Greg Williams - Bounty Audio

[Smeefers]

He was aware that it was being recorded. There was a guy sitting in on the meeting there because he was doing research on head injuries in the NFL. He had a recording device with him. It's not like this was a surprise.

I just can't believe this is a big deal. I remember a D coach telling us in high school to kill the QB. I believe his exact words were "I want his mother puking in the stands after she sees what you did to him." Do you honestly think the players thought the coach wanted them to actually kill the opposing team? Was the coach saying he literally wanted his players to break Frank Gores neck? Sure he was telling his guys to hit the QB in the chin. If I could get away with it, I would too -- And what I mean by that is if the refs are allowing it during the game. Some officials are stricter than others. I also have no problems with coaches telling players to go after injuries. If a player has an injured body part and are stupid enough to still take the field and the coaches allow it, there is absolutely nothing wrong with going for it and trying to get that player even more off his game. Are you telling me if a lineman had a concussion last week, you wouldn't head butt him every chance you got? Is it different for a WR?

I have no issues with his motivational techniques and his language. Where he has the problem is where he obviously offers a cash reward for big hits, which is against the rules. That is the issue and on that point, I think he's guilty as all hell.

[sharpe1027]

I also have no problems with coaches telling players to go after injuries.

I have a problem with it. Just because the refs can't see everything, that doesn't make it right. Just because some people are scumbags that doesn't make it right.

I'm not going to rob your house just because the police don't always catch robbers and because other people rob houses. Why, because it is a scumbag move and wrong.

[woodbuck27]

I have a problem with it. Just because the refs can't see everything, that doesn't make it right. Just because some people are scumbags that doesn't make it right.

I'm not going to rob your house just because the police don't always catch robbers and because other people rob houses. Why, because it is a scumbag move and wrong.

+ 3

[Smeefers]

I have a problem with it. Just because the refs can't see everything, that doesn't make it right. Just because some people are scumbags that doesn't make it right.

I'm not going to rob your house just because the police don't always catch robbers and because other people rob houses. Why, because it is a scumbag move and wrong.

Your analogy is wrong. It's more like leaving your windows and doors open with a sign outside that reads "lots of expensive stuff inside, will be gone from 9-5 every day. No Alarm system and neighbors hate me!" Then being surprised when your stuff is gone. Playing injured is STUPID and if a player gets cranked for it, then it's his own fault. Don't act like this game is some playground game. Guys always snicker and talk around what goes on under the pile. No one is unaware of the risks that go into playing.

[sharpe1027]

Your analogy is wrong. It's more like leaving your windows and doors open with a sign outside that reads "lots of expensive stuff inside, will be gone from 9-5 every day. No Alarm system and neighbors hate me!" Then being surprised when your stuff is gone. Playing injured is STUPID and if a player gets cranked for it, then it's his own fault. Don't act like this game is some playground game. Guys always snicker and talk around what goes on under the pile. No one is unaware of the risks that go into playing.

I don't understand your logic. Are you saying that robbing someones house is not a scumbag move and wrong?

[woodbuck27]

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/greej3

Chris Carter calls for lifetime ban on Gregg Williams:

“I believe that Gregg Williams, he shouldn’t be able to coach football any more, and the reason why is because we have given him our best athletes. We have given him the best athletes to coach in the NFL for the last 16 years and he has taught them the worst tactics that you can teach a football player. So, I believe the only penalty that would suffice for this type of crime: he shouldn’t be able to coach any more. It is a privilege for us to be able to play football, and a privilege to play in the NFL, and he has taken the last 15, 16 years of his career, and he has decided to do that with it. I believe that Roger Goodell, his penalty should be: he shouldn’t be able to coach in the NFL any more.” Chris Carter

[gbgary]

now THAT was something else.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Chris Carter calls for lifetime ban on Gregg Williams:

[I] “I believe that Gregg Williams, he shouldn’t be able to coach football any more, and the reason why is because we have given him our best athletes. We have given him the best athletes to coach in the NFL for the last 16 years and he has taught them the worst tactics that you can teach a football player.

