42 replies to this topic

[Bud Adams]

How do you guys rank this compared to NE's Spygate, if true?

BA

[jimmyo]

Ouch. That's some Tom Clancy sh*t right there.

[Captain Hindsight]

Pretty severe charges if true

[KollegeStudnet]

Wow, this could really gain feet again....imagine the penalty!

[Maddog69]

WOW.   What a mess the Saints are in.

You wonder if Tom Benson will need to clean house and hire all new GM, Front office and coaches to remove any link to this mess and start to rebuild the image of the franchise.     This whole thing seems to put a serious black mark over what previously had been viewed as the golden age for the former 'Aint's

[PromoTheRobot]

This is much worse than Spygate.  Of course the Saints did seem to win much because of it.  Still it's a direct violation of the NFL rules, even though the practice allegedly ended years ago.  The only possible outcome would be to banish those directly involved, then fine the Saints team and dock them draft picks.  I'm thinking $1M and two first rounders.

First the Cheatriots...now the Taints.

PTR

Edited by PromoTheRobot, 23 April 2012 - 02:55 PM.

[JÂy RÛßeÒ]

Surprised this isn't more of an issue, with the home team providing the means of communication for the visiting team.

[Bud Adams]

Maddog69, on 23 April 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

This whole thing seems to put a serious black mark over what previously had been viewed as the golden age for the former 'Aint's.

You hit the nail on the head. I really, really like Drew Brees, but I don't see how the "Super Bowl era" in New Orleans isn't already branded with an asterisk.

I read over the weekend that Jabari Greer signed a three-year extension. Congrats... I think???

BA

[NoSaint]

Bud Adams, on 23 April 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

You hit the nail on the head. I really, really like Drew Brees, but I don't see how the "Super Bowl era" in New Orleans isn't already branded with an asterisk.

I read over the weekend that Jabari Greer signed a three-year extension. Congrats... I think???

BA

the easiest answer being all ive read since this broke is 2002-2004, which isnt a superbowl era by any means. also its still alleged and anonymous, so id be patient with info. unlike bounty-gate, it seems many including polian on espn a little while ago are doubting this one. the local news in new orleans is reporting that espn will not give any evidence publicly yet

JÂy RÛßeÒ, on 23 April 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

Surprised this isn't more of an issue, with the home team providing the means of communication for the visiting team.

i know ive heard a lot of allegations of stuff like this. anything from eavesdropping to having the system fail at key times.... not sure what to make of accuracy of reports though - often around the Pats - go figure. but many other cities. seems it may be the unspoken part of why its so hard to travel in the NFL and perhaps the 12th man gets more credit than it deserves in that sense.

PromoTheRobot, on 23 April 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

This is much worse than Spygate.  Of course the Saints did seem to win much because of it.  Still it's a direct violation of the NFL rules, even though the practice allegedly ended years ago.  The only possible outcome would be to banish those directly involved, then fine the Saints team and dock them draft picks.  I'm thinking $1M and two first rounders.

First the Cheatriots...now the Taints.

PTR

if true, id have to think loomis would be hard pressed to come back.

Edited by NoSaint, 23 April 2012 - 03:21 PM.

[DrDareustein]

Before this gets too far....

Greg Bensel, Saints VP of Communications: "This report is 100% false. Completely inaccurate. We asked ESPN to provide us evidence to support their allegations and they refused. The team and Mickey are seeking all legal recourse regarding these false allegations."

[Bud Adams]

NoSaint, on 23 April 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

the easiest answer being all ive read since this broke is 2002-2004, which isnt a superbowl era by any means. also its still alleged and anonymous, so id be patient with info. unlike bounty-gate, it seems many including polian on espn a little while ago are doubting this one.

Point taken. However, the current lack of info could go either way, meaning, it might not have been limited to those years. To me, it would show that this GM -- and people he brought in -- would stop at nothing to win for the past decade. If it were a different GM, okay. But it's not.

Begs the question of what else is likely to come out. Innocent until proven guilty -- sure. But one has to consider the character of the front office. If they can look the other way on bounties, eavesdropping wouldn't surprise me at all.

BA

[NoSaint]

Bud Adams, on 23 April 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

Point taken. However, the current lack of info could go either way, meaning, it might not have been limited to those years. To me, it would show that this GM -- and people he brought in -- would stop at nothing to win for the past decade. If it were a different GM, okay. But it's not.

Begs the question of what else is likely to come out. Innocent until proven guilty -- sure. But one has to consider the character of the front office. If they can look the other way on bounties, eavesdropping wouldn't surprise me at all.

