Bounty Gate Players Suspended

[eball]

Just answering your questions:

 

1 -- No, I don't think there are.

2 -- Yes I do.

3 -- A gladiator sport as it was intended.

Please explain a response that indicates you don't think there are enough injuries in the NFL.

 

Also, gladiators killed each other. Is that what you're hoping for?

[dogma+]

Also, gladiators killed each other. Is that what you're hoping for?

 

Metaphorically, sure. Watch some tape from the 70's. You may not recognize what you're watching.

[eball]

Metaphorically, sure. Watch some tape from the 70's. You may not recognize what you're watching.

You missed the first question. Still waiting.

[Malazan]

Actually, eliminating helmets would be single best step they could take to reduce head injuries.

 

There have been safer helmets offered to players.

 

Why is the nflpa AGAINST this? It's nflpa players who were targetted.

 

They need to star being harsh. We're told that players can't practice, can't do this, can't do that because of the wear and tear on their bodies. Ok, I get it. Then you think the nflpa wants to protect their bodies.

[dogma+]

You missed the first question. Still waiting.

 

The first question is loaded. That would have to be a discussion taken place in person to accurately convey what I'm attempting to explain.

[KD in CA]

I've actually wondered if switching to a wrestling/gladiator shape helmet wouldn't be a bad idea. Keep the facemask and side protection. Just eliminate the top. I have no idea if this would be safer, but I guarantee at the very least, "launching" style helmet tackles would stop dead in their tracks...

Yup. And I suspect linemen would very quickly learn to move upright before they impact with the guy across from them. Right now the helmets are the first point of contact every single play for half the guys on the field.

 

 

 

1 -- I'm basing my claim off the fact that I have read every research study that I could find on the matter and all of them put together wouldn't equal more than 1% of total NFL players.

 

So you assume that if a player wasn't named in a specific study than they must not have been impacted? You don't really understand the issue at all do you?

 

btw....how many of the studies you read mentioned Junior Seau?

[K-9]

There have been safer helmets offered to players.

 

Why is the nflpa AGAINST this? It's nflpa players who were targetted.

 

They need to star being harsh. We're told that players can't practice, can't do this, can't do that because of the wear and tear on their bodies. Ok, I get it. Then you think the nflpa wants to protect their bodies.

 

The NFLPA is hypocritical on many fronts.

 

That said, there is not a helmet now, nor will there be a helmet ever invented, that can prevent concussions.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[dogma+]

So you assume that if a player wasn't named in a specific study than they must not have been impacted? You don't really understand the issue at all do you?

 

btw....how many of the studies you read mentioned Junior Seau?

 

What proof do you have that Seau's death was in any way correlated to the NFL?

 

Logical fallacy.

[NoSaint]

The NFLPA is hypocritical on many fronts.

 

That said, there is not a helmet now, nor will there be a helmet ever invented, that can prevent concussions.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

eliminate, no. reduce, very much.

[KD in CA]

What proof do you have that Seau's death was in any way correlated to the NFL?

 

Logical fallacy.

 

What proof do you have that you're not an idiot?

 

A presumption based on anecdotal evidence is not a logical fallacy.

[eball]

The first question is loaded. That would have to be a discussion taken place in person to accurately convey what I'm attempting to explain.

 

For what it's worth, I think you're confusing an archaic "warrior" mentality with the realities of a multi-billion dollar industry that relies upon its stars being able to actually, you know, play.

[dogma+]

What proof do you have that you're not an idiot?

 

Insults are not productive. If that's where you want to go with this conversation, then i'll bow out now.

 

A presumption based on anecdotal evidence is not a logical fallacy.

 

Anecdotal evidence implies that there is some evidence that there is a link between two facts or items. There is no link what so ever between Seau's death and his NFL career at this point. None.

[todzilla]

So even if it's less than 1% of the players, does that make it okay? No worries, it's only .5% of our employees that have mush for brains and are dying young, carry on. I wrote my post then went to lunch to find out Seau killed himself. Obviously we don't know if there was any correlation to concussions, but it makes you wonder.

[dogma+]

So even if it's less than 1% of the players, does that make it okay?

 

Yes.

[26CornerBlitz]

So even if it's less than 1% of the players, does that make it okay? No worries, it's only .5% of our employees that have mush for brains and are dying young, carry on. I wrote my post then went to lunch to find out Seau killed himself. Obviously we don't know if there was any correlation to concussions, but it makes you wonder.

