Retired Players Speak on "Bountygate"

[Don Quixote]

Several retired players spoke with ESPN writer Elizabeth Merrill, offering their perspective on the recent scandal involving the New Orleans Saints - a perspective that states the Saints indeed crossed the line.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/77...s-crossed-line

[flashjordnk]

I'm not going to go to deep of the end here. But I think there are a lot of things that guys from that era think is wrong the game today. And it doesn't just stop at bounties. But even beyond that, your soundbite "a perspective that states they crossed the line" doesn't delve deep enough into their commentary and acts as a quick summary judgment of comments. This quote for example says something to me:

It was something we all knew. It's been going on forever. But I didn't think it was still going on today. Guys make so much money. So yeah, it was a surprise to me that guys who make millions would be [motivated] by $1,000. That a player would try to hurt another player for what would be considered beer money. It doesn't make any sense to me.

So in the first bolded part he recognizes that extra incentives were valuable and used in the past. In fact says it was essential always part of the cutlure. Then he says he's surprised it was going on. This just seems immensely out of touch to me. I think this was going on, in lots and lots of locker rooms, even the NFL had a hunch when they started to investigate. So I'm curious about his real awareness about the game.

I think the second bolded part is the part that people don't talk about. I think he's right. I don't think the money incentives really mattered that much. The incentive becomes so much on winning. And that the bounties/ijuries put your team in a better place to win. The money helped focus on an area that's probably not a huge part of the gameplan. So in compensating for not spending a lot of time prepping in the area, by giving them something to recall it. It's an extra tool to remind players to be extreme to playing all the way up to the whistle.

This whole bounty thing is a really interesting cross roads for the NFL...it will be interesting to see it's long term impact.

[Don Quixote]

I read the article. If I felt like going more in-depth at the time or had the time to do so (I was on a brief "work" break), I would have. I was sharing an article for others to read and possibly discuss its content, not receive unnecessary criticism for a perceived lack of intelligence or analytical ability. Not in the mood for a pissing contest, thanks.

[Spoonless]

I don't see a shot at your ability or intelligence.

[flashjordnk]

Hahaha. Wow...I'm not sure I meant that as any kind of criticism per se, or lack of intelligence or analytic ability. I was pretty much just trying to say that it seemed like it was cursory and I felt that the notion that the article was indicating older players found bounties to be from a perspective that they thought they crossed the line while partially true, just needed a bit of clarification.

I think this whole issue stemmed by ESPN and the media has created a pro-bounty or anti-bounty camp. And I just think everything is way more gray than your summary. Which was admittedly short. Sorry to offend you, I thought it was a good read and provides a good new/unique perspective. I'm glad you posted it. No pissing contest here. Just general extended discussion about the content of the article and how I think older players are fundamentally disconnected from today's game because it was a different time.