2012 NFL Offseason thread

[albionmoonlight]

Yeah, the comments about "the head" could charitably be read to mean "get in their head (psychologically)" or "stop their best players (the head of the team) and the other players will also be stopped."

But then he starts talking about ACLs and ankles. No metaphor there.

[Ksyrup]

Yeah, the intro wasn't all that bad, even the "kill the head" stuff could be explained away somewhat in a non-specific, metaphor-like way. But then he got rolling and eliminated all doubt that he's fucked.

[Ksyrup]

Albert Breer ‏ @AlbertBreer
Per a league source, that audio surfacing has severely damaged -- if not ended completely -- Payton's chances of an effective appeal today.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Yeah, the intro wasn't all that bad, even the "kill the head" stuff could be explained away somewhat in a non-specific, metaphor-like way. But then he got rolling and eliminated all doubt that he's fucked.

Ya, the kill the head stuff actually kind of fit in with his line about "kill the head and the body will die". For the first minute or two I was sort of "eh, this seems pretty in line with what I imagined a motivational speech to sound like".

Then he went and started calling out names and body parts. Dumb.

[Julio Riddols]

Damn, man.. We're talking about peoples health and livelihood here, and their ability to earn a living in their profession and this dude is calling for their heads like there is no consequence for it. Hopefully they make an example of him. Yeah, these men are modern gladiators, but just because they're fortunate enough to play football for a living doesn't mean they are disposable.

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

Ya, the kill the head stuff actually kind of fit in with his line about "kill the head and the body will die". For the first minute or two I was sort of "eh, this seems pretty in line with what I imagined a motivational speech to sound like".

Then he went and started calling out names and body parts. Dumb.

Breathtakingly dumb in many ways. At that point Williams evidently knew that the league was reopening their bounty investigation, and also knew that there was a video crew in the room recording his speech.

If both of those reported facts are true it suggests an arrogance that defies quantification, or a level of brain damage that should result in his inability to be allowed in public unsupervised. I can't help but wonder how many concussions Williams himself has had.

[Kodos]

Dude picked a bad time to be on Mic'd Up, I guess.

[JPhillips]

And he didn't have to say any of that to make his point. He could have said, break their will, punish them, fear getting hit again, etc. and he would have been fine.

[Carman Bulldog]

DR. HEAT!!!!!

[Tigercat]

The speech didn't work well, either. The 49ers got more big hits (99% of which were clean) and were the ones that caused the injuries to the Saints, not the other way around.

As the defense declined in it's ability to make big aggressive plays, I wonder if these type of speeches didn't wear thin on the Saints players. They never did take big cheap shots against opposing players, even though it seems obvious here that Williams was at least partially condoning it. I think almost all NFL players have too much respect for each other to go beyond trash talking and half ass promises and bets. So maybe garbage speeches like this and the players getting tired of them is part of the reason why the big play success of the defense went down over the last couple of years.

[Ksyrup]

As someone on twitter pointed out, the worst part of this is how easily Alex Smith sliced up the Saints. Eyes big as saucers for a completely different reason, ya dick!

[albionmoonlight]

Night before the game:

PAYTON: "Gregg, you figured out a way to stop Vernon Davis, right?"

GREGG: "Oh, yeah." [Translation, I told our players to hit him really hard. And I said fuck a lot!]

PAYTON [thinking that Williams actually, you know, worked on coverages and schemes to make it harder for Davis to catch the ball]: "Good!"

[rowech]

When you put the focus on hurting guys you take the focus off of playing defense so the results aren't all that surprising.

[molson]

I think the appeal was just to buy some time to figure out the coaching situation, the suspension otherwise would have started 4/1.

Now he's gotta just hope Goodell doesn't tack more on - which I'm sure he couldn't really do, but I'm it'll be a less-than-enjoyable day for Payton.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by rowech

When you put the focus on hurting guys you take the focus off of playing defense so the results aren't all that surprising.

Depends on how you define emphasis. If the players were out there emphasizing actually hurting the other players more than the norm, their results were some of the poorest imaginable.

For Gregg Williams it was all about head games, and thus why he fails over time. What worked in '09 was the emphasis he placed on defenders practicing the strip, blitzing like crazy, and having a hall of fame ball hawk safety to pick off the errant passes. At first, teams weren't ready for a Saints team that practiced the strip day and night. Or for the complete philosophical change in what the Saints did to bring pressure.

