Jump to content

Saints fined 500k and forfeiture of 7th round pick


LinderFournette

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, otg said:

Yes Michael Thomas was drafted in the 6th round, and you wouldn't know him if he sat next to you. He plays on the Bengals. The Michael Thomas the plays for the Saints was drafted in the 2nd...

 

Oh man brain fart.  I meant Tom Brady but I was thinking about my team when I typed that and put in Michael Thomas for some baffling reason.  Yikes, fixed in edit.  Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, otg said:

Believe whatever you like about the macro situation. We're talking about a private organization. Any of the diseases you mentioned would also disrupt team activities. If someone got several members of their club sick through negligence they are harming the team. Even if no one died it's still conduct detrimental to the team, and the league. It's not a difficult concept. 

If illness only affected a player or the team for a week that's still huge. Games often turn on a few plays and it's only a 16 game schedule. Elliott says it took him a full month to recover. He also said, "It's really not about you. It's about the guy next to you. You don't want to get that guy sick. You don't want to have him going home to his family and get it. It's more of an accountability thing, just keeping each other accountable. It's not about you. It's about the guys around you in this locker room and their families."

To some people it would just be common decency. To others that's too much of an imposition. But as this relates to the NFL, and the scope of what can be discussed in this forum, not getting your coworkers sick is a professional responsibility.

A few thoughts here.....

1.  All teams do this, the Saints are only being punished because of a viral video of their locker room celebration.   If you think all these players across the league "mask up" after games in the locker room, you're nuts.

2.  They were just on a football field sweating, spitting, bleeding, and breathing on the faces of their teammates and their opponents.   So this policy has NOTHING to do with stopping the spread of a virus.  It's just virtue signalling and optics.   If the NFL really cared about the health of their players and doing their part to "stop the spread", the 2020 season would have been cancelled.  But at the end of the day $$$$$$$$$$....

3.  Any player concerned about the health impacts of COVID was given the option to opt-out of this season without penalty or punishment.

If I honestly believed masking up in the locker room after having just played a full NFL football game would make a difference, I would understand this punishment.  I guess it would help me if those on your side of this argument could demonstrate how it possibly could?   I don't see anyone doing that here, at all. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Saint_James said:

If I honestly believed masking up in the locker room after having just played a full NFL football game would make a difference, I would understand this punishment.  I guess it would help me if those on your side of this argument could demonstrate how it possibly could?   I don't see anyone doing that here, at all. 

Who cares if it makes a difference (spoiler alert: it does)?  It is a simple rule to follow. The simplest. And if you don’t want to follow it, then don’t upload it to social media.

It ain’t like the NFL asking too much of them. If NBA players can follow bubble protocols, then I’m sure NFL players can follow the NFL’s lax rules (relatively speaking). They have no excuse. It’s just a mask. 

Edited by iknowcool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

Who cares if it makes a difference (spoiler alert: it does)?  It is a simple rule to follow. The simplest. And if you don’t want to follow it, then don’t upload it to social media.

It ain’t like the NFL asking too much of them. If NBA players can follow bubble protocols, then I’m sure NFL players can follow the NFL’s lax rules (relatively speaking). They have no excuse. It’s just a mask. 

 

You were just on the field with the same guys who all get tested, playing against other guys who all get tested.  You weren't wearing masks while you were sweating, spitting and breathing all over each other.  Again I want to hear it from you how THAT is safe, but a locker room party without masks is not safe.   Is that too much to ask?

If you cannot articulate the risk to me, I will just assume you are conceding that this policy IS based on just optics and unicorns and rainbows and feel-good fluff more than it is about player safety.  Which is a microcosm of Roger Goodell's entire tenure in the NFL basically. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Uncle Buck said:

Sorry to hear about your friend's grandmother.  :(  Hospitals are being paid big money for each death they can list as a Covid death.  I'm not saying that people aren't dying from the virus, but there aren't anywhere near as many as they would have us believe.

This is a complete lie and dangerous misinformation. Jesus.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MookieMonstah said:
17 hours ago, Uncle Buck said:

Sorry to hear about your friend's grandmother.  :(  Hospitals are being paid big money for each death they can list as a Covid death.  I'm not saying that people aren't dying from the virus, but there aren't anywhere near as many as they would have us believe.

This is a complete lie and dangerous misinformation. Jesus.

let's keep this talk in here:

 

This thread is for football discussion 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Saint_James said:

A few thoughts here.....

