I was more concerned with Fisher's record as a loser.

 

I haven't been keeping up, are the potential bounties for penalties spreading beyond just the Saints now? Is this actually going to impact the Rams?

 

You do know, football is just a game and paying people extra to potentially cripple someone is ridiculous.

 

not sure if trolling or...

bounties are one thing surely... but...

"50 grand to the one who ends that guys career"

no bueno man....

 

To be honest I agree. However with the NFL's new focus on safety, they need to come down hard. If they don't they look bad. This has always happened and will always happen. Defense is violent.

 

Cripple someone with a legal, or illegal hit?

 

What difference does it make?

 

Nope....I can't even begin to express how little I care about this....wake me up when someone gets hit and dies on the field...... :up:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

One is a good hit and one is dirty. How many dirty hits have ended careers in the NFL?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

One is part of the game, the other is not.

 

Carried out in a cart.

That's like putting a bounty on whoever can shoot someone in the head, but saying that's not a bounty for killing them. Technically you'd be correct. But only technically.

 

Accuracy Bonus

 

I have no problem with these bounties. Football players are already getting paid to inflict pain and crush one another. What difference does it make if someone wants to add a little extra incentive during the course of a game?

As far as Fisher goes. I think he is going to do an outstanding job with the Rams and I expect the Rams will be in the playoffs before the Dolphins are. I wanted Fisher to take the Dolphins job and while I am certainly willing to give Philbin, the benefit of the doubt for now. I think that when all is said and done, the Rams got the better head coach.

 

If your goal is to cripple someone, then it doesn't matter.

Basically what you're saying is there's difference between a driver having a license or not while they intentionally run over someone.

 

What's wrong with winning because your the better team?

I will never support a dirty player or coach.

Reminds me of the Jets coach dropping his knee into the specail teams player that was shoved out.

 

Intentionally running someone over is illegal, license or not. Injuring someone through a clean hit is not illegal. Its part of the game.

 

How is that what he is saying?

 

We are talking intent. If you tackle someone on the field but intend to cripple them its wrong. Not sure why that is difficult to grasp.

 

Sigh.

Driving without a license is against the rules. Illegal hits are against the rules. Hitting someone with your car is either an accident or not. Injuring someone while tackling them is an accident or not.

 

Wrong by what measure? You are not penalized for the result of the play. You are penalized for your actions during the play.

I'm not sure why its necessary to regulate the intent, as opposed to regulating actions. I'm not sure how you regulate intent, especially in football. If you aren't trying to hit the opponent as hard as possible, you're putting yourself at risk.

 

Yes, and your insinuation that hits that injure are illegal is off base.

 

I see. You're choosing to discuss this concept in a world where only the rules of the NFL apply.

There's a difference between tackling and fulfilling a bounty...hence the issue.

Where exactly did I insinuate that?

 

...

What, in practice, is the difference between tackling and fulfilling a bounty? The only practical difference I can discern when watching hits in the NFL is legal and illegal.

Do you have any specific plays where there was a legal tackle, but you saw the player was making the tackle to fulfill a bounty??? I would love to see one of those.

And you are correct, I am only discussing this concept in a world where only rules of the NFL apply. If you believe that the NFL rules allow for something that should not be allowed, you adjust the rules accordingly. I've routinely defended the changes in rules that promote player safety.

 

You can attempt to hurt someone with a legal hit.

 

Mike Golic was talking today about a play where Emmitt Smith was close to the sidelines being stood up. He was running from the middle to the field to hit him. His intent, without a bounty by the way, was to destory Emmitt Smith. To knock him into the third row. Which was and still is a completely legal hit.

 

Player bounty is a good debate. Easy to play Devil's Advocate on either side.

My stance is I have no problem with this if it's a player thing and the coaches don't acknowledge it. But a coach being in charge of it and putting his own money on the line? That gets into some big problems and I have a feeling Mr. Williams could be facing some lawsuits. Now you're talking about a concerted effort between 2 parties engaging in a cash reward system for the sole purpose of physically harming another person.

 

You do understand right and wrong exists outside of football, and that it is perfectly acceptable to apply concepts of right and wrong to an NFL game?

 

NFL legal does not equal right.

 

Yes. I also understand that football isn't a sport for everyone.

Either way, if you have a problem with player safety, the way to change it is by changing the rules, not by brainwashing players.

 

Well, coming from a guy that wanted Fisher, especially when he it was mentioned that he'd like to bring Williams with him, I'm glad we didn't also...

I still think Fisher was the type of coach we needed here, but I'm not displeased yet with where we are...

 

Agreed. But why would you put the burden on the players, when you can easily change the rules?

 

It does equal right in the NFL

 

Yeah, heard this too, but there are a couple of points to be made about Golic's situation. First, the game and rules were completely different at that time....Second, he played under Buddy Ryan the inventor of the bounty. Third, his intent was to tackle him as hard as he could, not for additional profit or bounty.

Look the biggest thing about this is that the findings specifically have added "with intent to injure" to the equation. That changes everything. A bounty for performance (most tackles, most sacks, INTs, etc) by itself is nothing more harmful than an office pool for games... When you add intent to injure, that changes the scope of the morals of that type of program. There is also the IRS angle of this, even tho we don't know how much record keeping was done as to who got what...

 

Even Darren Sharper made a good point that even in 2009, the rules for hitting the QB were different...

 

I don't have a problem with player safety. I have a problem with bounties being put out where they are fulfilled by players crippling other players on purpose. Its as if you arguing just for the sake of arguing.

 

Ummm...just saw a different view of this...there is a specific rule in the books about 'bounty' programs...it is illegal, but then you add in the intent to injure and you've got a real mess...

 

If the players are being crippled by legal hits, you don't see a problem with player safety???

As I asked earlier, do you have any examples of legal hits where a player was injured to fulfill a bounty?

 

The rules weren't that different. Only thing I would see that might be different is they call forward progression stopped much more quickly now then they did in the 90s.

I do not believe Buddy Ryan was the inventor of the bounty. I would bet there were bounties in Pop Warner's time. The only difference now is NFL players have a lot of money to throw into the pool.

It is my opinion that the only way "with intent to injure" is a problem is if it promotes illegal hits. If I were to run a bounty type program I would put in a penalty for late hit and illegal hits