Bills mentioned in Saints bounty ledger

[K-9]

I understand that you don't need bodies. In theory villas lawsuit should be the crossroads

 

On Friday they were supposed to hand over any evidence to be used today and there allegedly was nothing though. In fact atleast 3 of the 16 documents were from AFTER the punishment. The leaked ledger fell apart. It's starting to get a bit like they didn't expect to get pressed or maybe someone's statements have changed and the smoking gun no longer exists? Perhaps? I really don't get the nfl approach right now.

 

This from Phil Williams, Hargrove's agent:

 

"Do you actually have any concrete evidence that any player from another team was injured as a result of a 'bounty' and that a player from the Saints was therefore paid accordingly? Can you honestly say that the Saints employed a 3-year 'bounty program' if no one was ever paid for a 'bounty?' Would that not constitute one of the worst followed programs ever witnessed?"

 

Sounds like he doesn't understand or appreciate the nature of the term "conspiracy."

 

Anyway, unless Williams and perhaps Payton decide to join the fray in unison with the players, it looks like Williams' word against theirs. Again, how am I supposed to believe that Williams was simply a rogue general who went off the reservation? It strains credibility for him and him alone to devise a system for nobody.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Best Player Available]

I understand that you don't need bodies. In theory vilmas lawsuit should be the crossroads as far as info.

 

On Friday they were supposed to hand over any evidence to be used today and there allegedly was nothing though. In fact atleast 3 of the 16 documents were from AFTER the punishment. The leaked ledger fell apart. It's starting to get a bit like they didn't expect to get pressed or maybe someone's statements have changed and the smoking gun no longer exists? Perhaps? I really don't get the nfl approach right now.

 

Vilmas arguing that there's evidence at nfl headquarters that proves he's innocent, which I don't know how he has that info.

 

It's just odd at this point.

I'm wondering on something I've heard regarding the Saints GM wired up in his booth with capabilities too hear the opposing side lines radio communications? What I've heard is he said it was strictly for a local radio feed of the games? Really? It seems this whole thing has been buried, so maybe it was BS. What did the local news rags have to say? I found it interesting that the rumor got no traction that I saw with the talking heads.

[Mr. WEO]

I understand that you don't need bodies. In theory vilmas lawsuit should be the crossroads as far as info.

 

On Friday they were supposed to hand over any evidence to be used today and there allegedly was nothing though. In fact atleast 3 of the 16 documents were from AFTER the punishment. The leaked ledger fell apart. It's starting to get a bit like they didn't expect to get pressed or maybe someone's statements have changed and the smoking gun no longer exists? Perhaps? I really don't get the nfl approach right now.

 

Vilmas arguing that there's evidence at nfl headquarters that proves he's innocent, which I don't know how he has that info.

 

It's just odd at this point.

 

There's no way the NFL would think that these guys wouldn't lawyer up after getting the suspensions.

 

My guess is that they don't want to release Payton and Williams's incriminating statements about the players, and I'm not sure they have to, based on the CBA.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Mr. WEO

[NoSaint]

I'm wondering on something I've heard regarding the Saints GM wired up in his booth with capabilities too hear the opposing side lines radio communications? What I've heard is he said it was strictly for a local radio feed of the games? Really? It seems this whole thing has been buried, so maybe it was BS. What did the local news rags have to say? I found it interesting that the rumor got no traction that I saw with the talking heads.

 

It got a lot of traction, then died when the investigation got quiet. The accuser was a guy that was fired from the team for a variety of misconduct and the impression was that espn pushed him hard to report it. espns reporter had been in town several weeks calling every possible ex-employee, ex-girlfriend, or unhired job applicant it could find and he was the one that said he had a story. No one else can back it up and his claim would put himself in jail as he says he re-wired it knowing the purpose so I think he's clammed up too. Loomis claims he's going to go back at this guy hard and that it's fabricated as revenge for firing him. The police promised a final report a few weeks ago, but i think its still in limbo. thats the quick nuts and bolts of where it stands.

 

There's no way the NFL would think that these guys wouldn't lawyer up after getting the suspensions.

 

My guess is that they don't want to release Payton and Williams's incriminating statements about the players, and I'm not sure they have to, based on the CBA.