 

Indeed it does.

[dogma+]

 

For what it's worth, I think you're confusing an archaic "warrior" mentality with the realities of a multi-billion dollar industry that relies upon its stars being able to actually, you know, play.

 

And THAT is what it's really about. The all mighty DOLLAR.

Edited May 2, 2012 by dogma+

[KD in CA]

Insults are not productive. If that's where you want to go with this conversation, then i'll bow out now.

But using the "Prove it!" argument is highly productive while you continue to refuse to provide any type of support for your ridiculous 1% claim and willfully ignore the significant volume of evidence published about the issue.

 

 

Anecdotal evidence implies that there is some evidence that there is a link between two facts or items. There is no link what so ever between Seau's death and his NFL career at this point. None.

I suppose there's none for Dave Duerson either. Go back and read those studies again. Or you can go back to crusading about how you want the NFL to produce more injuries and deaths. That lends so much credibility to your "argument".

[truth on hold]

Wow the bounty vilma thought would cost him $10k at most ends up costing $3.3mm. That's just brutal losing that kind of change when nfl careers tend to be short to begin with.

[K-9]

eliminate, no. reduce, very much.

 

Skull fractures and hematomas, yes. Concussions? Not so much. Unlike fractures and hematomas, concussions can result at much lower impacts and helmets can't do anything to prevent acceleration/deceleration of the brain which is the most important factor. It's just the terrible nature of the beast.

 

I like where new helmet technology is going, certainly. One of the companies (Riddell maybe?) is developing a helmet that will actually measure impact forces which have the potential to alert team medical staff as to whether or not a threshold has been crossed. This may allow them to intervene sooner on behalf of a player who may not even know he's at risk to begin with after a low impact collision.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[dogma+]

But using the "Prove it!" argument is highly productive while you continue to refuse to provide any type of support for your ridiculous 1% claim and willfully ignore the significant volume of evidence published about the issue.

 

How dare I ask for proof! Let it be known that you have still not been able to provide any...

 

What significant volume? All of that significant volume put together is less than 1%. You may call it ridiculous if want but that is a fact.

 

I suppose there's none for Dave Duerson either. Go back and read those studies again. Or you can go back to crusading about how you want the NFL to produce more injuries and deaths. That lends so much credibility to your "argument".

 

I never said I wanted more death. That is a lie.

 

As far as credibility goes, I lost all I had for you when you resorting to name calling.

Edited May 2, 2012 by dogma+

[NoSaint]

Skull fractures and hematomas, yes. Concussions? Not so much. Unlike fractures and hematomas, concussions can result at much lower impacts and helmets can't do anything to prevent acceleration/deceleration of the brain which is the most important factor. It's just the terrible nature of the beast.

 

I like where new helmet technology is going, certainly. One of the companies (Riddell maybe?) is developing a helmet that will actually measure impact forces which have the potential to alert team medical staff as to whether or not a threshold has been crossed. This may allow them to intervene sooner on behalf of a player who may not even know he's at risk to begin with after a low impact collision.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

those are actually in use in some schools (i believe) there was an outside the lines that highlighted them and they had trainers at a board that showed impacts.

[KD in CA]

How dare I ask for proof! Let it be known that you have still not been able to provide any...

 

What significant volume? All of that significant volume put together is less than 1%. You may call it ridiculous if want but that is a fact.

So, everything you make up is "a fact", yet everyone else has to "prove" everything to you. Logical fallacy, huh? I guess we'll just wait and see how it shakes out with Seau; though you'll naturally ignore any conclusions that don't fit your agenda.

 

 

As far as credibility goes, I lost all I had for you when you resorting to name calling.

Aw.....someone who wants to see more football players injured and dead got his feeling hurt by being called an idiot? If the shoe fits pal.

[dogma+]

So, everything you make up is "a fact", yet everyone else has to "prove" everything to you. Logical fallacy, huh? I guess we'll just wait and see how it shakes out with Seau; though you'll naturally ignore any conclusions that don't fit your agenda.

 

Except I didn't make anything up. I stated a fact. If you add all the players studied in every research study, it is less than 1% of NFL players. That's not made up. That's a truth.