All of this was brought on without Williams having to do much scheme work. Just speeches and yelling during practice about practicing strips, and defensive plays drawn up with multiple different blitzes. Looks like Williams got lazy, and thought if he yelled (and continued the bounty program) which emphasized aggressive play and desire, that that would be enough to overpower the other team. After '09, it failed more than it worked.

Rams fans should consider themselves damn lucky.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

The speech didn't work well, either. The 49ers got more big hits (99% of which were clean) and were the ones that caused the injuries to the Saints, not the other way around.

As the defense declined in it's ability to make big aggressive plays, I wonder if these type of speeches didn't wear thin on the Saints players. They never did take big cheap shots against opposing players, even though it seems obvious here that Williams was at least partially condoning it. I think almost all NFL players have too much respect for each other to go beyond trash talking and half ass promises and bets. So maybe garbage speeches like this and the players getting tired of them is part of the reason why the big play success of the defense went down over the last couple of years.

Cmon man, you're sounding a little like Baghdad Bob. This is pretty repulsive, disgusting stuff; there's no doubt that the NFL is busy trying to cover its ass recursively and the Saints were the ones caught, but it doesn't make them any more right.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

49ers really could use some offensive line help. There has been talk of Harbaugh trying to trade up to get DeCastro, but it's a pretty thin discussion at this point. Everyone out here seems to think that it's either going to be WR or OL for the 49ers in round one.

DeCastro actually makes a lot of sense to me. I think that WR in the 1st round is more unlikely now, though I think the idea of Fleener (as a 3rd TE) may actually not be crazy.

[Ksyrup]

In the hours since documentary filmmaker Sean Pamphilon released audio of former Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams urging his players to injure players on the 49ers, one question has been asked over and over: What on earth was Williams thinking making those statements while a documentary filmmaker was recording it?

The answer is that Williams was thinking Pamphilon was with the Saints to make a private recording for former Saint Steve Gleason and his family. The men in the Saints’ locker room had no idea Pamphilon was ever going to make what he saw and heard public.

A source told PFT’s Mike Florio that Gleason, who has been diagnosed with ALS, had joined up with Pamphilon to make private recordings that could some day be given to Gleason’s son, so that he could get to know his dad after he was no longer alive. Gleason plans to issue a statement saying that Pamphilon was not authorized to publicize what he recorded.

Pamphilon was invited to San Francisco because Gleason was there to visit a doctor in the Bay Area, and when Gleason was included in Saints meetings before the game against the 49ers, Pamphilon was allowed in as well. But the Saints believed — wrongly, it would turn out — that Pamphilon was going to share what he recorded only with the Gleason family, not with the general public.

.

[Logan]

The organization sounds dumber everyday.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

.

Boy, that's a tough call. In the end, I think the documentary maker is right to release what he recorded, because there is much public good in airing out things like that. That said, it's more than a little underhanded to take advantage of special access for a private purpose, and then turn around and burn the people who provided the access.

[Ksyrup]

If my dad died, I'm not sure I'd want to get to know him by hearing any part of that speech - or to know that he wanted me to hear that and think that kind of shit represented him as a person. Sheesh.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Boy, that's a tough call. In the end, I think the documentary maker is right to release what he recorded, because there is much public good in airing out things like that. That said, it's more than a little underhanded to take advantage of special access for a private purpose, and then turn around and burn the people who provided the access.

Yeah, it's interesting circumstances. I wonder if they had a contract for his services, or if there was any agreement in writing that what he filmed would remain private. I'm not even sure "whistleblower" statutes would protect him since he wasn't an employee of the Saints, but an independent contractor of a former Saints player. I'm sure he can expect to get sued over this.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Yeah, it's interesting circumstances. I wonder if they had a contract for his services, or if there was any agreement in writing that what he filmed would remain private. I'm not even sure "whistleblower" statutes would protect him since he wasn't an employee of the Saints, but an independent contractor of a former Saints player. I'm sure he can expect to get sued over this.

Wouldn't suing him be a huge PR hit?

[Ksyrup]

Huh? If I was Gleason I'd sue his ass this afternoon, assuming I had documentation demonstrating the terms of his engagement. I don't know how video/photo works - can he claim some ownership in the material he produces for someone else? If not, he's essentially stolen someone else's private recordings and made them public.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Cmon man, you're sounding a little like Baghdad Bob. This is pretty repulsive, disgusting stuff; there's no doubt that the NFL is busy trying to cover its ass recursively and the Saints were the ones caught, but it doesn't make them any more right.

I called it "garbage speeches" in the very post you quoted. I agree with you. I love how I give a measured response around here, and I am spewing propaganda.

