11/21/24
April 05, 2012
Williams Told Saints to Injure 49ers: In a speech to his players the night before the Saints-49ers playoff game, Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams told them to injure specific opponents, test whether one receiver was still suffering the effects of a concussion and that he'd pay personally for a hit on 49ers quarterback Alex Smith. The speech was recorded by documentary filmmaker Sean Pamphilon and shared with Yahoo Sports. "We need to find out in the first two series of the game, the little wide receiver, No. 10, about his concussion," Williams told the Saints' defenders, referring to Kyle Williams. "We need to [expletive] put a lick on him, move him to decide. He needs to decide."
This... is unacceptable.
posted by apoch at 09:41 AM on April 05, 2012
All this in the face of a steadily building drumbeat about player safety and injuries the last several years.
Williams gone for good. Nothing less.
If he's entitled to any pension money, etc., there will be some players groups having something to say about that.
But...can't imagine that Williams is the only one. Gotta find the rest of them.
Not making any accusations, but with Williams being a member of the Buddy Ryan coaching tree, that's as good a place to start as any.
posted by beaverboard at 10:02 AM on April 05, 2012
"Another thing we say, in this room, is never apologize for the way we compete."
posted by rcade at 10:40 AM on April 05, 2012
I agree that this is awful, but before we get the pitchforks out for the Saints, who had the misfortune of having this taped (and to repeat, I agree that the specifics of that "pep talk" are just disgusting), let's keep in mind that certain Giants players admitted to targeting Williams because of his concussion history in the following week. The Saints are convenient scapegoats here, and rightly so, but I would guess this is (at least informally) a lot more common than the NFL would like people to think -- as beaverboard suggests.
posted by holden at 11:06 AM on April 05, 2012
Hugh Douglas is on ESPN defending this as how players talk in a locker room and it doesn't mean they're out to hurt anyone. Apparently, NFL players all took graduate-level classes in semiotics. I have to say, for someone I couldn't stand back in her NBC NBA days, Hannah Storm is the best daytime anchor ESPN has. She's not giving Douglas a lot of room.
posted by yerfatma at 11:17 AM on April 05, 2012
I agree that this is awful, but before we get the pitchforks out for the Saints, who had the misfortune of having this taped (and to repeat, I agree that the specifics of that "pep talk" are just disgusting), let's keep in mind that certain Giants players admitted to targeting Williams because of his concussion history in the following week. The Saints are convenient scapegoats here, and rightly so, but I would guess this is (at least informally) a lot more common than the NFL would like people to think -- as beaverboard suggests.
I've heard this bandied about by apologists and I say prove it. Prove this is more than a guess and more than just a couple of non-direct comments about someone's concussion history (for example, I read those as the Giants thinking he might be a little gun shy of getting hit hard. Which, to be honest, was what he looked like in that game..full of nerves.) Plus, there's a big difference between tough talk and paying players to hurt other players.
You're using words like "misfortune" to describe a destructive mentality that, to date, has been investigated successfully on one team. Trying to write it off as more common without any tangible evidence (i.e., how about Saints players who've been on other teams...now would be the time to start calling out other similar schemes...or former players looking for a taste of the spotlight again) is pure speculation.
Like Spygate for my beloved Pats, people have tried to run that up as a league wide practice that only one person got caught for. Nobody's been able to put anything on paper to prove that. They broke the rules and got caught; like anything else, it doesn't really matter if you think other people are doing it, it doesn't make it any less wrong, nor is it scapegoating to call it what it is.
The number of players that switch teams, the number of former players with stories to tell, it would be pretty hard to think everyone is keeping their mouth shut based on some code, especially considering how some of these former players are SO KEEN to get a little more spotlight.
posted by dfleming at 11:28 AM on April 05, 2012
The speech was recorded by documentary filmmaker Sean Pamphilon
How does someone stupid enough to say this on film get to be an NFL coordinator? I mean, didn't these people pay any attention to Spygate, Watergate, or other infamous episodes in history that only came back to really haunt the involved because it was recorded?