Nah. If Michael Vick can be rehabilitated, so can Gregg Williams. Let him look for a job after a year on the outside looking in. Let some team hire him as a linebackers coach, and he can start anew. I expect he will see the error of his ways after such a thorough public shaming. His behavior was indefensible and has embarassed himself and his family.

[woodbuck27]

Nah. If Michael Vick can be rehabilitated, so can Gregg Williams. Let him look for a job after a year on the outside looking in. Let some team hire him as a linebackers coach, and he can start anew. I expect he will see the error of his ways after such a thorough public shaming. His behavior was indefensible and has embarassed himself and his family.

Dam ! There now...I'm toast.

I cannot help but 'soften'... seeing my long lost brother post such compassion. Are you going to check out Fred Couples at the MASTERS today?

[Smeefers]

I don't understand your logic. Are you saying that robbing someones house is not a scumbag move and wrong?

Are you saying someone who advertises that their stuff is unguarded and there for the taking is responsible behavior? My problem is that there's a general feeling out there that there's only one side responsible for these actions. I agree that it's a scumbag move, but I disagree with the premise that going after injured players is unexpected or wrong. Most people speed. It's almost accepted here in Wisconsin that you can go 5 miles over the limit without getting pulled over. Everyone also knows that the faster you drive, the more likely accidents are. The difference between going 25 and 30 can be the difference between clipping a dude who walks out between a pair of cars and not. Sure, it's a scumbag move to speed in a residential neighborhood, but it's also the dude who walks out from between some cars' fault as well.

My problem is the bounty, the cash portion involved. That's like driving down the side walk, swerving to hit specific pedestrians.

[sharpe1027]

Are you saying someone who advertises that their stuff is unguarded and there for the taking is responsible behavior?

No.

My problem is that there's a general feeling out there that there's only one side responsible for these actions. I agree that it's a scumbag move, but I disagree with the premise that going after injured players is unexpected or wrong.

So scumbag moves are not wrong? I think you're splitting hairs pretty damn thin. I said nothing about it being unexpected.

Most people speed. It's almost accepted here in Wisconsin that you can go 5 miles over the limit without getting pulled over. Everyone also knows that the faster you drive, the more likely accidents are. The difference between going 25 and 30 can be the difference between clipping a dude who walks out between a pair of cars and not. Sure, it's a scumbag move to speed in a residential neighborhood, but it's also the dude who walks out from between some cars' fault as well.

I don't really equate driving 5 miles over the speed limit to intentionally trying to injure someone. Driving 5 miles over the speed limit might increase likelihood of accidents, but they are still accidents, not intentional acts. Now if your driving instructor taught you to swerve to hit pedestrians, your analogy might be a little closer.

End of the day, I don't think a coach should be excused for teaching players to injure other players. I don't give a damn if the opposing player is somewhat injured. It is wrong in, my opinion. You disagree. I think your an unethical bastard for disagreeing, but that's just my personal opinion.

[woodbuck27]

No.



So scumbag moves are not wrong? I think you're splitting hairs pretty damn thin. I said nothing about it being unexpected.



I don't really equate driving 5 miles over the speed limit to intentionally trying to injure someone. Driving 5 miles over the speed limit might increase likelihood of accidents, but they are still accidents, not intentional acts. Now if your driving instructor taught you to swerve to hit pedestrians, your analogy might be a little closer.

End of the day, I don't think a coach should be excused for teaching players to injure other players. I don't give a damn if the opposing player is somewhat injured. It is wrong in, my opinion. You disagree. I think your an unethical bastard for disagreeing, but that's just my personal opinion.

Whoa ! Calm down men. It's being taken care of ..... PROPERLY.

