Gregg Williams "bounty system" in Washington

[skinsfan#33]

ESPN 980 interviewed a player from Gibb1.0 and he said that Gibbs had bounties back then.

Gibb2.0 was a fragile old man, so it makes sense if he didn't have them. Men soften up in their old age. No pun intended. LMAO

No that isn't what George Starke said. He said that Gibbs would give out $100 or Walkmans to players that made big plays. Big hits, sacks, int, and so on!

There was no insferance Gibbs condoned bounties! There is a big difference between play for incentive bonuses and bounties. Bounties you area trying to hurt the guy. Sure having a three sack game probably hurts the QB, but that isn't the intention of the bonus.

Yeah Gibbs was a shell. He batted 500 on making the playoffs (2 out of 4) the other six coaches went 1 time out of 15 seasons. That is a pretty nice shell!

+1

Look up the definition of the word and you'll see that Gibbs offered bounties... Now what he offered a bounty for may be different than what Gregg allegedly did.

I don't care what the deffinition is in the dictionary, but in the NFL a bounty involves getting a bonus to hurt a player. That isn't what Gibbs offereed!

So no, Gibbs never offered or condoned bounties!

[Irn-Bru]

Look up the definition of the word and you'll see that Gibbs offered bounties... Now what he offered a bounty for may be different than what Gregg allegedly did.

The word bounty is being used in this scandal specifically to denote reward for taking someone out of the game, evoking images of a bounty hunter who removes an outlaw, by force if necessary, from public life.

Why is that important? Well, someone might argue (as you have) that Joe Gibbs was doing the same thing as Gregg Williams, only on a smaller scale — basically that there was no real difference between the two. But that is confusing two meanings of the word "different."

Some things are said to be different because they occur in varying degrees. So, Gibbs offered players $100 or a walkman, whereas under Williams players were getting $10,000. While the two coaches offered rewards different in degree, the fact is that both were offering incentives for player achievements. This is what you are saying.

But what I think you are overlooking is that the rewards offered by Gibbs and Williams didn't just differ in degree but also in kind. Gibbs was not rewarding players for injuring someone else using illegal means. But if the NFC Championship game with Favre is any indication, then Williams was.

You still might not be convinced, but look at it this way: suppose Gibbs offered a stick of gum to his quarterback for every TD he threw, and that was it. Would you still say that Gibbs was doing essentially the same thing as Williams?

[Chris Luva Luva]

Has it been confirmed that Gregg wanted people seriously injured?

[Chris Luva Luva]

You still might not be convinced, but look at it this way: suppose Gibbs offered a stick of gum to his quarterback for every TD he threw, and that was it. Would you still say that Gibbs was doing essentially the same thing as Williams?

The NFL doesn't seem to just be upset about players being told to injure others. They don't like the money aspect of it, or supposed salary cap implications. So in 2012, would the NFL still be irriated by Gibbs giving out treats? Possibly. I dunno. I don't really care cus I think that this whole thing is blown out of proportion. I just don't seem Gregg really asking for people to seriously hurt anyone outside of what is considered normal...

[DarthMonk]

You still might not be convinced, but look at it this way: suppose Gibbs offered a stick of gum to his quarterback for every TD he threw, and that was it. Would you still say that Gibbs was doing essentially the same thing as Williams?

The NFL doesn't seem to just be upset about players being told to injure others. They don't like the money aspect of it, or supposed salary cap implications. So in 2012, would the NFL still be irriated by Gibbs giving out treats? Possibly. I dunno. I don't really care cus I think that this whole thing is blown out of proportion. I just don't seem Gregg really asking for people to seriously hurt anyone outside of what is considered normal...

The league is hanging their hat on this phrase: "non-contract bonuses."

DarthMonk

[Irn-Bru]

The NFL doesn't seem to just be upset about players being told to injure others. They don't like the money aspect of it, or supposed salary cap implications. So in 2012, would the NFL still be irriated by Gibbs giving out treats? Possibly. I dunno.

They probably would, which is why Gibbs wasn't doing it in his second coaching stint. Back in the 80s and 90s offering cash incentives like that was legal.

[Chris Luva Luva]

But what I think you are overlooking is that the rewards offered by Gibbs and Williams didn't just differ in degree but also in kind. Gibbs was not rewarding players for injuring someone else using illegal means. But if the NFC Championship game with Favre is any indication, then Williams was.

Do U think those actions against Favre wouldn't have taken place without a "bounty"?

