In Tagliabue's own words, provided by ESPN:
Tagliabue, in his own words, did not exonerate the Saints as an entity. Rather, he focused on the fact that he felt players should not be punished for what the coaches have instituted...because the players are clearly mindless drones and/or children who have no free will or ability to blow the whistle on what they should reasonably identify as improper conduct.
In summation, the Saints are still cheaters, despite what a bunch of Canucks have to say about American football. They say that Tagliabue "interestingly" didn't overturn the suspensions of the coaches, yet Tagliabue's specific comments explain why: He felt there was a bounty program at the Saints, and he felt that the punishment should have fallen on the coaches, not the players. He felt that the bounty program should have been addressed, but that it should have been addressed by means of a "discipline-free transition year."
In no way does Tagliabue's commentary show that the Saints did nothing wrong. Any attempt to classify his comments as such is blatantly misleading.
First of all, Tagliabue is counsel to the law firm representing Commissioner Goodell in Vilma's defamation lawsuit, and is also representing the NFL in Jonathan's challenge to the entire process in this matter.
That's why Goodell hand-picked him as the "third party" in the first place, for this ruse of impartiality after essentially being forced into it.
That's why it's huge that despite this,
even he, with his reputation on the line, had to say that Goodell went way over the line. But more importantly, that's why he has to continue with the "I'm not saying they didn't do it, but..." routine. He is protecting
his client from further litigation. There is no other possible way that a rational person can justify those statements lining up with that ruling, despite your efforts.
No evidence of anything besides some tough talk from one coach in one game. Far from the three year institutionalized program designed to injure players. Who were the players actually injured by the players in question? None. Injuries happen often in the NFL. They happen
far less often against the Saints than average. Almost least often than any team in the NFL.
From the "biased" L.A. Times back in July.
If the Saints tended to injure more players, then teams that played them would tend to list more injuries the following week. To test whether the Saints injured more players than a typical team, one need only compare the number of players added to injury reports after a Saints game to the league-wide average.
Did the New Orleans Saints injure more players?
The data-driven answer is a resounding "no." The Saints appear to have injured far fewer players over the 2009, 2010 and 2011 seasons. The numbers are striking. From 2009 to 2011, the Saints injured, on average, 3.2 opposing players each game. The rest of the teams in the league caused, on average, 3.8 injuries per game. This difference is highly statistically significant, or in other words, it would hold up in a court of law or a fancy academic journal. In each year of the bounty program, the Saints injured fewer players than the average for the league. In 2009, the Saints injured 2.8 players a game, and other teams injured on average 3.8. In 2010, it was 3.5 and 3.6, and in 2011 it was 3.3 and 3.8.
The Saints' behavior on the field was certainly aberrant, but positively so. Only one other team, the San Diego Chargers, injured fewer opponents per game over this entire time frame (3.1 injuries). Of the 32 teams, the Saints injured the third fewest in the 2009 season, the 15th fewest in 2010 and the third fewest in 2011. Might this record be linked to the Saints' being too weak or cowardly to respond to the bounties? Certainly not. Lily-livered players don't win Super Bowls.
However, the bounty system was run by the defense. Perhaps the offense was unusually kind to its opponents, offsetting the statistical misbehavior of the defense. That too is easily disproved with the data. Even if one focuses only on injuries to opposing offensive players, the Saints don't stand out as particularly vicious.
In 2009, the Saints injured far fewer offensive players than did other teams, at 0.9 per game as opposed to an average of 1.9 for other teams. But in 2010 and 2011, the Saints were statistically average, injuring slightly more offensive players in these seasons but no more than chance might allow. Over the three years, the Saints injured fewer offensive players than average.
The NFL's case against the players should require documentation that the Saints injured significantly more players than average. They did not.
Again, as is clear to anyone without an agenda, the NFL fucked up. They had an agenda and wanted to destroy the Saints' 2012 season, and succeeded. They did not, however, expect to be forced to own up to their spurious accusations. Once they were, the mountain of evidence and "200 page document" became hearsay and some tough locker room talk from the
former assistant coach that is being deconstructed into literal harmful threats by pencil-necks that have obviously never spent a second listening to a defensive coach in a locker room in their lives. That in addition to an actual pay for
performance read: not pay for intentional injury, by the players, which is at best the jay-walking of professional sports. It happens at every level of every professional sport in existence, and is never thought twice about. Nor has it ever been the focal point of the public's outrage, or the slander campaign by Goodell.
You're reaching, and you're falling on your face.
580 Replies
68681 Views