Suspensions are out, Vilma gets a whole year

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: Suspensions are out, Vilma gets a whole year

    in my eyes, the biggest travesty in all this is that bb did not get a 2013 pick from new orleans, instead of a 2012 pick.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: Suspensions are out, Vilma gets a whole year

    One player, a whole year of suspension.  He's just a union guy.  The owners hate the union.

    The coach, a whole year of suspension.  He directed the conspiracy. 

    The owner, nothing much.

    Goodell did the politically correct thing (from the owners' standpoint).  He threw the book at some low-level stooges in the conspiracy.  The moral of the story is, don't get caught, kids, and if you do get caught, don't be low-level. 

    Meanwhile, 31 teams are telling their players to break legs.  They're just phrasing it right and not leaving a paper trail.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Suspensions are out, Vilma gets a whole year

    In Response to Re: Suspensions are out, Vilma gets a whole year:
    [QUOTE]I apparrently am in the vast minority.  I don't think any of the players should have been suspended.  I think the coaches own all the responsibility here.  They are meant to be mature and exhibit ethics.  I can pretty well guarantee you that if Greg Williams offered up bounties for player as a Pats coach or any other coach some players would participate.  I mean they are going to hit people anyway, so if someone gets injured why not collect the money. It's almost like an entrapment.  Most people wouldn't steal a soda from a store, but if you offered a thousand dollars to someone to steal a soda you would get people to do it.  But the crime would not have happenned if you didn't creat the temptation.  IMO, the coaches created this, they ran it, they should hold the responsibility, and I'd end it there.
    Posted by shenanigan[/QUOTE]

    Shenanigan, I tend to agree with you.  If the coaches created the program and the players were just following orders and going along with it, I think the player punishment should be much lighter than the coaches' punishment.  It's not that the players had no responsibility at all--if your boss tells you to do something illegal, for instance, you have the duty to say "no" and, if necessary, report your boss. Still, the coach is the authority figure and it's very difficult for players to go against their coach's orders or file some kind of grievance against him if he orders them to do something they don't think is right. 

    The exception, of course, is if all players were told by the league ahead of time that no bounty programs would be tolerated and that participating in one was completely forbidden.  If they had this kind of strong warning, then you would expect them to resist the coaches' plan more strongly.  Also if the players embraced the program and cooperated with the coaches in creating it, then their culpability is greater and the harsh punishment may be more deserved.

    One thing that will become a point of contention is whether there's sufficient evidence to punish the players this strongly.  There is evidence that the coaches created the program (not just accusations, but tapes and, I believe, a confession of guilt).  I'm not sure there's strong evidence (other than hearsay) of the players' being willing participants in a scheme they knew was wrong.  This is likely to be part of the discussion when the union appeals the suspensions as it is expected to do.  If the evidence is strong that the players were energetically involved in something they knew was not allowed by the league, then strong punishment is justified.  If they were not so strongly involved, hadn't had fair warning, and were pressured into participating by the coach, then I think lighter punishment for the players is fair, with the bulk of the punishment landing on the coaches. 

    Regardless, I'm with you that coaches as part of their role have the primary responsibility to ensure the team behaves properly and follows rules. While players share some of that responsibility, the coach's actions seem more disturbing than the players' actions to me, simply because the coach is supposed to be the responsible authority figure and has both the power and the duty to supervise the team. 



     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Suspensions are out, Vilma gets a whole year

    Wow, to the people that are defending the players. Some things we know:

    1) Not just coaches but players themselves put up bounties. To me this is just as bad as the coaches. Esp if you were captains on the team like Vilma and Hargrove. It's bad enough the coach did it but the players are just as accountable if they offer bounties too and encourage it further. Other players are more likely to go along with it if their teammates participate. It's called mob mentality. There was a great research study that showed if a boss tells a group of people to do wrong then not everyone will do it and some will actually stand against it, but if co-workers encouraged the same actions then they are more likely to go along with it.

    2) These are grown men who should know right from wrong, these aren't kids. Just because the system is there doesn't mean you have to participate. They could just as easily have talked to the coach then to the league to stop the actions, it's called ethics. In my field if I knew something wrong was going on, even if I didn't participate, and I said nothing then my butt would be in front of an ethic board and most likely my license would be pulled and I'd have trouble finding another job. It's like what happened in Penn. Everyone killed anyone involved because they knew what happened and they let it continue regardless if they were part of the cover up or not they are all dirty

    3) Reports are that the players suspended took an active role in developing the system and encouraging other players to participate. This wasn't a coach saying you'll lose your job, this was a case of your teammates using peer pressure to get participation. They aren't innocent by any standards and the suspensions were needed to send a strong message to current and future players that you cannot start or participate in a bounty system.

    Come on, 1 coach got a huge fine and suspended for the year without pay while the other is banned for life. All the players got was a 1yr, 8 game, 4 game, and 3 game suspensions. The players received far less in terms of penalties.

