PDA

View Full Version : PFT: A Simply Outstanding Conversation With Wood



Flasteel
04-03-2012, 10:30 PM
Although I may have obscured my point with rants about my apathy towards player safety, this was my original take on the whole bounty situation. Absent a direct order to cause or reward for a hit that results in specific injury, there should be no problem with a "bounty" system. It occurs in some form or another in nearly every profession. I think the major reason behind the severity of the punishment was due to the lies and cover-up attempts. Goodell can hide behind the cloak of player safety all he wants, but his heavy hand belies this natural response to the challenge of his office. Nice job in explaining this point of view Lamarr!


Words of wisdom from LaMarr Woodley (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/03/words-of-wisdom-from-lamarr-woodley/)

Posted by Mike Florio on April 3, 2012, 9:50 PM EDT
http://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/woodley-e1333503991877.jpg?w=227 Getty Images When Ian Rapoport, formerly of the Boston Herald but now of NFL Network, forwarded the link to his conversation with Steelers linebacker LaMarr Woodley (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d828116c8/article/woodley-believes-nfl-contracts-have-their-own-bounties?module=HP11_around-the-league) regarding the bounty controversy, the natural inclination was to scoff at Woodley’s comparison of bounties to contract incentives.
But then I considered what he was saying. And it started to make some sense.
“If you think about it, when you say there’s an extra incentive, the ‘bounty,’ that’s like people having incentives in their contract,” Woodley told Rapoport. “You get a certain amount of sacks, you get an extra bonus. Is that considered a bounty?
“You’re still going to go out there to make the plays in order to get some extra money. Is that putting that much more pressure to go out there and want to hit a quarterback because you know you have a $100,000 bonus coming if you do this?”
In other words, football players play football. Different tactics are utilized to get players to play football harder, better. Whether that extra kick comes from a contract incentive or a cash payment for playing so hard that it puts an opponent out of the game, it’s more about motivation and focus than it is about inflicting injury, especially in the absence of a specific pattern of cheap shots or other clearly beyond-the-bounds behavior that could serve no purpose other than to create bodily harm.
“When I’m going to hit the quarterback, I’m not thinking, ‘I should hit this guy soft,’ I’m thinking, ‘I’m about to take this dude down to the ground,’” Woodley said. “With a running back going through the hole, he’s trying to lay a hit on you, I think everybody is out there trying to lay a hit on somebody.”
Contract incentives, bounties — whatever the device — get players in the frame of mind to go out with the single-minded purpose of delivering hard hits and fighting through pain and fatigue. These weren’t Nancy Kerrigan-style kneecappings. These were, in many respects, good performances procured by bad intentions.
That’s not to say the process flies off the rails when members of a team’s coaching staff put together a formula for “knock-outs” and “cart-offs” and packs bills into envelopes and hands them out like gold stars, and then lies about it when the league investigates. But there’s a certain amount of appeal to the notion that a disconnect exists between the unsavory methods of getting players to play with reckless abandon and the reality that, in the end, guys were simply playing football, often with reckless abandon.
None of this means the NFL should look the other way. The Saints screwed up, at the worst time in the history of the sport. But absent evidence that Saints players were using brass knuckles or dipping tape in plaster of Paris or hiding outside locker-room doors to cold-cock unsuspecting quarterbacks, it’s more than a little difficult to paint the outcome of the bounties as anything other than the kind of aggressive, nasty football that we see from any team whose players are properly motivated and focused to play hard and fast and mean.

D Rock
04-03-2012, 11:34 PM
Bounties for injuries = stupid and dangerous. Incentives for good plays such as sacks and interceptions, with money paid into a common pot by players and coaches = normal and seen in many facets of daily life in some way or another.

steelz09
04-04-2012, 12:34 AM
Bounties for injuries = stupid and dangerous. Incentives for good plays such as sacks and interceptions, with money paid into a common pot by players and coaches = normal and seen in many facets of daily life in some way or another.

I'm not going to grab a Webster Dictionary or anything but I wouldn't think a "bounty" is the problem and that word is being over analyzed.

You could have a "bounty" for sacks or a "bounty" for hard hits or tackles. To me, you can interchange that w/ the word "incentive" and I think that is part of Woodley's point. It's all semantics. The problem is the "bounty" or "incentive" to hurt someone or have them carted off the field.