Bounty hunting

[apricissimus]

The Packers offered their players cash incentives for good performance in games against Minnesota and Carolina (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3119097)

Most of the reaction I've heard has been about the potential for defensive players to take out Adrian Peterson, for instance. I seriously doubt that $500 would be enough to make a Packers defender want to injure another player though.

In principle, I don't think there's anything wrong with unusual incentives for specific goals, as long as the incentive isn't anything too great. It could help a player focus on something that he needs to focus on simply by bringing it to the forefront.

However, I do think there's a problem with offering money as an incentive. Even though $500 is chump change to most NFL football players, it's obviously very necessary to have full disclosure regarding monetary compensation of players in the NFL. And because of that I think the NFL's policy is a good one to prevent this sort of thing from happening, just to avoid even the possibility of any impropriety (hidden wages, etc.) I haven't heard this aspect of the issue brought up yet.



Thoughts?

 

[Pats_AZ]

Well i honestly didn't really care when i heard about it. It all sounded kinda fun, sort of an inside the locker room thing. then i heard it was agaisnt the rules and that there are pretty darn specific rules about it. now the media has run with it a little but i am not gonna make this anything more than a broken rule, a mistake. It wasn't like they said "I'll give you $500 to break someone knees". It's not a big deal IMHO

 

[Spirit of '76]

It's not really about the money.

The defensive backs pretty much 'dared', through a small financial reward, the defensive line to stop the running game of opposing players.

It's about the Bravado. I'll show you that I can do it. And some might take it over the top by being over aggressive....extra twist during a tackle, hit just after the whistle, etc.. It's near impossible to determine intent on a hit or tackle unless you can read minds. But by offering a 'reward' to stop a player that intent becomes obvious.

Based on the comments by the league, they specifically violated league rules by offering an incentive to stop a specific team or player.

 

[spacecrime]

Thoughts?

My thought is that no one much cares, and if it is against the rules, they will be told to stop doing it.

And I think that if it was the Patriots, not the Packers, there would be a hue and cry, that the term BountyGate would be coined, Goodell would take away our second round draft pick, and there would be an anti-Patriot uprising.

I also think that if it was the Colts doing it,, Goodell would mount a full 2 1/2 minute investigation, and one of the NFL's televison partners would take responsibility. And next year there would be a new rule saying it was legal.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

And when other teams declared the Pats the antichrist for a camera, that was okay.

My only reason for saying around here, "shut up, it was cheating," is that cheating is defined by breaking the rules. In the game there are penalties, but outside the game, the rules are the rules.

This is cheating, and should be dealt with as such.

PFnV

 

[Na_polian]

The Packers offered their players cash incentives for good performance in games against Minnesota and Carolina (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3119097)

Most of the reaction I've heard has been about the potential for defensive players to take out Adrian Peterson, for instance. I seriously doubt that $500 would be enough to make a Packers defender want to injure another player though.

In principle, I don't think there's anything wrong with unusual incentives for specific goals, as long as the incentive isn't anything too great. It could help a player focus on something that he needs to focus on simply by bringing it to the forefront.

However, I do think there's a problem with offering money as an incentive. Even though $500 is chump change to most NFL football players, it's obviously very necessary to have full disclosure regarding monetary compensation of players in the NFL. And because of that I think the NFL's policy is a good one to prevent this sort of thing from happening, just to avoid even the possibility of any impropriety (hidden wages, etc.) I haven't heard this aspect of the issue brought up yet.



Thoughts?

This is just players doing this - not the Packers as an organization. One example of similar things the packers team has done in the past is that Brett Favre would go out and buy each of his O-Line guys a brand new suit for not letting him get sacked in a game.

This is much ado about nothing, that is being blown up by the media. A simple rule violation that is turning into something much bigger because of the media. Sound familiar????

 

[apricissimus]

This is just players doing this - not the Packers as an organization. One example of similar things the packers team has done in the past is that Brett Favre would go out and buy each of his O-Line guys a brand new suit for not letting him get sacked in a game.

This is much ado about nothing, that is being blown up by the media. A simple rule violation that is turning into something much bigger because of the media. Sound familiar????

Ah. I was wasn't aware that this was just between players. That changes things quite a bit.

And I agree, it's not a huge deal, though I do think that the NFL's policy is probably a good one.

 

[Na_polian]

Ah. I was wasn't aware that this was just between players. That changes things quite a bit.

And I agree, it's not a huge deal, though I do think that the NFL's policy is probably a good one.

In my world, this is called "incentives" - since it's for performance. "Bounties", in my world, and historically in the NFL, are taking money in exchange for actually injuring someone... I guess it's the Packers' turn to be victims of the ignorant drive-by media...

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Oh. Nevermind.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I'll be interested to see what the NFL investigation comes up with...

Did the bounties "give the Packers a competitive advantage"? Is it within the rules to for players to offer their own money above and beyond the salary cap?

Will the NFL turn a blind eye to this? Can they without being viewed as hypocritical for taking a 1st round pick away from the Patriots for a rule violation?

If its OK for players to offer monetary incentives to other players, so long as its out of their own pocket, then it would be OK for say, Tom Brady to offer his linemen, say a million dollars extra for keeping his sacks to say, under 5 for the year.

Brady's got a lot of lucrative side deals - he can afford it. So what if its violating the salary cap? The Packers seem to have established the principle that its ok.

Adalius Thomas has a nice signing bonus too. Maybe he can offer some incentives to his fellow defensemen.

Maybe Brady and Seymour would offer a few hundred thousand dollars extra to their less wealthy teammates for having a perfect season?

I think the chances that the NFL comes down hard on the Packers is slim to none... which I think will be great because then we can exploit this loophole for our own gain!

If the Patriots were the ones caught doing it, we'd be saying goodbye to our other 1st round pick, becaues Goodell hates dynasties and will do whatever he has to do to restore parity. The Packers however have been bad for awile and Goodell wants them to do well, so he'll give them a slap on the wrist at worst.

 

[Metaphors]

And when other teams declared the Pats the antichrist for a camera, that was okay.

My only reason for saying around here, "shut up, it was cheating," is that cheating is defined by breaking the rules. In the game there are penalties, but outside the game, the rules are the rules.

This is cheating, and should be dealt with as such.

PFnV

Totally different situation.

The Pats violated an operating procedure that regulates a behavior that is generally benign but taken to an extreme could be a significant competitive advantage.

In this case, the Pack violated an operating procedure that regulates a behavior that is generally benign but taken to an extreme could be a substantial competitive advantage.

I mean, it is not like they were deploying cheerleaders or mascots in inappropriate field locations...