    Concussions and injures may eventually kill this sport starting from pee-wee football up and these actions are only killing it quicker. Anyone involved needs to be punished for these actions, esp people who were considered leaders on the team (coaches, captains, groups leaders)

    BTW any word on the whole microphone in the locker room scandal, or did that just die? They should get their 1st next year taken away for that one
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Suspensions are out, Vilma gets a whole year

    In Response to Re: Suspensions are out, Vilma gets a whole year:
    [QUOTE]Wow, to the people that are defending the players. Some things we know: 1) Not just coaches but players themselves put up bounties. To me this is just as bad as the coaches. Esp if you were captains on the team like Vilma and Hargrove. It's bad enough the coach did it but the players are just as accountable if they offer bounties too and encourage it further. Other players are more likely to go along with it if their teammates participate. It's called mob mentality. There was a great research study that showed if a boss tells a group of people to do wrong then not everyone will do it and some will actually stand against it, but if co-workers encouraged the same actions then they are more likely to go along with it. 2) These are grown men who should know right from wrong, these aren't kids. Just because the system is there doesn't mean you have to participate. They could just as easily have talked to the coach then to the league to stop the actions, it's called ethics. In my field if I knew something wrong was going on, even if I didn't participate, and I said nothing then my butt would be in front of an ethic board and most likely my license would be pulled and I'd have trouble finding another job. It's like what happened in Penn. Everyone killed anyone involved because they knew what happened and they let it continue regardless if they were part of the cover up or not they are all dirty 3) Reports are that the players suspended took an active role in developing the system and encouraging other players to participate. This wasn't a coach saying you'll lose your job, this was a case of your teammates using peer pressure to get participation. They aren't innocent by any standards and the suspensions were needed to send a strong message to current and future players that you cannot start or participate in a bounty system. Come on, 1 coach got a huge fine and suspended for the year without pay while the other is banned for life. All the players got was a 1yr, 8 game, 4 game, and 3 game suspensions. The players received far less in terms of penalties. Concussions and injures may eventually kill this sport starting from pee-wee football up and these actions are only killing it quicker. Anyone involved needs to be punished for these actions, esp people who were considered leaders on the team (coaches, captains, groups leaders) BTW any word on the whole microphone in the locker room scandal, or did that just die? They should get their 1st next year taken away for that one
    Posted by PatsEng[/QUOTE]

    Eng, this is a reasonable point of view too.  To me, what determines the players' culpability is the degree to which the players embraced the system and the degree to which they were warned ahead of time that it was unexceptable. If they were clearly warned by the league against this behaviour and also embraced it and participated willingly in it, their punishment should be harsh.  If they weren't warned sufficiently ahead of time by the league or if there was ambiguity about what was acceptable as an "incentive" and if the program was primarily created and organized by their boss (the coach), then I think there's an argument for lighter (but not no) penalties.  I think there's a wide spectrum of possibilities and you need to look at the evidence thoroughly to decide what's just.  





     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Suspensions are out, Vilma gets a whole year

    In Response to Re: Suspensions are out, Vilma gets a whole year:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Suspensions are out, Vilma gets a whole year : Eng, this is a reasonable point of view too.  To me, what determines the players' culpability is the degree to which the players embraced the system and the degree to which they were warned ahead of time that it was unexceptable. If they were clearly warned by the league against this behaviour and also embraced it and participated willingly in it, their punishment should be harsh.  If they weren't warned sufficiently ahead of time by the league or if there was ambiguity about what was acceptable as an "incentive" and if the program was primarily created and organized by their boss (the coach), then I think there's an argument for lighter (but not no) penalties.  I think there's a wide spectrum of possibilities and you need to look at the evidence thoroughly to decide what's just.  
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    The league shouldn't even have to warn them, it should be common sense for men. You don't intentionally injure another person, period. I don't care what profession you are in you do onto others what you would want done onto yourself. Why should you have to tell them that injuring a player and risking their career/life is against the rules? What's next, you have to tell them not to play russian roulette? Any person with any ethics or sense would not intentionally try to injury other players or put bounties who's intention was to injury them to the point where they would have to be removed from the game.

    There's a point where you shouldn't have to tell a grown man right from wrong

    btw they were told in 2010 to stop it and continued anyways
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Suspensions are out, Vilma gets a whole year

    In Response to Re: Suspensions are out, Vilma gets a whole year:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Suspensions are out, Vilma gets a whole year : The league shouldn't even have to warn them, it should be common sense for men. You don't intentionally injure another person, period. I don't care what profession you are in you do onto others what you would want done onto yourself. Why should you have to tell them that injuring a player and risking their career/life is against the rules? What's next, you have to tell them not to play russian roulette? Any person with any ethics or sense would not intentionally try to injury other players or put bounties who's intention was to injury them to the point where they would have to be removed from the game. There's a point where you shouldn't have to tell a grown man right from wrong btw they were told in 2010 to stop it and continued anyways
    Posted by PatsEng[/QUOTE]

    I generally agree with you, but we also know that these bounty programs have been accepted in the past.  So there is a change occuring in what's acceptable and, in my opinion, a lot depends on how much the league has stressed to players that a practice that was once tolerated is no longer acceptable. 

    Plus, it really does seem more deplorable to me that a coach--who generally has the power to tell players what to do and also has the power to punish them if they don't do what he tells them--would institute such a program.  The players should have resisted or filed a grievance, but they were also put in a bad position by their coaches.  Yes, the right thing to do is stand up for principle, but it's harder to do that when potentially your career might be jeopardized for what the coach could see as insubordination or, at least, an uncooperative attitude.  

    A lot depends, I think, on what was told to the players ahead of time about these types of programs . . . and how extensive and enthusiastic their participation was. 

    It will be interesting to see what leaks out about the players' roles.  The evidence will tell whether the players should be punished harshly or more moderately.  I do think some punishment is justified no matter what . . . it's more the extent of the punishment which, in my opinion, should match the extent of the players' involvement. 

    The coach (Williams), in my mind, has simply no excuse.  He should have known better. 
     

Share