The Lions' Pride

There is a difference between playing within the rules while still hitting someone so hard that you intimidate him and affect his performance -- and maybe even cause him to leave the game -- and going vigalante with a specific intent to physically injure someone.

What tipped off the NFL to the Saints pay-to-injure program were late and illegal hits on Brett Favre in the NFC championship game. The Saints were hitting Favre after the whistle and targetting his knees and head. I have no problem with a coach encouraging a defensive player to legally hit a QB or RB as hard as you can if you meet him in the backfield, or hitting a receiver as hard as you can if you get an open shot in the field, and then giving him a pat on the back if that knocks the player out of the game. As you said, that happens all the time and is part of the game.

I went out every game to hurt someone. That was my job. Knock out whichever LB or DL I was facing. Made it easier for me the rest of the game.

Our second coach had five goals for the game. Number one was to knock out their QB. Number two was to knock out the backup QB.

Welcome to football. I don't care they had a pool and I think Gooddell was right in his punishments.

Every defensive coach wants to see the starting QB knocked out of the game. $1000 bonus/incentive/bounty/award or not

I'm not applying anything to your argument. I used my own example. I can't find anywhere whether or not players can pay each other a bonus. A player cannot pay a fine for another player, so I'm not sure why paying someone a bonus for an INT or a sack would be much different. A team can't pay out a bonus unless it is written into the contract (bonus for receptions/yards/carries/% of plays) so why would it be any different for the players. If it weren't against the rules what would stop me from giving my captain a bonus that he then funnels to other players as weekly performance bonuses that the team can't pay out themselves?

Yes there is a difference between a bonus for an INT and for knocking someone out of the game. But many of the articles you will read on the subject aren't talking about bonuses for INTs. They are talking about bonuses for big hits and knocking players out of the game - ie. a "bounty".

It's funny reading the articles from two weeks ago until today to see how much people have changed their tune on what was really happening around the league. That is the part I think is BS. Goodell shouldn't hurry up and bury the Saints while ignoring all the other teams that had similar systems in play. My problem with the whole situation is selective punishment and trying to hurry up and bury it just like he did with New England's videos so no one would know how long it was in place or how extensive it was.

Tony Dungy knew about the bounties that were in place at Tennessee. Why didn't he report it? He's a great leader of men we all wanted as HC at PSU, right?

Brian Billick on the Dan Patrick show said bounties were part of the game. Why didn't he report it?
Billick said. “You throw a Kangaroo Court number out there and say OK, this gets this, and you put money in a pool, and every team does it.” Billick called it “one of those don’t ask-don’t tell things,” describing it as an equivalent of wide receivers being offered bonuses for catching touchdowns or defensive backs for getting interceptions. "Players are very conscious about not jeopardizing the career or the welfare of another player, but this is a very physical, violent game and you play those games with regards to how are you going to motivate yourself and your teammates,” he said.

Darren Woodson talked about DB's paying each other for big hits but Jason Garrett, his teammate for years someone had never heard of such a thing...

Former and current players were not shy about interviews until today. And now the extent that it was taking place is going to get buried. Promise you won't do it anymore and we will only punish the Saints in the message.

So playing within the rules and trying to knock someone out is pathetic? Whatever. You hit someone right they'll think twice about getting up. I cut LBs in the open field, legal and good play.

They break the rules, fine. They hit someone and knock them out, that's good...no that's GREAT football.

Sorry, I saw worthless and put in pathetic. That's my bad.

I just don't think these pots are a big deal. I also think that Goodell definitely was in the right with his actions that he handed down.

I don't know.
I played HS football at a pretty competitive school (note--I was not any good).

We were encouraged and verbally rewarded for "lighting players up".
Coaches woudl run film of solid hits back and forth, and there would be a little hootin and hollerin.

But there was no "extra" encouragement for knocking a player out of a game.

For sure, we were taught to play to the whistle, and "punish" our opponent. But again, there was never an extra bonus--I'm talking even a verbal reward--for knocking a plyer out of a game.

I realize its a fine line--hitting a QB or WR so he hears footsteps or has happy feet is OK, but intent to hurt isn't.

In my opinion, the Saints crossed the line and lied about it. Thus the punishment.

Huh.

I played (well, to be truthful, mostly sat on the bench) for a HS state championship team.
Our coach would give us player-specific goals for the game as well, but they were mostly like--
Dont let #22 get around the edge.
Dont let #6 get behind you.
#34 is soft. Hit him high.
#72 is big and slow. Cut him.

But never were stated goals #1 and 2 "knock the QB out of the game".

Was your coach successful (ie W-L) with that approach?

Even when you're within the rules, you're trying to knock the other player out of the game. Had the Saints not been penalized for excessive force, the league would have a tough time overcoming that argument.

Huh. Interesting that goals 1 and 2 for the OL are to knock the QB out of the game.
Wonder how that happens....

My point is, coaches that are focused on "inflicting punishment" as opposed to playing ball usually fail. Think about it. If your primary goal is to maim a QB, why spend late nights in your office viewing tapes and planning games? Just tell your DL to ignore whistles and hit the QB in the head or knees. Its really pretty simple, right?

Sounds like your coach was the exception to the rule. Congrats on your teams success with dirty play.

What are the two most memorable hits from PSU football this past decade?

I'll say Hali's sack/fumble on Troy Smith, and MRob "trucking" the Minn DB.

The Hali play is still shown, frequently, on the PSU highlights run at games.
The MRob play isn't.

Why?
Because PSU is trying to show respect for a player who has been maimed for life, not glorifying or rewarding his injury. This tough legal play showed that a lowly QB could dominate a tough, hard-hitting DB, and received enormous applause from the PSU faithful. But once it became apparent that the DB was injured for life, as a side-effect of the play (I doubt that MRob received any sort of bounty for that play) PSU stopped showing the clip.

When you hit someone, your purpose, IMO, should be to dominate and intimidate the opposition. Not to maim them. If they are injured as a side effect, thats unfortunate, but thats not the primary goal of the hard, legal hit. Its acceptable, collateral damage.

I'm saying its fine to hit hard, dominate and intimidate, and if someone gets injured in the process, that's just bad luck. Its not fine to go out with the intent to injure. I understand its a fine line, but there is a line nonetheless

As for the coach whose first two stated goals are to knock the QB out of the game, raise your hands if you think JoePa ever had a game plan in which his first 2 stated goals were to injure other players.