BA

i certainly wouldnt be shocked, more so im reminding everyone that its easy for people to come out of the woodwork when they see an opening.

this would be an entirely different coaching staff - so its possible it is someone jilted trying to pile on while they see weakness. ESPN has been known to run with stuff like this prematurely when they think it will be a hot story and have also used the same reasoning you just did to incorrect ends.

is it true? no idea. not trying to let them off the hook, but this one sounds sketchy on the surface, especially with how strongly the saints are refuting it.

[Bud Adams]

DrDareustein, on 23 April 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

Before this gets too far....

Greg Bensel, Saints VP of Communications: "This report is 100% false. Completely inaccurate. We asked ESPN to provide us evidence to support their allegations and they refused. The team and Mickey are seeking all legal recourse regarding these false allegations."

I couldn't see ESPN reporting something this serious -- which could trigger an avalanche of lawsuits -- unless they had hard evidence and/or solid witnesses. I really don't believe anything the Saints say anymore. Will be interesting to see how it pans out.

[Nanker]

I'm all for Loomis and the Saints getting their fair day in court, and it does seem like this could end up going there.
IF that's proven, then Loomis could likely face a lifetime ban from the NFL and a few years in federal-pound-him-up-the-azz-prison.

[Bud Adams]

NoSaint, on 23 April 2012 - 03:20 PM, said:

i certainly wouldnt be shocked, more so im reminding everyone that its easy for people to come out of the woodwork when they see an opening.

this would be an entirely different coaching staff - so its possible it is someone jilted trying to pile on while they see weakness. ESPN has been known to run with stuff like this prematurely when they think it will be a hot story and have also used the same reasoning you just did to incorrect ends.

is it true? no idea. not trying to let them off the hook, but this one sounds sketchy on the surface, especially with how strongly the saints are refuting it.

Fair enough.

[KollegeStudnet]

If found guilty, the NFL will further pillage this franchise for penalty...

Already, because of  'Bountygate' GM Loomis is suspended for the first 8 games of the season...In fact, he should just be canned!

Also, because of 'Bountygate' the Saints lose their 2012 second rounder (first pick will be in the 3rd this year, New England has the Saints first) and 2013 second rounder.

The NFL has to make an example of this franchise, which when you boil it down, I would not be surprised if the Saints lose more picks, including their franchise tag next year--along with their 2013 first round pick and 2013 third round pick

[DrDareustein]

Bud Adams, on 23 April 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

I couldn't see ESPN reporting something this serious -- which could trigger an avalanche of lawsuits -- unless they had hard evidence and/or solid witnesses. I really don't believe anything the Saints say anymore. Will be interesting to see how it pans out.

Really? You cant?

Are you that unfamiliar with the 24-hour news cycle and what it does to an Entertainment company like ESPN?  

I wouldnt put ANYTHING past any of these 24-hour "news" networks.

[section122]

Bud Adams, on 23 April 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

I couldn't see ESPN reporting something this serious -- which could trigger an avalanche of lawsuits -- unless they had hard evidence and/or solid witnesses. I really don't believe anything the Saints say anymore. Will be interesting to see how it pans out.

Yeah ummm Bernie Fine would like to disagree with you..............

[Bud Adams]

DrDareustein, on 23 April 2012 - 03:26 PM, said:

Really? You cant?

Are you that unfamiliar with the 24-hour news cycle and what it does to an Entertainment company like ESPN?  

I wouldnt put ANYTHING past any of these 24-hour "news" networks.

This is not "breaking news." It's not a "flash" that can be retracted. ESPN had BETTER have solid sources in place, or it'll face civil suits out the you-know-what.

So, to answer your question -- No, I can't see ESPN making up something this serious.

As you wouldn't put anything past a network like ESPN, I wouldn't put anything past the Saints.

BA

[DrDareustein]

Bud Adams, on 23 April 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

This is not "breaking news." It's not a "flash" that can be retracted. ESPN had BETTER have solid sources in place, or it'll face civil suits out the you-know-what.

So, to answer your question -- No, I can't see ESPN making up something this serious.

As you wouldn't put anything past a network like ESPN, I wouldn't put anything past the Saints.

BA

All ESPN is doing is "reporting the report". Passing along the info, if you will. They will not be on the hook if proven false. They have NOTHING to lose. If it comes out it was incorrect, they say "We were just relaying what was reported and what our sources told us". The entire thing is a he-said/she-said.

Im not saying the Saints are, well... Saints. I certainly cant defend the franchise at this point, but Im taking everything new with a grain of salt.