Mike Triplett on PFT Talk with Fioro, Monday at 4pm ET (1 Viewer)

[guillermo]

Here is the link:

NBC Sports

I may not be able to listen to provide a recap. I tried to listen to Coach Payton on the live show last friday and couldn't.

 

[guillermo]

I tried to listen, but I am getting a show from December.

Anyone listening?

 

[phil413th]

I tried to listen, but I am getting a show from December.

Anyone listening?

Same thing here!

 

[Saildawg]

Same thing here!

Ditto

 

[guillermo]

The interview not available yet, and the transcripts of Vitt are very damaging....

Hmmm!!!!

 

[Saint Droopy]

The interview not available yet, and the transcripts of Vitt are very damaging....

Hmmm!!!!

Yeah I read some of Vitt's statements, and while I can see the diff between "trying to hurt guys with clean hits"... its still "paying if guys get hurt".

You give attorneys that kind of ammo and you're screwed.

I wear my black and gold glasses proudly but... when I read that Vitt said that... there was your "smoking gun" even if their "intent" was not to hurt them you're still paying guys to hurt them even with clean hits.

Here's what Vitt said... from the article on nola...

Vitt insisted that he never saw linebacker Jonathan Vilma or any other player offer a "bounty" on quarterbacks Brett Favre, Kurt Warner or any other opponent. But he did once again admit that Saints players were rewarded when they caused injuries to opponents through clean, legal hits.


According to Vitt, a "cart-off" hit meant the player had to be assisted off the field, and a "knockout" meant the player was literally knocked out.


Although Vitt tried to downplay those categories as minor injuries when a player needed smelling salts and returned quickly to the game, he did admit that season-ending injuries would also qualify. He was specifically asked about a season-ending shoulder injury suffered by Carolina Panthers quarterback Matt Moore on Nov. 7, 2010, which occurred after a legal sack by Saints defensive tackle Sedrick Ellis.


Vitt said he could not recall if a reward was specifically handed out for that play, but he said "they certainly could have been paid" if it was a legal, non-penalized hit.


Joe Vitt's anger, frustration and wit displayed in New Orleans Saints bounty appeals testimony | NOLA.com

Again... intent wasn't there but the fact that they were being paid if they hurt or knock folks out is why we've been going thru this whole mess.

We'll see what the PFT interview says..

 

[whosyadaddy]

Yeah I read some of Vitt's statements, and while I can see the diff between "trying to hurt guys with clean hits"... its still "paying if guys get hurt".

You give attorneys that kind of ammo and you're screwed.

I wear my black and gold glasses proudly but... when I read that Vitt said that... there was your "smoking gun" even if their "intent" was not to hurt them you're still paying guys to hurt them even with clean hits.

Here's what Vitt said... from the article on nola...

Again... intent wasn't there but the fact that they were being paid if they hurt or knock folks out is why we've been going thru this whole mess.

We'll see what the PFT interview says..

I fully agree with you, those words he said & the quotes you just referred to will hang you in that courtroom. Now to Vitt's defense, who knows there may have already been some type of evidence (GW recording/testimony who knows) presented that had already established guilt in that regard, you would like to think so anyways. Otherwise that was a bonehead move but again none of us can say for sure what evidence they already had

 

[st.randy]

Yeah I read some of Vitt's statements, and while I can see the diff between "trying to hurt guys with clean hits"... its still "paying if guys get hurt".

You give attorneys that kind of ammo and you're screwed.

I wear my black and gold glasses proudly but... when I read that Vitt said that... there was your "smoking gun" even if their "intent" was not to hurt them you're still paying guys to hurt them even with clean hits.

Here's what Vitt said... from the article on nola...

Again... intent wasn't there but the fact that they were being paid if they hurt or knock folks out is why we've been going thru this whole mess.

We'll see what the PFT interview says..

;
Every time a player hits a player his intent is to hurt that player. Vitt didn't differentiate the saints from any team in any level of the sport. The key is how you hear the word hurt. It hurts does not equal it's injured.

 

[guillermo]

I don't think the point right now is if the saints are guilty or not.

The point now is if Goodell was fair to the team, and if the punishments were excessive.

He has stand in his grounds, and now it's the saints move, if there is any...

 

[birdog]

I don't think the point right now is if the saints are guilty or not.

The point now is if Goodell was fair to the team, and if the punishments were excessive.

He has stand in his grounds, and now it's the saints move, if there is any...

Goodell lost his argument a long time ago...ever since Pash admitted that intent cannot be proven. What's his beef now?.....that the coaches urged the players to hit their opponents as hard as they can???....That's the sport, for crying out loud!

The players suspensions were vacated, and that is proof enough for everyone who cares to look that Goodell has no legal ground to stand on in a real courtroom, not the kangaroo court he presides over.