 

What you said was made up. You tried to correlate Seau's death and the NFL. There is no proof. None. You also have no proof or reason to conclude that I would ignore any conclusions that are backed up by proof.

 

 

Aw.....someone who wants to see more football players injured and dead got his feeling hurt by being called an idiot? If the shoe fits pal.

 

Feelings hurt? No. Just don't feel like wasting my time with a conversation that leads to animosity.

[Captain Hindsight]

I think every hit within the whistles should be legal, minus groin hits. Bring back the arm bar.

 

De-pussify football.

So I'll see you at midfield?

[dogma+]

So I'll see you at midfield?

 

[KD in CA]

Except I didn't make anything up. I stated a fact. If you add all the players studied in every research study, it is less than 1% of NFL players. That's not made up. That's a truth.

 

And as I pointed out, you apparently don't understand what a research study is. It's also a fact that less than 1% of all the people with cancer were actually included in a research study on cancer. So I guess that means cancer isn't a big deal and we should be promoting more smoking.

 

What's relevant is the % of players affected by brain trauma from playing football and the research strongly suggests that the problem is far more widespread that you are willing to acknowledge.

[Just in Atlanta]

Thought I'd pass along, for some fun, some verbatim comments from my Saints fan friend.

 

On the commish's hand slaps to the draftees: "Watching that sanctimonious hyprocrite do anything is painful for this Saints fan. I hope he gets hit by a f-ing bus on Park Ave."

 

On whether or not Saints fans needed a hug like the ones he was giving to draftees: "No thanks. I'd settle for him simply producing publicly the evidence of where the team paid a bounty and also knocked a player out a game."

 

I'm afraid to ask him what he thinks about this development.

[NoSaint]

Thought I'd pass along, for some fun, some verbatim comments from my Saints fan friend.

 

On the commish's hand slaps to the draftees: "Watching that sanctimonious hyprocrite do anything is painful for this Saints fan. I hope he gets hit by a f-ing bus on Park Ave."

 

On whether or not Saints fans needed a hug like the ones he was giving to draftees: "No thanks. I'd settle for him simply producing publicly the evidence of where the team paid a bounty and also knocked a player out a game."

 

I'm afraid to ask him what he thinks about this development.

 

the lack of evidence is starting to get frustrating for fans of the saints. i enjoy them but dont live and die with every game like i do with the bills... but i cant imagine how frustrated i would be with coaches and gm getting suspended, and appeal being upheld, and now players being suspended without the league producing anything beyond what seems to be "but seriously, just trust us on this." hell, this is a board that was up in arms that the league would dispose of the spygate evidence, yet there seems to be no outcry for proof here.

 

its an odd situation, and sounds like its headed for an ugly court case.

 

the coaches going so quietly led me to believe that its for real (otherwise why not scream from the rooftops), but the players pushing the issue is going to be interesting to see. does the proof exist and its uglier than the nfl wants released leaving the players in a game of chicken with the league? or is it really a lot shoddier than we have been led to believe? why did the investigator resign last week? its turning into a strange story (though it could clear up a lot with some simple information).

 

im still baffled by hargrove - essentially the explanation ive seen is he got 8 games for lying. and id add likely for the clip of him celebrating on the sidelines? Thats crazy to me.

 

i am also (as is EVERYONE that ive spoken to) shocked that roman harper isnt being put on the shelf. if there was a guy that played on the edge, got some penalties, and was known for working guys over in the piles it was him. i think he was either the leader or very near the top on the team in penalties, and injuries from his hits. IF the program was going on, he was the one that was found would have made the most money based on the payment system released.

 

i get the rest, assuming the stories are true, but still a bit of an assumption.

Edited May 2, 2012 by NoSaint

[NoSaint]

Heres Jonathan Vilmas statement:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/58168/jonathan-vilma-issues-statement

 

a bold one to make if he actually did the things he was accused of doing. a lot of emphatic "never" statements in there, and he will have egg on his face if the league does have proof. theres not a lot of grey area unless he is playing a big game of chicken, or is an dancing in semantics (laid the money down, but didnt intend to actually pay it?).....

 

this sounds like its not just going to appeals, but possibly court.

Edited May 2, 2012 by NoSaint

[truth on hold]

Who cares saints are toast. Instead of lashing out at everyone else they ought to be pointing the finger the only place it belongs: themselves. Greg Williams didn't apologize and lay himself at the complete mercy of the commissioner over nothing.