What about all the abuse Eli took this year in the playoffs? Are we going to accuse every hard hit on the QB a possible bounty? These hits would occur regardless IMO.

They just need to make this tag football and get it done with.

[Irn-Bru]

I don't think they would have happened without the bounty system in place.

There were what, 4 roughing flags, and there could have been 2-3 more if the refs had been consistent. That says the players were being coached to take shots, including cheap shots, regardless of the consequences.

Now, were the players doing it for $10k cash? Do I mean that it was actually the amount offered that made the players do it? No, I don't. What I mean is that the coach offering that reward is expressing his approval of the dirty and dangerous play. That kind of cynicism definitely crosses the line, IMO. And I do think the overall bounty system was a direct cause of those illegal plays.

[Chris Luva Luva]

There were what, 4 roughing flags, and there could have been 2-3 more if the refs had been consistent. That says the players were being coached to take shots, including cheap shots, regardless of the consequences.

Isn't that football? Isn't that part of Sean Taylors persona? Sean would mug TO up and down the field and well after the play. We all cheered it. We all loved it. We loved the mentality. So why is everyone up in arms about it now?

We employ a run scheme in Washington that is known to injure defensive players. We applaud it. It's celebrated.

[1niksder]

You still might not be convinced, but look at it this way: suppose Gibbs offered a stick of gum to his quarterback for every TD he threw, and that was it. Would you still say that Gibbs was doing essentially the same thing as Williams?

The NFL doesn't seem to just be upset about players being told to injure others. They don't like the money aspect of it, or supposed salary cap implications. So in 2012, would the NFL still be irriated by Gibbs giving out treats? Possibly. I dunno. I don't really care cus I think that this whole thing is blown out of proportion. I just don't seem Gregg really asking for people to seriously hurt anyone outside of what is considered normal...

The NFL is MORE upset about the 2009 investigation that was closed do to lack of evidence... Somebody gave them new info that proved Loomis, Payton and Williams all lied during the 2009 probe. Loomis also advised the league that if it were happening he would put a end to it.

I doubt there will be any repercussions for the Skins because there was no lying to the league on the matter (at least not yet).

I think most of the weight will come own on Williams and Loomis

[Chris Luva Luva]

The NFL is MORE upset about the 2009 investigation that was closed do to lack of evidence... Somebody gave them new info that proved Loomis, Payton and Williams all lied during the 2009 probe. Loomis also advised the league that if it were happening he would put a end to it.

Ok cool, I can understand that.

[HEROHAMO]

I dont think at any time under GW did our defense go out to injure any player.

It is far too easy to injure a player. Believe me if any defensive player wanted to injure a guy they could. For example you could easily aim for an offensive players knee. There is an unspoken rule about hitting a player low. On both sides of the ball it is frowned upon.

I believe there was a bounty but I know it was used more as a motivational tool rather then a system to maim people. Come on now seriously.

Only problem I have is GW actually organized a real bounty system. In no way did I see any dirty play.

[1niksder]

I don't think they would have happened without the bounty system in place.

There were what, 4 roughing flags, and there could have been 2-3 more ...... That kind of cynicism definitely crosses the line, IMO. And I do think the overall bounty system was a direct cause of those illegal plays.

You can't really come to that conclusion unless you have verbal conformation that someone got paid for putting Farve out. It's not like there's tape of players saying "Farve is down"... "Farve is out". If that where the case you would hear a player on that same tape say "Give me my money"......

Edit: Considering there is such a tape, I think IB's conclusion is right on the money.

Gibbs didn't pay bounties, he gave rewards for good work. He didn't make it know that you'd get this for doing that, he just showed up and rewarded his players. This all took place during the pre salary cap/free agency era.

[Deadskins]

Believe me if any defensive player wanted to injure a guy they could. For example you could easily aim for an offensive players knee. There is an unspoken rule about hitting a player low. On both sides of the ball it is frowned upon.

It's a penalty for a defensive player to do that, but despite defensive player's protests, the cut block is one of an offensive player's best weapons, and it happens on almost every play.

[Chris Luva Luva]

Believe me if any defensive player wanted to injure a guy they could. For example you could easily aim for an offensive players knee. There is an unspoken rule about hitting a player low. On both sides of the ball it is frowned upon.

It's a penalty for a defensive player to do that, but despite defensive player's protests, the cut block is one of an offensive player's best weapons, and it happens on almost every play.

Exactly. It's not fair, it's not evenly applied. It's all about protecting the offensive side.