Personally, I feel worse about the speech than some of the talking heads today that are out there partially condoning the speech itself. He was giving a serious speech about targeting specific guys. Even if its less of a problem to the NFL without money involved, it's sicker to me. I still *think* that in most of the players mind the "bounties" were not so serious locker room trash talk, as exhibited by little results on the field with plenty of opportunity. BUT, to give a clearly serious speech like this to your players about injuring the other team? That is total bullshit.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

DeCastro actually makes a lot of sense to me. I think that WR in the 1st round is more unlikely now, though I think the idea of Fleener (as a 3rd TE) may actually not be crazy.

Agree on DeCastro, but I think it would be cost prohibitive to move up that far.

I still don't understand the Fleener talk. At all.

[whomario]

Maybe he and his family arer actually fine with it, especially since he hasn´t played with Williams as DC. As far as he´s concerned "The Saints" is very likely not the same as "bounty scandal under Payton and Williams"

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by whomario

Maybe he and his family arer actually fine with it, especially since he hasn´t played with Williams as DC. As far as he´s concerned "The Saints" is very likely not the same as "bounty scandal under Payton and Williams"

That's possible, Gleason may have been played the speech and felt that it needed to be out there, it doesn't really shed any new light except shows a little more depth to Williams's scumbaggery.

But if the filmmaker didn't go to Gleason first, to preferably ask his permission or at the very, very least explain why he was doing what he was doing, shame on him.

[Fidatelo]

I think the doc maker is a douche here. I can see him providing a copy of the tape to the NFL as part of their investigation, but releasing it publicly is wrong. This would be like hiring a wedding photographer and then finding your pictures all over the interwebs because someone famous was in attendance or something. Scuzzy.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

Agree on DeCastro, but I think it would be cost prohibitive to move up that far.

I still don't understand the Fleener talk. At all.

I'm not sure why you guys haven't actually made an offer to Mike Wallace. 10-11 million a season for one of the top receivers in the league wouldn't be a stretch. He does more than just run fly patterns.

[Kodos]

I'll take a small evil to expose a much larger evil.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I'll take a small evil to expose a much larger evil.

UK news channel Sky News said Thursday it had authorized its journalists to hack illegally into the e-mail of individual members of the public on two occasions.

John Ryley, head of Sky News, said the instances involved suspected criminal activity. "We stand by these actions as editorially justified and in the public interest," he said in a statement.

We don't seem to be quite so forgiving of these folks.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by stevew

I'm not sure why you guys haven't actually made an offer to Mike Wallace. 10-11 million a season for one of the top receivers in the league wouldn't be a stretch. He does more than just run fly patterns.

I think they simply don't have the cap room for it. If Smith signed with the Dolphins, I think the plan was (at least according to PFT) for the team to sign Wallce.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

We don't seem to be quite so forgiving of these folks.

Isn´t that apples and oranges ? The filmmaker stumbled onto the evidence and knew what it was, those newspapers merely suspected evidence to be there and went to get it.

There might be a point to be made about him not going to the league first and then publish it, but that he did make it available i have zero problems with.

[Ksyrup]

I agree they aren't the same necessaarily, but I find it interesting that both are in the news at the same time and have, at their root, a very similar set of circumstances with polar opposite reactions from the public.

This guy published information about something that had already been dealt with by the league. I'm not sure what public good he served exposing it now, considering the suspensions had already been handed down and we knew the basic facts that the tape substantiates. Seems to me if he was going to do this, it should have been done several weeks ago so it could be used as further evidence by the league.

In any event, both situations are dealing with an invasion of privacy that is justified by the actors as being in the public's best interest. That's the common angle I see.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I agree they aren't the same necessaarily, but I find it interesting that both are in the news at the same time and have, at their root, a very similar set of circumstances with polar opposite reactions from the public.

This guy published information about something that had already been dealt with by the league. I'm not sure what public good he served exposing it now, considering the suspensions had already been handed down and we knew the basic facts that the tape substantiates. Seems to me if he was going to do this, it should have been done several weeks ago so it could be used as further evidence by the league.

In any event, both situations are dealing with an invasion of privacy that is justified by the actors as being in the public's best interest. That's the common angle I see.

I agree with this completely. Nothing I saw in that tape of Williams will change anything for anyone anywhere about anything. It is just gossip fodder at this point. Releasing it was sleezy and unnecessary.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by stevew

I'm not sure why you guys haven't actually made an offer to Mike Wallace. 10-11 million a season for one of the top receivers in the league wouldn't be a stretch. He does more than just run fly patterns.