[NoSaint]

Who cares saints are toast. Instead of lashing out at everyone else they ought to be pointing the finger the only place it belongs: themselves. Greg Williams didn't apologize and lay himself at the complete mercy of the commissioner over nothing.

 

agreed on the last part. and a good chunk of the middle. but i do find it curious that the players would be so confident to release a statement like vilmas.

[truth on hold]

After dropping $3.3mm maybe he thinks he has nothing to lose. I don't know, I'm kind of surprised he got as much a greg and Payton, because equating the penalty would seem to be equaling the authority, which wasn't the case since he wasn't a coach.

 

But the flip side of reading potential innocence into the ferocity of his response, is asking how the league would dish it out if they didnt feel confident they could defend the penalty against the NFLPA and beyond. Goodell doesn't seem the type to act without getting clearance from the lawyers first.

[NoSaint]

After dropping $3.3mm maybe he thinks he has nothing to lose. I don't know, I'm kind of surprised he got as much a greg and Payton, because equating the penalty would seem to be equaling the authority, which wasn't the case since he wasn't a coach.

 

But the flip side of reading potential innocence into the ferocity of his response, is asking how the league would dish it out if they didnt feel confident they could defend the penalty against the NFLPA and beyond. Goodell doesn't seem the type to act without getting clearance from the lawyers first.

 

its an interesting situation. with all the talk of court, id be curious to hear what the players can do - perhaps under the cba, they dont have as much recourse as some of the talking heads are implying in this situation, and goodell is banking on that?

 

its just not a situation that really has many shades of gray at this point - either he laid down the cash or he didnt. the levels of proof may in fact vary, but its amazing to me that both sides would be making such strong statements.

Edited May 2, 2012 by NoSaint

[eball]

Heres Jonathan Vilmas statement:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/58168/jonathan-vilma-issues-statement

 

a bold one to make if he actually did the things he was accused of doing. a lot of emphatic "never" statements in there, and he will have egg on his face if the league does have proof. theres not a lot of grey area unless he is playing a big game of chicken, or is an dancing in semantics (laid the money down, but didnt intend to actually pay it?).....

 

this sounds like its not just going to appeals, but possibly court.

LOL -- as if Vilma wrote that statement. The NFLPA wrote it for him.

[Just in Atlanta]

What proof do you have that you're not an idiot?

 

A presumption based on anecdotal evidence is not a logical fallacy.

Frankly, your ad hominem statements represent deductive reasoning at its worst. A straw man argument implementing red herring logic and black swan blindness, actually.

 

On TBD, we stick with syllogistic logic.

 

I have no idea what I just said. Just wanted to sound smart like you guys

[truth on hold]

@NS, if you read goodells statement he said multiple independent sources fingered vilma (paraphrasing of course). I'm guessing at least one of those sources was greggo. So it will be a case of vilma vs other salnts players and maybe a coach. I think in a court of law he could be found guilty based on testimony of others, even if there's no hard evidence like gregs taped pre-game speech. What complicates it for saints nation is that it's not simply them against the commissioner, theres also an element of saint on saint now

Edited May 2, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack

[tomdayfan]

If we can get back to commenting on the suspensions, here's a question. Since Vilma & Payton each got a year, what's the earliest you think Greggo might be reinstated? If he ever is.

[truth on hold]

If we can get back to commenting on the suspensions, here's a question. Since Vilma & Payton each got a year, what's the earliest you think Greggo might be reinstated? If he ever is.

He's been so cooperative and unconditionally apologetic wouldn't surprise me if it's just year too: question is, who'd want him? Not me, because even if i thought he was good, he'd be under so much scrutiny Id be concerned he'd lose the aggressive edge those guys need.

Edited May 2, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack

[NoSaint]

LOL -- as if Vilma wrote that statement. The NFLPA wrote it for him.

No kidding? But you'd have to think he read/endorsed it. To put out in his name such unequivocal and specific denials is pretty bold.

 

Espn now reporting saints sources as arguing that it was 2009 playoffs only, that the cash was all Gregg's and it never stretched past that January.

[BRAWNDO]

If we can get back to commenting on the suspensions, here's a question. Since Vilma & Payton each got a year, what's the earliest you think Greggo might be reinstated? If he ever is.

 

Maybe two years at least.