Technically they really don't it seems. As the structure stands its coming across as RG can suspend for whatever without proving it. Any hearings or evidence along the way seems to be strictly a courtesy.

Edited June 18, 2012 by NoSaint

[NoSaint]

between the vicodin, friendship with ornstein (who defrauded the nfl for hundreds of thousands), the wire tapping, and these current accusations on one side, and the lack of willingness to produce evidence, the investigator resigning, the other investigators being involved in the star caps fiasco.... its really a made for TV situation - espn couldnt have even written the current script. gregg williams became a character and a half down here to top it off.

[K-9]

Technically they really don't it seems. As the structure stands its coming across as RG can suspend for whatever without proving it. Any hearings or evidence along the way seems to be strictly a courtesy.

 

Aside from the fact that the players gave him the implicit right to do so in the CBA last summer, there is no reason for him to provide any evidence unless compelled. I have no problem with that tactic (I'm sure I'd feel differently if I were a Saints fan). It makes sense on many levels. Not the least of which is to protect the larger interests of the league. It's quite possible that the evidence provided by some of those that have given testimony would have the potential to harm many more than just the suspended players.

 

It looks like Vilma and his team will have to push this to the limit to see the entirety of evidence. The fact that arbitrators have ruled against them already doesn't help their cause, though. It's obvious they are trying to gain the support of public opinion but outside of N.O., there doesn't appear to be much.

 

But like I said months ago, they may not be happy getting what they wished for if and when they do get it.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[NoSaint]

This from Phil Williams, Hargrove's agent:

 

 

 

Sounds like he doesn't understand or appreciate the nature of the term "conspiracy."

 

Anyway, unless Williams and perhaps Payton decide to join the fray in unison with the players, it looks like Williams' word against theirs. Again, how am I supposed to believe that Williams was simply a rogue general who went off the reservation? It strains credibility for him and him alone to devise a system for nobody.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

I get why someone would bring that up though, especially a paid defense attorney - its not required for proof, but its hard to get on board that these professional monsters were unable to injure someone accordingly over a 3 year gap.... its a little bit of a head scratcher.

 

like i said, certainly not a requirement of proving it, but coupled with the lack of evidence it just helps give a little more pause.

 

without either a victim, or proof of someone targeted... what do we have so far besides "trust us"

 

Aside from the fact that the players gave him the implicit right to do so in the CBA last summer, there is no reason for him to provide any evidence unless compelled. I have no problem with that tactic (I'm sure I'd feel differently if I were a Saints fan). It makes sense on many levels. Not the least of which is to protect the larger interests of the league. It's quite possible that the evidence provided by some of those that have given testimony would have the potential to harm many more than just the suspended players.

 

It looks like Vilma and his team will have to push this to the limit to see the entirety of evidence. The fact that arbitrators have ruled against them already doesn't help their cause, though. It's obvious they are trying to gain the support of public opinion but outside of N.O., there doesn't appear to be much.

 

But like I said months ago, they may not be happy getting what they wished for if and when they do get it.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

it very well may backfire - if it buys vilma a year of play/pay before retiring, it might just be a huge success for him, even if he ends up looking ridiculous.

 

i will say reading the national press - this has turned quite a bit. florio is pretty well on the "show something" bandwagon, as well as a few others. it seems as this drags out, reporters are having a harder time buying into the "trust us" approach. this weekend seemed to have a pretty strong wave of support towards the players as fridays evidence has come out. if you read articles from march vs articles today, there has been a pretty drastic shift in tone.

Edited June 18, 2012 by NoSaint

[K-9]

I get why someone would bring that up though, especially a paid defense attorney - its not required for proof, but its hard to get on board that these professional monsters were unable to injure someone accordingly over a 3 year gap is a little bit of a head scratcher.