Salary cap room. The Niners have their own guys to take care of, and not that much room left. Partially that's because they're taking a big number for Willis (something like 17M this year if I recall correctly), but they're trying not to overspend - this is a young team.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

I called it "garbage speeches" in the very post you quoted. I agree with you. I love how I give a measured response around here, and I am spewing propaganda.

Personally, I feel worse about the speech than some of the talking heads today that are out there partially condoning the speech itself. He was giving a serious speech about targeting specific guys. Even if its less of a problem to the NFL without money involved, it's sicker to me. I still *think* that in most of the players mind the "bounties" were not so serious locker room trash talk, as exhibited by little results on the field with plenty of opportunity. BUT, to give a clearly serious speech like this to your players about injuring the other team? That is total bullshit.

Fair enough. And as I pointed out, I don't think they are alone in the NFL, and there's clearly a deal of "I'm shocked, shocked that there is gambling going on in this establishment" - I think Goddell is trying to cover his ass against the evidence the NFL has ignored for years.

[JPhillips]

If Wallace doesn't get an offer from another team it will clearly be collusion.

[Carman Bulldog]

At the end of the day, I'm not sure Williams said anything that isn't said in any other locker room.

Some quotes from Giants players regarding Kyle Williams following the NFC championship game:

"The thing is, we knew he had four concussions, so that was our biggest thing, was to take him out of the game."

"he's had a lot of concussions. We were just like, 'We've got to put a hit on that guy.'"

"(Safety Tyler Sash) did a great job hitting him early and he looked kind of dazed when he got up. I feel like that made a difference and he coughed it up."

Obviously, the Giants also made Kyle Williams concussions and the intent to put a hit on him part of their pre game conversations, and I'm not really sure how anything said by Williams is any different.

Furthermore, hits to the head of a ball carrier are very legal and I'd be very shocked if, for instance, hitting Pierre Thomas in the head, letting him know you're there, making him pay, etc. was not part of the plan and was not discussed by the 49ers prior to their matchup coming off his big performance against the Lions.

The Crabtree ACL thing is something else, unless of course, he had an unreported injury that the Saints may have known about heading into the game (which is possible considering his lack of production come playoff time).

If he's already got an injury, then you are all kidding yourselves if you don't think teams target a player coming back from injury. Any time an opponent has a hint of an injury (or is in his first few games back from an injury) these guys smell blood and will definitely target specific areas to test it out.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I agree they aren't the same necessaarily, but I find it interesting that both are in the news at the same time and have, at their root, a very similar set of circumstances with polar opposite reactions from the public.

This guy published information about something that had already been dealt with by the league. I'm not sure what public good he served exposing it now, considering the suspensions had already been handed down and we knew the basic facts that the tape substantiates. Seems to me if he was going to do this, it should have been done several weeks ago so it could be used as further evidence by the league.

In any event, both situations are dealing with an invasion of privacy that is justified by the actors as being in the public's best interest. That's the common angle I see.

They don't have a similar sense of circumstances in the least. One was done legally. The other illegally. End of story. False equivalency is false.

As you might guess, I have no problem with this tape being released. The guy was there with the permission of the team and taped this. It's news, it's topical, it's valid and it was obtained legitimately.

Also, using your logic, if someone comes out about Joe Paterno knowing or not knowing about Sandusky, there's no use releasing it because Joe is dead. After all, there would be no "public good" served by releasing it now. But that's not the deciding factor on whether something is news, is it? What if the tapes showed the Saints were knowingly sending in concussed players back into the game? Should the tapes have been suppressed because the filmmakers obtained "special access"? Special access doesn't mean "we won't show the dirt we film".

Finally, how do you know the league offices haven't heard this tape? Maybe they already have. But let's assume they haven't. Imagine Roger Dodger reducing the suspensions for the Saints and this tape not getting played. Or perhaps worse, maybe they get the penalties reduced and THEN the tape surfaces. Either way is even more of a disaster for the NFL. Because this tape shows the extent of the program, how openly it was discussed and the Saints' hubris for (A) knowing they were being investigated, (B) knowing they were told to stop and (C) knowing they were being filmed...and then going full bore into this shit anyway in the very last game they've played! After this tape, can there be any question that the harsh penalties were entirely justified?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Carman Bulldog

At the end of the day, I'm not sure Williams said anything that isn't said in any other locker room.

Some quotes from Giants players regarding Kyle Williams following the NFC championship game:

"The thing is, we knew he had four concussions, so that was our biggest thing, was to take him out of the game."

