The Green Bay Packers quickly addressed “bounty” violations in 2007

[woodbuck27]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/23/packers-quickly-addressed-bounty-violations-in-2007/

Packers quickly addressed “bounty” violations in 2007

Posted by Michael David Smith on March 23, 2012, 8:53 AM EDT

[pbmax]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...tions-in-2007/

Packers quickly addressed “bounty” violations in 2007

Posted by Michael David Smith on March 23, 2012, 8:53 AM EDT

The lunacy of this comparison is surprising. Holding a player under 100 yards hardly seems to count as a bounty, unless you can only collect by putting him out of the game before 100 yards. The only reason this story has legs is that Harris hurt Peterson's knee.

[Pugger]

This "bounty" was perpetuated by teammates and not coaches. Plus the Packers did something the Saints did not. We put a stop to it.

[woodbuck27]

The lunacy of this comparison is surprising. Holding a player under 100 yards hardly seems to count as a bounty, unless you can only collect by putting him out of the game before 100 yards. The only reason this story has legs is that Harris hurt Peterson's knee.

Strange that this is being trumped up now. Someone just digging to stir the pot, I expect.


In this matter that was 'in fact'then rules a violation . The NFL HO didn’t issue any fines, let alone suspensions.

Packers HC Mike McCarthy.....

“We’ve already addressed it as a football team,” Packers coach Mike McCarthy said at the time.

“It’s a dead issue, in my view. There’s been no fines. It’s been resolved with the league, and we have moved on.”



"It’s a dead issue, in my view .........resolved....we have moved on." Mike McCarthy

woodbuck27: IMO ....This goes nowhere........ sometimes things can get strange.

[Patler]

In the terms of a violation, the two instances aren't even close.

Packer players reward each other for keeping Peterson under 100 yards. Coach finds out about it and stops it.

Saints coaches promote and manage an ongoing program to reward players for injuring multiple opponents. Coaches receive outside contributions to help fund it. Coaches actively cover-up the program, lie to team management and the league about it, and continue the program even after being warned and told to stop.

[Lurker64]

In the terms of a violation, the two instances aren't even close.

Packer players reward each other for keeping Peterson under 100 yards. Coach finds out about it and stops it.

Saints coaches promote and manage an ongoing program to reward players for injuring multiple opponents. Coaches receive outside contributions to help fund it. Coaches actively cover-up the program, lie to team management and the league about it, and continue the program even after being warned and told to stop.

It does very much point to Ted Thompson making the correct decision in hiring McCarthy instead of Payton, at least.

[sharpe1027]

IMHO, the Packer's reward was not much different than the incentives that are sanctioned by the NFL collective bargaining agreement. The biggest difference is probably that the Packer's incentive was directed toward and individual player. Although, really, who else was going to carry the ball for the Vikings...

Approved contract defensive incentives include:

Points allowed
Touchdowns allowed
Total defense (net yards)
Average net yards allowed per rushing play
Average net yards given up per passing play
Sacks
Interceptions

http://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/collective-bargaining-agreement-2011-2020.pdf

[Lurker64]

IMHO, the Packer's reward was not much different than the incentives that are sanctioned by the NFL collective bargaining agreement. The biggest difference is probably that the Packer's incentive was directed toward and individual player. Although, really, who else was going to carry the ball for the Vikings...

Well, one of the issues is that non-contractual incentives are (or can be) a salary cap violation and the NFL tends to take that sort of thing seriously.

[Patler]

Well, one of the issues is that non-contractual incentives are (or can be) a salary cap violation and the NFL tends to take that sort of thing seriously.

There again, the Packers situation apparently involved money changing hands between players. While some of that happened with the Saints, the Saints reportedly also received outside contributions toward at least some of their bounties.

[Fritz]

There again, the Packers situation apparently involved money changing hands between players. While some of that happened with the Saints, the Saints reportedly also received outside contributions toward at least some of their bounties.

Sounds to me like the Saints were far better organized and were more effective fund-raisers, too.

[pbmax]

Sounds to me like the Saints were far better organized and were more effective fund-raisers, too.

Yes, it was quite the operation. Even had money coming in from a source that was banned by the NFL. In a way, New Orleans football was a lot like Louisiana politics. Just no riverboat gambling this time.

[sharpe1027]

Well, one of the issues is that non-contractual incentives are (or can be) a salary cap violation and the NFL tends to take that sort of thing seriously.

Patler nailed the difference on that one. Besides, if one player's salary number goes up because he got money from another player, doesn't that necessarily mean that the other player's salary number went down and equal amount? It all comes out in the wash.

In all seriousness, when the money relates to things that happen on the field and it is not an official contract item, I doubt that the NFL is a fan of it. Still, there are some stark differences between the Packer's situation and the Saint's situation.

[Lurker64]

Patler nailed the difference on that one. Besides, if one player's salary number goes up because he got money from another player, doesn't that necessarily mean that the other player's salary number went down and equal amount? It all comes out in the wash.

In all seriousness, when the money relates to things that happen on the field and it is not an official contract item, I doubt that the NFL is a fan of it. Still, there are some stark differences between the Packer's situation and the Saint's situation.

Well, what the Packers did was against the rules. It's not a big deal when the players are just exchanging money, but the problem is that it's very hard to police these sorts of things to ensure that nobody else ever contributes to the pool, so the bright line distinction is that they're all illegal.

I mean, if what the Packers wasn't doing wasn't against the rules, the NFL wouldn't have told them to stop it. It just wasn't egregious enough that any punishment was warranted.

[sharpe1027]

Well, what the Packers did was against the rules. It's not a big deal when the players are just exchanging money, but the problem is that it's very hard to police these sorts of things to ensure that nobody else ever contributes to the pool, so the bright line distinction is that they're all illegal.

I mean, if what the Packers wasn't doing wasn't against the rules, the NFL wouldn't have told them to stop it. It just wasn't egregious enough that any punishment was warranted.

The only issue I have is with any attempt to compare the two incidents as if they are on similar footing.

[gbgary]

Packers defensive end Aaron Kampman said players were trying to put the issue behind them.

"I know all that stuff kind of happened last week, and we haven't heard anything," Kampman said. "It's pretty much all water under the dam."

needs to brush up on his cliches/expressions.