I think punishments from the NFL are unlikely to be the last word, there will be civil suits and potentially criminal charges before this matter is in the history books itself.
posted by billsaysthis at 11:45 AM on April 05, 2012
How does someone stupid enough ...
I must point out that the Ryan brothers both coach in the NFL - intelligence must not be high on the list of qualifications.
posted by cixelsyd at 12:03 PM on April 05, 2012
I've heard this bandied about by apologists and I say prove it. Prove this is more than a guess and more than just a couple of non-direct comments about someone's concussion history (for example, I read those as the Giants thinking he might be a little gun shy of getting hit hard. Which, to be honest, was what he looked like in that game..full of nerves.) Plus, there's a big difference between tough talk and paying players to hurt other players.
Fair point on the lack of proof and the difference between talk and payment. I should have noted that my view on how widespread this is really just relates to a general intent/approach to knock opposing players out of the game (and not for money in a formal bounty program), but this is really a matter of perception (based on reading various commentaries and quotes from other players on the Saints situation) rather than something based in tangible, proven fact. And, for the record, while a Saints fan, I am not an apologist. I think the behavior is reprehensible. But I also think it is likely more widespread (at least in an informal way) than just one rogue team/DC. But that is just a belief.
On the Giants players' quotes, I suppose they are open to interpretation (in terms of whether taking someone out of the game could be construed as taking someone "off of his game"), but the article I linked above includes the following quote from Jacquian Williams of the Giants (emphasis added): "The thing is, we knew he had four concussions, so that was our biggest thing, was to take him outta the game."
posted by holden at 12:25 PM on April 05, 2012
I think punishments from the NFL are unlikely to be the last word, there will be civil suits and potentially criminal charges before this matter is in the history books itself.
I don't have a link handy for this, but last week I'd heard that the 27 players who are awaiting word on suspensions and other punishments have been strongly advised to retain their own lawyers as soon as possible.
posted by NerfballPro at 12:51 PM on April 05, 2012
ESPN's Saints suspension graphic included the following line:
"Williams - Suspended Indefinitely (Not Appealing)"
posted by yerfatma at 12:56 PM on April 05, 2012
I think this kind of stuff without the actual proof that money changed hands is tough to prove. It is disgraceful if the players really intended to injure or cripple another player but words are one thing and intent is another and is very difficult to prove. If a coach says to a defensive end "go out there and kill the quarterback" or " hit him so hard his ancestors feel it" is that really a criminal threat or just trash talk? I hear fighters say all the time they are going to murder their opponent, I'm going to kill him. To me unless they specifically break the rules or commit an illegal act, it is all just talk.
If there is a sport where someone is receiving money for purposely causing an injury, ooops I think they call that boxing or MMA, where guys are getting paid to literally try to beat someone into unconsciousness, is that illegal? If a fighter in a pre-fight interview uses the saying "I'm gonna kill this guy" and god forbid it actually happens, can his statements be used to prove he really intended to kill him and therefore charge him with murder?
posted by Atheist at 01:27 PM on April 05, 2012
"The thing is, we knew he had four concussions, so that was our biggest thing, was to take him outta the game."
I agree with you, although I do note that the context of taking someone out of the game is often used in the sense of knocking them out of their rhythm/making them a non-factor (i.e., double teaming Kobe takes him out of the game.)
I really don't know enough to conclude one way or another what that statement meant. It could've been a threat they made to get in his head; we really don't know. What I do know, however, is that there were no flagrant hits and he dropped two balls, so it's plausible this was all a tactic to make a young kid returning kicks in a huge game nervous.