 

like i said, certainly not a requirement of proving it, but coupled with the lack of evidence it just helps give a little more pause.

without either a victim, or proof of someone targeted... what do we have so far besides "trust us"

 

Hard to say. But the "trust us" card is being played by both sides at this point and I gotta believe the testimony of Williams is potentially very damaging. Regardless of how it was elicited or what was promised for it. It comes down to his word against that of his former players. And again, how am I supposed to believe that Williams created a system for nobody to participate in? Hard to reconcile that.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited June 18, 2012 by K-9

[NoSaint]

Hard to say. But the "trust us" card is being played by both sides at this point and I gotta believe the testimony of Williams is potentially very damaging. Regardless of how it was elicited or what was promised for it. It comes down to his word against that of his former players. And again, how am I supposed to believe that Williams created a system for nobody to participate in? Hard to reconcile that.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

I still get some bad feelings from the Gregg williams stuff. something that just feels a bit sour about it. i think that might be where the two of us diverge a little bit. The rumors that the nfl wrote his statements to help fill in the gaps and had him sign in exchange for re-instatement would be a bold play by the nfl, but if they had enough to nail him pretty well without having those loose ends tied up, it might explain why hed go along for the ride. an interesting article it seems recently came out - i havent read the source, but a quote lifted is in pretty hot discussion on saints boards:

 

 

"According to two sources who have seen it, Ornstein gave the NFL and the NFL Players Association a text that he said came from Williams, saying, "I stood up for you & told them just that. I told them we never took that (stuff) serious. I never ever saw you ever give $ and that's just the truth."

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8065820/appeal-new-orleans-saints-bounty-suspensions-claim-email-was-joke-sources-say

 

if stuff like that is true, and the nfl is using the ornstein email as a smoking gun... it doesnt quite add up. obviously gregg could be talking out both sides at this point, but... he just isnt a trustworthy star witness for me without something more concrete backing it up. honestly, its part of why i was suggesting there might be a lack of wanting to trot him out as the key piece and why things are so quiet on the evidence front.

 

but like i said, there are a lot of reasons to be skeptical of the saints too - hence i think it falls somewhere in that middle ground.

 

 

and for those curious - ill probably read this later but heres the evidence. its been loading for a bit so i havent seen the page, but im sure is bogged down. allegedly the link will have the full evidence from today provided to the players.

https://www.nflplayers.com/Articles/Public-News/NFLPA-Makes-Exhibits-Available-for-Review/

Edited June 18, 2012 by NoSaint

[NoSaint]

So this note just exists in a vacuum? Is it just on Gregg Williams? If so, how can Williams implement his bounty system without the buy-in of at least one player? This is what's bothered me from the minute Williams was suspended. This idea of a rogue general just acting alone and going off the reservation just doesn't add up. Did the players just pretend not to listen? Did they just pass off Williams' remarks as that of a crazy man and ignore him? I find that hard to believe.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

It looks like page 85 on the nflpa link below which is documents 1-12 is the smoking gun of this report and contains the vitt comment as well as possibly others. Who, what, where, how's are the obvious questions on that- its a hand written note typed up but where's it coming from?

https://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/League%20Exhibits%201-12.pdf

 

and then again the link on the original page with all documents

https://www.nflplayers.com/Articles/Public-News/NFLPA-Makes-Exhibits-Available-for-Review/

 

im still scanning and skimming to get an idea. Ive seen a lot of pay for big hits, plays, turnovers, scores, but this is the page so far that has injuries it seems. its a lot to go through though and some of it is a pain to read so im going quick at the moment to get the big picture... it is 200 pages after all.

 

 

 

 

 

edit: i could see someone walking away on either side here. context on 85 seems to be the big one to learn more about. certainly not rogue in its setup, but if gregg stopped when told is a big question still that would address k-9.

 

either way this is a unique read for a casual fan - a lot of powerpoints for the week both reviewing the previous week and upcoming. have to believe some of this (if not bounty, atleast how things were broken down, motivation techniques, etc....) was actual application on our own team when he was head coach.

Edited June 18, 2012 by NoSaint

[NoSaint]

followed up on one note that confused me - the harper payoff for a cartoff in the giants slides...

 

the nfl said it was for brandon jacobs.

 

jacobs was uninjured in the 2011 game and most of this looks old. digging in the 2009 game, and the best i have is he went out hurt on a tackle credited to Sharper, not harper, (easily could have been a mistake by any number of people from the scorer, the transcriber, the guy that wrote harpers name in the slide, just being clear) but jacobs was back on the next drive. havent found video of the hit, but im sure itll be coming. just trying to provide more context as its one of the very few pay for injury references and i had no idea what injury it was referencing and was at both games.