"he's had a lot of concussions. We were just like, 'We've got to put a hit on that guy.'"

"(Safety Tyler Sash) did a great job hitting him early and he looked kind of dazed when he got up. I feel like that made a difference and he coughed it up."

Obviously, the Giants also made Kyle Williams concussions and the intent to put a hit on him part of their pre game conversations, and I'm not really sure how anything said by Williams is any different.

Furthermore, hits to the head of a ball carrier are very legal and I'd be very shocked if, for instance, hitting Pierre Thomas in the head, letting him know you're there, making him pay, etc. was not part of the plan and was not discussed by the 49ers prior to their matchup coming off his big performance against the Lions.

The Crabtree ACL thing is something else, unless of course, he had an unreported injury that the Saints may have known about heading into the game (which is possible considering his lack of production come playoff time).

If he's already got an injury, then you are all kidding yourselves if you don't think teams target a player coming back from injury. Any time an opponent has a hint of an injury (or is in his first few games back from an injury) these guys smell blood and will definitely target specific areas to test it out.

When you point out those injuries and tell players you're going to pay them if they can exploit those injuries to get those players out of the game, then you're saying shit that coaches don't say in other locker rooms.

We all know that football is a very rough game and players will target injuries of other players. But that's done privately (or at least between themselves). When you have a coach encouraging players - and providing cash rewards - to specifically injure other players, that's way over the line.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

But that's not the deciding factor on whether something is news, is it?

This guy isn't an reporter. He isn't in the business of reporting news. Talk about false equivalencies.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Special access doesn't mean "we won't show the dirt we film".

We don't know anymore than this, but this was a private individual's personal videographer. He wasn't employed by the Saints. That tape is not his to do anything with - he doesn't own it. And neither do the Saints, for that matter.

I'm finding it hard to see a meaningful distinction between civil and criminal responsibility in these two situations.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

We don't know anymore than this, but this was a private individual's personal videographer. He wasn't employed by the Saints. That tape is not his to do anything with - he doesn't own it. And neither do the Saints, for that matter.

I'm finding it hard to see a meaningful distinction between civil and criminal responsibility in these two situations.

Except (at this point) it's 100% unfounded speculation on your part that he's somehow in violation of some civil contract.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

"Knock his dick off" was frequently used when I played... but never once was there anything pointed out about someone having penile problems, so we would get paid if we actually dislodged someone from his johnson.

I wonder how players who had played for Williams liked playing against him, knowing that he'd pay someone to take you out.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

Damn, man.. We're talking about peoples health and livelihood here, and their ability to earn a living in their profession and this dude is calling for their heads like there is no consequence for it. Hopefully they make an example of him. Yeah, these men are modern gladiators, but just because they're fortunate enough to play football for a living doesn't mean they are disposable.

I wonder if this could see any criminal charges.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I wonder if this could see any criminal charges.

I scoffed at assault charges against players earlier in the thread, because there was no evidence that they truly intended or carried out any violence that is beyond the norm of the game. But, Gregg Williams sure is encouraging such a thing in this rant. I am far from an expert on the different types of assault charges, is there such a thing as conspiracy or coercion of assault?

[Solecismic]

The concept of targeting injured players is a complex one. It's made much more complex by the recent studies showing long-term serious damage from many concussions.

The hope is that the NFL will retain its toughness while the players themselves refuse to intentionally hit an opponent in the head. That will require a cultural shift, but not a huge one.

What Williams said should lead to a lifetime ban. Anything less detracts from the message.

It also should lessen the penalties Saints players will receive going forward. I can see Vilma taking a hit for offering specific bounties. But I can't see 37 different players suspended. Because after listening to Williams, speaking up would probably have cost them their jobs. I think that's why the NFLPA is stalling here.

However, players do target injuries and expect their opponents to target injuries. Can that change?

This is why teams hate giving the injury reports. It's necessary to offer some sort of protection from organized gambling, but it also offers up targets. If Player A is listed with an "arm" injury, it's likely his next opponent, while reviewing tape, is looking for specifics.

Belichick handled this by putting players on the injury report for a mild bruise. Who knows what to target when half of it is obviously noise? But the league can't allow teams to intentionally fudge the reports, or gamblers will have too much incentive to pay for information.

Believe it or not, I think the NFL is handling this well. I know we worry about pussification when a team gets 15 yards for what's obviously intended as a clean hit. Some rules fine-tuning is necessary. But it's the right approach.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Wow... it's been nearly two days since any reports of a Lion being busted for weed!