The mind games really do cross a line that I personally think is a little gross, but don't really belong in a discussion around bounties unless there's more to it.
posted by dfleming at 01:33 PM on April 05, 2012
I really don't know enough to conclude one way or another what that statement meant. It could've been a threat they made to get in his head; we really don't know. What I do know, however, is that there were no flagrant hits and he dropped two balls, so it's plausible this was all a tactic to make a young kid returning kicks in a huge game nervous.
I agree that the statement is open to interpretation. However, note that Jacquian Williams said this after the Giants-49ers game, so it was not intended to have a forward-looking effect.
posted by holden at 01:46 PM on April 05, 2012
I think this kind of stuff without the actual proof that money changed hands is tough to prove. It is disgraceful if the players really intended
You. Are. Amazing. Don't ever change.
posted by yerfatma at 02:05 PM on April 05, 2012
However, note that Jacquian Williams said this after the Giants-49ers game, so it was not intended to have a forward-looking effect.
True. It was a dumbass comment, even if their plan was to intimidate the kid only. Totally agree with you there.
posted by dfleming at 02:23 PM on April 05, 2012
One way I'm looking at this is as the codification of a cultural theme that's been present in the league for a long time on an individual basis.
SpoFites will remember this clip from a prior posting here:
"No remorse in my heart. I tried to put him in the hospital..."
posted by beaverboard at 02:43 PM on April 05, 2012
Seems to me that the line between 'go out and hit him hard' and 'go out and injure him' is very clear but also very fine. In Gregg Williams' case there seems to be no doubt that he deliberately was encouraging injury. Granted football is a violent contact sport, but it has rules designed to mitigate the possibility of injury. Had Gregg Williams encouraged a gang of thugs to deliberately injure people on the street, he would be guilty of criminal activity. Just because this was football doesn't make his actions any less criminal. I can think of a number of incidents in hockey games that led to criminal investigation, and in one case actual criminal charges. Granted the proof would be very difficult to gather, but would not an investigation be merited?
posted by Howard_T at 02:56 PM on April 05, 2012
If there is a sport where someone is receiving money for purposely causing an injury, ooops I think they call that boxing or MMA, where guys are getting paid to literally try to beat someone into unconsciousness, is that illegal?
Setting aside your characterization of boxing and MMA, people get into those sports knowing that their opponents are out to hit them and tie them up painfully. Intentionally attempting to injure opposing players is not -- or at least should not be -- part of football. Failing to make that distinction is the same as when your big brother said he didn't hit you, he was just swinging his arms while walking through the living room with his eyes closed.
posted by Etrigan at 03:44 PM on April 05, 2012
Etrigan - I am merely pointing out that for example in a game like football while hard legal hits are desired and perfectly acceptable, injury is not the object of the game, although it occurs frequently, it is an accidental byproduct of the game. When a player is no longer able to continue or is carted off the field we see it as an accident. In boxing on the other hand, the very object of the game is for one opponent to beat the other one unconscious or until he is unable to continue due to injuries.
I think most professional athletes are highly competitive and yes they are motivated by money. While this whole bounty episode is distasteful, what is really the difference between rewarding a player with bonuses and big contracts for being an intimidating and destructive force on the field, and offering a bounty or bonus for an exceptionally hard hitting play providing it is a legal play? If a coach is paying a player to break the rules and hit illegally with the specific intent of causing an injury that to me is criminal. Lawrence Taylor said recently that every time he stepped on the field he played with the intent of knocking snot bubbles out of the noses of his opponents with the hardest hits he could generate. Does anybody really believe that in the NFC Championship game and a trip to the Superbowl at stake, an extra couple of grand is making an all pro NFL linebacker play any harder?
If a hit is illegal then penalize, fine,, suspend or bring criminal charges against a player. If a play is a clean and legal play, why should whatever the source of the players motivation make any difference?
While I find the Williams speech distasteful and sort of stupid, I think it was flawed from the standpoint that as motivation it had an air of desperation. Did the Saints feel they could not win without getting some good 49er players out of the game. I would never send a subliminal message to my defense they couldn't win without playing dirty and removing certain opposing players from the game. In the end were any Niners injured due to illegal hits motivated by an extra couple of dollars? If so I say prosecute the offenders, but if the game was played within the rules, why should I care what motivates a defense to play as hard as they can?