[NoSaint]

Here's roughly what I was waiting to hear:

 

 

Quote:

Ginsberg also claimed that former Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams and former Saints assistant Michael Cerullo have since retracted any claim that the players actually were engaged in a bounty program. That’s an allegation that hasn’t previously been made and, if true, would be extremely significant.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/06/18/ginsberg-chastises-goodell-for-distortion-of-evidence-demands-reversal-of-suspension/

Edited June 18, 2012 by NoSaint

[K-9]

Here's roughly what I was waiting to hear:

 

 

Quote:

Ginsberg also claimed that former Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams and former Saints assistant Michael Cerullo have since retracted any claim that the players actually were engaged in a bounty program. That’s an allegation that hasn’t previously been made and, if true, would be extremely significant.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/06/18/ginsberg-chastises-goodell-for-distortion-of-evidence-demands-reversal-of-suspension/

 

I'd like to see the retractions by Williams and others made public. In my eyes, his (and perhaps other coaches' testimony) is the lynchpin of the entire case.

 

Ginsberg also needs to acquaint himself with the term "conspiracy." Him and all the defendants are hung up on the fact that nobody got injured. That's all after the fact. He's playing with words even more than he accuses Goodell of playing with words. I don't blame him though. He's doing his job as an advocate for his client.

 

I found Steve Wyche's report very compelling in the case against the players. On its surface, the little bit of evidence he showed is more than a "trust us" strategy by the league. Catching Hargrove on the sidelines saying, "Give me my money," after being informed on the sidelines that Favre was out with a broken leg, is very telling. That little snippet of video is hard to ignore. It's hard to convince me he meant it in the same "motivational" manner that others have characterized Williams' words as simply being about.

 

I'm gonna look for Williams' retraction. Without his testimony, the league's case is far weaker.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[l< j]

I didn't see this link posted yet: Peter King at SI is among reporters shown evidence by the league:

 

As Mary Jo White, the former federal prosecutor who examined the evidence for the National Football League in its pay-for-performance/bounty case against the New Orleans Saints, went through reams of evidence Monday afternoon for 12 reporters in league offices, I had one overriding thought: All of this cannot be invented.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/06/18/new.orleans.saints.bounties/index.html?sct=nfl_t11_a0

 

kj

[NoSaint]

I'd like to see the retractions by Williams and others made public. In my eyes, his (and perhaps other coaches' testimony) is the lynchpin of the entire case.

 

Ginsberg also needs to acquaint himself with the term "conspiracy." Him and all the defendants are hung up on the fact that nobody got injured. That's all after the fact. He's playing with words even more than he accuses Goodell of playing with words. I don't blame him though. He's doing his job as an advocate for his client.

 

I found Steve Wyche's report very compelling in the case against the players. On its surface, the little bit of evidence he showed is more than a "trust us" strategy by the league. Catching Hargrove on the sidelines saying, "Give me my money," after being informed on the sidelines that Favre was out with a broken leg, is very telling. That little snippet of video is hard to ignore. It's hard to convince me he meant it in the same "motivational" manner that others have characterized Williams' words as simply being about.

 

I'm gonna look for Williams' retraction. Without his testimony, the league's case is far weaker.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

the one thing, with hargrove -- he didnt make the hit that led to the vitt statement... if i remember correctly (and it could be wrong, im just going off hand) it was mcray and ayodele that hit favre before the huddle in question. its being backed up by commentary by saints fans, but it could wrong - i havent re-watched the game in quite some time. it could even imply a side bet that hargrove might have had.

 

ill agree that A LOT hinges on what is to be made of gregg williams in all of this. itll be interesting to see where that goes now that its out there publicly like it is.

 

I didn't see this link posted yet: Peter King at SI is among reporters shown evidence by the league:

 

 

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/06/18/new.orleans.saints.bounties/index.html?sct=nfl_t11_a0

 

kj

 

king and schefter - especially schefter on mike and mike this morning - have backed off their comments yesterday. schefter went from pretty firmly on the nfl side to leaning back towards the players if i had to take a rough guesstimate.

