don’t you feel rather silly?

Sounds kinda NCAA-ish I guess, in a way.

Anyhow, I agree the league could have chosen to make their point last night. Would have been a good opportunity…

It doesn’t matter if the hits are clean, or if “no one was hurt” — it matters that there was premeditated intent.

These bounties in the thousands of dollars are essentially bets they made with each other to take people off the field. Either legally or illegally.

No, it has to do with intent, as the league has stated all along. If it was the payments, the discipline wouldn’t have been handled by Goodell. The league cannot have it both ways.

Giants, Packers, Ravens, Chiefs, Vikings, Cardinals and Seahawks are just a few of the other teams who had the same program.

Applying the term “bounty” does not create the false impression that defensive players were doing anything illegal to get paid. It’s video of Saints players making indefensible, unnecessary hits on players that creates the TRUE impression that players were doing illegal things to get paid.

So I don’t understand why you think it would be beneficial for the league to point out that Ellis would have been paid for this legal hit.

Making hard hits is a players job, it is what he is receiving a salary for. There is no reason to further incentivize them for injuring other players.

Don’t players get bonuses anyway for reaching playing time and performance thresholds? i.e. 2000 yds rushing, double-digit receiving TDs, etc?

—————————–

You’re missing the point. Yes, they do get bonuses, in some cases, when they are written into their contract. When they are not, they are violations of the salary cap and fall under “pay for performace,” which is why the players were suspended.

Think about it: if teams could hand out cash for great plays and not have it count toward the cap, they could get any free agent by promising $10k for every pass completed, etc. Would render the cap useless.