Ray Lewis, and James Harrison make millions doing exactly what the bounties were supposed encourage. They get paid to intimidate, and hit offensive players as hard as possible in an effort to separate them from the football.
posted by Atheist at 12:52 PM on April 06, 2012
James Harrison has been severely punished by the NFL for his hits. The culture is changing, both inside and outside the league, regarding how the game is played. Players and organizations can fight it -- brazenly or covertly -- but they're going to lose. I'm beginning to think we will soon see football disappearing from high schools because of the liability associated with CTE.
posted by rcade at 12:58 PM on April 06, 2012
I am merely pointing out that for example in a game like football while hard legal hits are desired and perfectly acceptable, injury is not the object of the game, although it occurs frequently, it is an accidental byproduct of the game. When a player is no longer able to continue or is carted off the field we see it as an accident.
Well, yes. Unless we know, via testimony or videotape, that someone has actively called for his teammates to inflict an injury.
In boxing on the other hand, the very object of the game is for one opponent to beat the other one unconscious or until he is unable to continue due to injuries.
No, the object of the game is to win, which is possible by beating the other one unconscious or until he is unable to continue or to score more points on two out of three judges' scorecards. Manny Pacquiao has fought 59 times professionally. Forty of those have ended in knockout, or 68 percent. Floyd Mayweather, 62 percent. Evander Holyfield, 54 percent.
If a play is a clean and legal play, why should whatever the source of the players motivation make any difference?
Because that's the world we live in. If my foot slips off the brake pedal and I hit a kid who's riding his bike across the intersection, that's treated differently than if I rolled down the window and yelled at him before accelerating from a dead stop.
posted by Etrigan at 01:14 PM on April 06, 2012
I can argue that in boxing (which I have done) every fighter enters the ring with the intent of knocking out or stopping the opponent. Yes bouts frequently go to a judges scorecard but no fighter has the intent to allow the judges to make the decision. In football teams go for the touchdown but sometimes settle for field goal. In boxing they go for the knockout or settle for a TKO or decision. What was your point? That winning is the ultimate goal, of course, but that was the Saints ultimate goal also. Did they feel injuring other players outside the rules was the way to go about it?
Your analogy of hitting a kid does address evidence of clear intent. To clarify if your foot slips off the brake pedal accidentally then you can say it was an accident, although there is the possibility of the accusation that it was done accidentally on purpose again something that is difficult to prove. In the second scenario you have a statement of intent and then a follow up action. This is just what I mentioned except I was pointing out the semantics of sports where saying the words like "I am going to kill you" or "I am going to knock your head off" or "smash your face in", to an opponent before a fight really doesn't mean literally I am going to kill you even if by some bizarre circumstance the opponent dies from injuries suffered as a result of a sanctioned bout fought within the rules. Would fairly normal pre'fight trash talk then be construed as a clear and obvious intent or a criminal threat?
What if an ass of a coach offered defensive players $10,000 in a pre game speech to his players for hits that take out another player. Then, during the course of the game a defensive player who is really not even thinking about the coaches speech, makes a great play within the legal rules of the game and it accidentally results in a perfectly normal but tragic knee injury to an opposing player. The coach may be guilty of a reprehensible practice by offering a reward or bounty, but how do you convict a player for playing the game within the rules and then try to determine if his intent was to injure a player purposely or if he was just playing normally and the result was accidental? The players are already playing their hardest and toughest football, if they do not break the rules you cannot connect the blanket offer from a coach to a group of players as clear individual intent as the two are separate.