 

and again, reading local news, so i get a heavy dose of the "other side"

 

Adam Schefter ‏@AdamSchefter

DT Anthony Hargrove will speak today at 3 pm ouside NFL offices. "He has some important information to share," said his agent Phil Williams.

 

Mike Triplett ‏@TripTP

Former #Saints DT Anthony Hargrove to speak outside NFL offices at 2 pm central time today. Expect a strong challenge against #NFL claims.

 

and vilma is on pft live with his lawyer and florio....

 

new developments on the way perhaps?

[K-9]

the one thing, with hargrove -- he didnt make the hit that led to the vitt statement... if i remember correctly (and it could be wrong, im just going off hand) it was mcray and ayodele that hit favre before the huddle in question. its being backed up by commentary by saints fans, but it could wrong - i havent re-watched the game in quite some time. it could even imply a side bet that hargrove might have had.

 

ill agree that A LOT hinges on what is to be made of gregg williams in all of this. itll be interesting to see where that goes now that its out there publicly like it is.

 

If I read every snippet of evidence separately, I can poke a lot of holes in it by finding another explanation. That will be Ginsberg's challenge moving forward.

 

Taking it as a whole however, it points to a pattern which isn't so easily explained away.

 

If I'm expected to believe that Hargrove's comment, made at the precise time and in response to Vitt's mention of Favre being out with a broken leg, is simply referencing another side bet, I would find that unreasonable. It's also damaging in that I'm expected to believe that Hargrove is engaged in placing bounties "on the side" with other players but never in the context of any other larger bounty system; that Hargrove went off the reservation and acted alone. Again, I think that's unreasonable given the evidence in its entirety. It's like expecting me to believe that all of those Williams comments about head shots and ACLs etc., was merely a motivational tool.

 

I just don't buy it. And I don't think a lot of reasonable people do either. Not yet anyway.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

... new developments on the way perhaps?

 

I doubt it. Definitely more damage control, though. They needed to get out AHEAD of this story and video of him on the sidelines. It's clear they are playing catch-up at this point. I hope Hargrove's comments don't contradict what he's already testified to.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[berndogg]

I heard the Saints paid Trent Edwards to throw a 2 yard dump pass to Freddie on 4th and 23 down 2 scores in the 4th qtr. Any truth to that?

[NoSaint]

If I read every snippet of evidence separately, I can poke a lot of holes in it by finding another explanation. That will be Ginsberg's challenge moving forward.

 

Taking it as a whole however, it points to a pattern which isn't so easily explained away.

 

If I'm expected to believe that Hargrove's comment, made at the precise time and in response to Vitt's mention of Favre being out with a broken leg, is simply referencing another side bet, I would find that unreasonable. It's also damaging in that I'm expected to believe that Hargrove is engaged in placing bounties "on the side" with other players but never in the context of any other larger bounty system; that Hargrove went off the reservation and acted alone. Again, I think that's unreasonable given the evidence in its entirety. It's like expecting me to believe that all of those Williams comments about head shots and ACLs etc., was merely a motivational tool.

 

I just don't buy it. And I don't think a lot of reasonable people do either. Not yet anyway.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

 

oh believe me, i get what your saying. the hargrove discussion was in regards to a question along the lines of "why was hargrove getting paid if hes not the one that hit favre?" which i think is a legitimate starting off point in dissecting that video, and not a matter of arguing that he was some rogue guy in all this. what dollars for injuring favre would be going in his pocket if it was bobby mcray doing the hitting

 

at 1:40 you get the hit which was mcray low and ayodele comes high:

 

is hargrove owed money by mcray and thats why hes yelling bobby give me my money, knowing mcray just earned a stack?

 

even if hargroves statement is unrelated to a bounty, it obviously doesnt prove that there was no system in place by any means. not at all what i was arguing. it was trying to put context on a quote that looks AWFUL given the way the nfl framed it.

 

make more sense?