[woodbuck27]

I have a problem with it. Just because the refs can't see everything, that doesn't make it right. Just because some people are scumbags that doesn't make it right.

I'm not going to rob your house just because the police don't always catch robbers and because other people rob houses. Why, because it is a scumbag move and wrong.

When I watch the way the Saints players ...demonstrating superior listening skills RE: Greg Williams 'Gestapo address/speech' to his defense, the night before that playoff game. Manhandle the 49er offensive players.

It was difficult for me NOT to imagine the game officials were missing (again).

[Fritz]

He was aware that it was being recorded. There was a guy sitting in on the meeting there because he was doing research on head injuries in the NFL. He had a recording device with him. It's not like this was a surprise.

I just can't believe this is a big deal. I remember a D coach telling us in high school to kill the QB. I believe his exact words were "I want his mother puking in the stands after she sees what you did to him." Do you honestly think the players thought the coach wanted them to actually kill the opposing team? Was the coach saying he literally wanted his players to break Frank Gores neck? Sure he was telling his guys to hit the QB in the chin. If I could get away with it, I would too -- And what I mean by that is if the refs are allowing it during the game. Some officials are stricter than others. I also have no problems with coaches telling players to go after injuries. If a player has an injured body part and are stupid enough to still take the field and the coaches allow it, there is absolutely nothing wrong with going for it and trying to get that player even more off his game. Are you telling me if a lineman had a concussion last week, you wouldn't head butt him every chance you got? Is it different for a WR?

I have no issues with his motivational techniques and his language. Where he has the problem is where he obviously offers a cash reward for big hits, which is against the rules. That is the issue and on that point, I think he's guilty as all hell.

Well, did you do your job? Was Mommy puking in the stands, or did you let your coach down, Smeefy?

[Smeefers]

Well, did you do your job? Was Mommy puking in the stands, or did you let your coach down, Smeefy?

No. I sucked at football and rode the pine.

[sheepshead]

He was aware that it was being recorded. There was a guy sitting in on the meeting there because he was doing research on head injuries in the NFL. He had a recording device with him. It's not like this was a surprise.

I just can't believe this is a big deal. I remember a D coach telling us in high school to kill the QB. I believe his exact words were "I want his mother puking in the stands after she sees what you did to him." Do you honestly think the players thought the coach wanted them to actually kill the opposing team? Was the coach saying he literally wanted his players to break Frank Gores neck? Sure he was telling his guys to hit the QB in the chin. If I could get away with it, I would too -- And what I mean by that is if the refs are allowing it during the game. Some officials are stricter than others. I also have no problems with coaches telling players to go after injuries. If a player has an injured body part and are stupid enough to still take the field and the coaches allow it, there is absolutely nothing wrong with going for it and trying to get that player even more off his game. Are you telling me if a lineman had a concussion last week, you wouldn't head butt him every chance you got? Is it different for a WR?

I have no issues with his motivational techniques and his language. Where he has the problem is where he obviously offers a cash reward for big hits, which is against the rules. That is the issue and on that point, I think he's guilty as all hell.

The line that's crossed here is a tangible. There was a monetary reward for the result. The result of a guy leaving the game due to injury from the hit. That's a big big difference then a lot of Win One for the Gipper bullshit. Money actually changed hands from this as I understand it. The guy should not see an NFL sideline ever again.

[Fritz]

The line that's crossed here is a tangible. There was a monetary reward for the result. The result of a guy leaving the game due to injury from the hit. That's a big big difference then a lot of Win One for the Gipper bullshit. Money actually changed hands from this as I understand it. The guy should not see an NFL sideline ever again.

Win one for the Gipper bullshit? In Smeefers's case, it sounds more like "Make mommy puke for the Gipper!"

[sheepshead]

Win one for the Gipper bullshit? In Smeefers's case, it sounds more like "Make mommy puke for the Gipper!"

The point is, its all words, nothing more. A bounty is entirely different.