Injuries either come from illegal hits or legal hits, and sometimes they just happen to bodies without a hit (ie a cut, sprain, etc). Making the connection between words, motivation and an injury unless that injury is from a blatant and illegal dirty play or hit, is quite a stretch. If the league just enforces the rules and prosecutes illegal hits and coaches who offer bounties the need for trying to determine intent becomes irrelevant. There are several things that can motivate a player to play his absolutely hardest and most hard hitting football, money, bad blood as in rivalries, a genuine dislike for another player or team, or just the desire to be the best and win. Regardless of the motivation, it is up to the league to create and enforce the rules and discipline players, coaches and others who break them. Trying to discipline players and enforce penalties for intent or motivation seems futile and unfair to me. Just tell them what is permissible and what is not, and enforce it.
posted by Atheist at 02:39 PM on April 06, 2012
I think this kind of stuff without the actual proof that money changed hands is tough to prove. It is disgraceful if the players really intended
Did you read the article or listen to the audio, Atheist? In the linked article the guy who recorded Williams says Williams rubbed his thumb and fingers together as in the sign for "money."
"Then he rubs his thumb against his index and middle fingers the cash sign and says, 'I got the first one. I got the first one. Go get it. Go lay that [expletive] out.'"
I bet there is already a money trail out there whether the general public knows about it or not.
posted by scully at 02:42 PM on April 06, 2012
And stop with the analogies. This is American football, and despite its physical nature, there are rules in place (see previous article I linked to when this broke) to avoid players being paid to injury other players deliberately. So far all the evidence points to this happening, and being encouraged by Greg Williams. Stop making excuses, you just making yourself look silly.
posted by scully at 02:46 PM on April 06, 2012
Am I the only one who can't get this scene from The Simpsons out of their head because of Williams?
posted by yerfatma at 02:51 PM on April 06, 2012
scully you must be missing my point. If there is a rule that states Williams cannot offer money to his players for deliberately trying to injure another player (which there is) then Williams is guilty for making the offer and the proof is clear that he did that. If a player on the Saints makes a legal hit and an opposing player is injured as a result (which happens everyday in the normal and legal execution of the game ) there is no legal basis or proof that the player involved deliberately attempted to injure the other player or was taking up the offer of the coach, simply because some idoit coach made the offer or rubbed his fingers together implying he would pay a bounty.
You cannot connect the injury with the offer of a bounty as that requires you to read the mind of the player involved as to his intent. If you allow that to happen then every player on the Saints team would in theory have to excuse themselves from playing football once their coach makes the insinuated offer to avoid liability and incrimination. Any even completely innocent injury that resulted from the normal play could be assumed unfairly to be the result of words spoken by a person who was not even playing in the game. Does a legal collision between two players suddenly become illegal because a third party made statements prior to the event. Don't you think that legally there is always reasonable doubt that an injury on the field was not the direct result of words spoken the day before by someone not involved in the physical act, especially if the physical act that caused the injury was perfectly within the rules of normal football play and may would have happened anyway with or without the statements made?
Your honor I was playing football and I tried to knock the running back into the stands. I didn't want to hurt him but I did want to send him 25 yards backwards while sending the message not to run into my zone again. Did they give you money? Well yes that is what they pay me to do. If I don't do my job I will be fired, if I do my job well I get more money, if I do my job too well I can go to jail?
posted by Atheist at 04:00 PM on April 06, 2012
"Your honor, the fact that my client was taped saying, 'I want to kill that guy' and then killed that guy doesn't mean we can possibly know whether he intended to kill that guy. I demand a charge of manslaughter instead of first-degree murder."
posted by Etrigan at 05:39 PM on April 06, 2012
I didn't want to hurt him but I did want to send him 25 yards backwards while sending the message not to run into my zone again.