 

 

and yes, i agree that its clear that a Pay for performance was going on. the players admitted as much. pay for injury hinges on what seems to be 3-4 key things which i think are much less of a pattern than you let on

 

1)a handwritten note showing 35k on favre - if valid, totally damning. the nfl will likely have to source this going forward

2)a payout to harper for a hit on brandon jacobs that he returned from on the next drive (involves none of these 4 players)

3)an email from ornstein to the team while he was in jail - 2 of the players no longer on the team, and ornstein claims its a joke, and gregg williams texted him saying he told the league that ornstein had never given money to the pools (text linked above)

4)a slide showing the bounty hunter before the seattle game

 

how fujita and smith are implicated in yesterdays evidence is baffling to me (the only fujita reference being 2500 - general fund and will smith being totally unmentioned in any contributions). will smith has been very quiet on all this but i dont recall seeing his name on anything big yesterday, and if anything id assume harper hits the shelf before he does based on what was given to the players as evidence. hargrove has the questions above that i was asking, as that video is the only proof against him (besides accusations he lied the first time he spoke to investigators). if they have vilma on the dollars on the table, i wont defend him, but id be curious to learn more as he seems pretty firm in his statements that its not true. if statements exist paired with that note, id say its probably solid, but if the statement is from cerrulo (fired ex coach that thinks the saints blackballed him out of the league) and the note is also from him... id have some pause.

 

obviously things were going on, but what, who, and how to punish fairly are still big questions from what the nfl gave out so far.

Edited June 19, 2012 by NoSaint

[K-9]

oh believe me, i get what your saying. the hargrove discussion was in regards to a question along the lines of "why was hargrove getting paid if hes not the one that hit favre?" which i think is a legitimate starting off point in dissecting that video, and not a matter of arguing that he was some rogue guy in all this. what dollars for injuring favre would be going in his pocket if it was bobby mcray doing the hitting

 

at 1:40 you get the hit which was mcray low and ayodele comes high:

youtube.com/watch?v=TPZCVCZNc50&feature=related

 

is hargrove owed money by mcray and thats why hes yelling bobby give me my money, knowing mcray just earned a stack?

 

even if hargroves statement is unrelated to a bounty, it obviously doesnt prove that there was no system in place by any means. not at all what i was arguing. it was trying to put context on a quote that looks AWFUL given the way the nfl framed it.

 

make more sense?

 

Yes. It makes sense. It's just uncanny the amount of coincidence here.

 

Brett Favre leaves the game. Vitt, during a sideline huddle, informs his players that Favre is out with a broken leg. Hargrove then says, "Give me my money."

 

But he only says that because he had a side bet with another player. So Hargrove engaged in a bounty program of his own.

 

Yeah. That clears it all up with regards to Hargrove. He's the only one that engaged in a bounty program of any sort.

 

What else can a reasonable person take away from that? Not much if the Hargrove video is the only piece of evidence provided by the NFL. It's just one player acting on his own who clearly implies he's owed money as a result of Favre's perceived injury. Hargrove has implicated himself.

 

But, like I said, put that together with the rest of the little evidence shared yesterday and a reasonable person would be hard pressed to believe Hargrove was the only Saint player or coach involved.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[NoSaint]

Yes. It makes sense. It's just uncanny the amount of coincidence here.

 

Brett Favre leaves the game. Vitt, during a sideline huddle, informs his players that Favre is out with a broken leg. Hargrove then says, "Give me my money."

 

But he only says that because he had a side bet with another player. So Hargrove engaged in a bounty program of his own.

 

Yeah. That clears it all up with regards to Hargrove. He's the only one that engaged in a bounty program of any sort.

 

What else can a reasonable person take away from that? Not much if the Hargrove video is the only piece of evidence provided by the NFL. It's just one player acting on his own who clearly implies he's owed money as a result of Favre's perceived injury. Hargrove has implicated himself.

 

But, like I said, put that together with the rest of the little evidence shared yesterday and a reasonable person would be hard pressed to believe Hargrove was the only Saint player or coach involved.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

again, what is hargrove collecting on if he did not hit favre?

 

the best bet on saying its a bounty would have to be that "bobby give me my money" is a result of knowing that bobby mcray was about to get paid, and owed him money, or something along those lines.

 

hargrove isnt the one that knocked favre out, so why would he be paid on vitts statement that favre was out?

 

again, not implying he was rogue or on his own in the slightest. saying that mcray hit favre, and why would hargrove then collect money, unless some sort of context is missing. even giving context that could support a bounty on favre as the possible explanation.

Edited June 19, 2012 by NoSaint