I think it's generally a bad idea to play football against superheroes.
posted by grum@work at 11:56 PM on April 06, 2012
I can't read three grafs of that tonight. Is it something about how black athletes don't know how to conduct themselves again? I think I've heard it somewhere before . . .
posted by yerfatma at 01:32 AM on April 07, 2012
If there is a rule that states Williams cannot offer money to his players for deliberately trying to injure another player (which there is) then Williams is guilty for making the offer and the proof is clear that he did that
There actually an NFL rule that expressly prohibits direct or indirect financial rewards for injuring a player on an opposing team. Even if it wasn't a rule it would still be a fucked up way to do business. But you're too busy apologizing for the Saints so I guess you can't see that.
there is no legal basis or proof that the player involved deliberately attempted to injure the other player or was taking up the offer of the coach, simply because some idoit coach made the offer or rubbed his fingers together implying he would pay a bounty.
Umm, no. You are wrong. There was plenty of evidence that the coach offered players money for injuring opponents. If opponents did get injured it is safe to say that the bounty program was a motivating factor because it was in place when Williams was coaching. You might find this hard to believe, but sometimes players listen to their coach.
But basically, you're wrong. The facts are against you and no amount of sophistry will change the facts.
posted by insomnyuk at 02:10 PM on April 07, 2012
Umm, no. You are wrong. There was plenty of evidence that the coach offered players money for injuring opponents. If opponents did get injured it is safe to say that the bounty program was a motivating factor because it was in place when Williams was coaching. You might find this hard to believe, but sometimes players listen to their coach.
I am not trying to deny the Saints were guilty nor am I trying to say that the league is doing anything wrong. I am only pointing out that from a legal standpoint intent is one of the most difficult things to prove. In the statement above in italics first
There was plenty of evidence that the coach offered players money for injuring opponents. Absolutely, I agree and that is why Williams should be penalized even if it means a lifetime ban from the NFL.
If opponents did get injured it is safe to say that the bounty program was a motivating factor because it was in place when Williams was coaching. This is the part I think has legal issues. You are assuming that if a player got injured it is because of the bounty system but in reality there is no evidence that any injury would not have occurred without the bounty system and this calls for the assumption that the player involved was motivated by the bounty and not by the fact that he was just playing his best football and the injury was accidental and a normal result of a legal and good play. What you are claiming, is the assumption of cause and effect that does not exist and we have a legal system that protects defendants from this type of assumption. If I wave incense in front of a slot machine and that slot machine wins on the next pull, there is evidence that I waived the incense, but that does not prove any correlation between the winning and the incense. While it may seem fishy to you it does not constitute any proof in a legal sense.
All I am trying to say is if the league has a rule against the offering of money for injuring a player and they have proof that Williams did that fine, he is guilty. His guilt however does not mean any injury that occurred against the Saints is a direct result of that crime. Now if a player made an illegal hit and collected bounty money for causing the injury then I would say he is proven guilty. Any good lawyer would make a case that regardless of what an idiot coach offered, if his client was a player, doing his job to the best of his ability (which can and does cause accidental injuries) playing football within the rules, and an opposing player wound up injured, proving the player was motivated by an illegal bounty and intended to purposefully injure another player, calls for conjecture and assumption.
This is probably why the league and PA recommended to any players involved to obtain legal counsel. This is a very difficult area of law and the league knows it has exposure to legal action if it tries to discipline players based on intent, or motivation if their play was within the rules.
" Is it something about how black athletes don't know how to conduct themselves again? I think I've heard it somewhere before . ."
Wow I am not sure where that comes from but obviously you have an agenda completely separate from this conversation.
FWIW I am not commenting on the facts, nor are any facts for or against me. I am just saying that injuries happen and when one does trying to determine if the injury was intentional or accidental is impossible. You can determine if the play was legal or illegal. Not what was going through a players mind. It is a slippery slope so to speak when you try to assume intent. A player accepting the bounty money could and should be construed as intent and willful cooperation in the bounty, but without that piece of evidence all you have is an assumption based on circumstance.
posted by Atheist at 03:58 PM on April 09, 2012
Youtube link to the edited 4 minutes. I changed my mind about the bounty program being just football. This is gross.