1.  All teams do this, the Saints are only being punished because of a viral video of their locker room celebration.   If you think all these players across the league "mask up" after games in the locker room, you're nuts.

2.  They were just on a football field sweating, spitting, bleeding, and breathing on the faces of their teammates and their opponents.   So this policy has NOTHING to do with stopping the spread of a virus.  It's just virtue signalling and optics.   If the NFL really cared about the health of their players and doing their part to "stop the spread", the 2020 season would have been cancelled.  But at the end of the day $$$$$$$$$$....

3.  Any player concerned about the health impacts of COVID was given the option to opt-out of this season without penalty or punishment.

If I honestly believed masking up in the locker room after having just played a full NFL football game would make a difference, I would understand this punishment.  I guess it would help me if those on your side of this argument could demonstrate how it possibly could?   I don't see anyone doing that here, at all. 

The Saints are only being punished because there is strong evidence of their failure to follow a rule? Because they got caught? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, otg said:

The Saints are only being punished because there is strong evidence of their failure to follow a rule? Because they got caught? 

I think the issue is the NFL also has strong evidence of multiple other teams doing literally the exact same thing. Why are you only punishing the Saints, weeks after other teams also had videos of themselves in the locker room post game with no masks or social distancing?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Saint_James said:

 

You were just on the field with the same guys who all get tested, playing against other guys who all get tested.  You weren't wearing masks while you were sweating, spitting and breathing all over each other.  Again I want to hear it from you how THAT is safe, but a locker room party without masks is not safe.   Is that too much to ask?

If you cannot articulate the risk to me, I will just assume you are conceding that this policy IS based on just optics and unicorns and rainbows and feel-good fluff more than it is about player safety.  Which is a microcosm of Roger Goodell's entire tenure in the NFL basically. 

 

I am not going to articulate the risk to you because there is no point in doing so.  You have the internet.  And I don't mean that in a condescending way or a way for me to avoid making the argument, but considering this has been a thing since February/March, I highly doubt that someone online has not read about the effectiveness (or I guess, depending on your perspective, the lack thereof) of masks.  So there probably isn't anything I can say that is going to change your mind.  Second, I don't think we're allowed to get into that in this part of the forum anyway.

Finally, again... it doesn't really matter why the rule is in place.  It doesn't matter if it's just optics.  Wearing a mask is a simple task.  Saints didn't do that simple task.  Saints filmed themselves not doing that simple task.  Saints uploaded said video to social media.  Saints were rightfully punished.  I serve in a restaurant and have to wear a masks and gloves up to 6-12 hours a day, depending on the shift.  And I'm not special at all - my coworkers do it, anyone working in a restaurant has to do it (I hope).  If I can do it for that amount of time, then surely grown football players can do it for the hour or so they are in the locker-room.

Saints deserved to be punished.  Sean Payton and the team had already been warned.  It isn't like the NFL sprung anything new on them.  They were punished the same way as the Raiders were.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MookieMonstah said:

I think the issue is the NFL also has strong evidence of multiple other teams doing literally the exact same thing. Why are you only punishing the Saints, weeks after other teams also had videos of themselves in the locker room post game with no masks or social distancing?

 

THANK YOU!

Goodell picks favorites and doesn't apply his "rules" consistently or fairly.   That's the whole point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, iknowcool said:

I am not going to articulate the risk to you because there is no point in doing so.  You have the internet.  And I don't mean that in a condescending way or a way for me to avoid making the argument, but considering this has been a thing since February/March, I highly doubt that someone online has not read about the effectiveness (or I guess, depending on your perspective, the lack thereof) of masks.  So there probably isn't anything I can say that is going to change your mind.  Second, I don't think we're allowed to get into that in this part of the forum anyway.

 

 

Well I'm glad you don't mean it that way, because it certainly comes off as condescending.  You assume I'm ignorant about COVID, but your inability to articulate the risk just makes you seem less knowledgeable not more.   I know all about this virus.   You absolutely CAN change my mind about this, you just aren't even trying.  Is that because you actually don't know?

I'm asking you what 2+2 is and instead of simply saying "4" you're going through mental gymnastics in order to explain why the answer is just soooo obvious and simple you can't be bothered to give it.   Why? 

Quote

I serve in a restaurant and have to wear a masks and gloves up to 6-12 hours a day, depending on the shift. 

Yes but this policy is about as effective as you and EVERYONE in your restraunt, including the customers, sitting in a hot tub together making out without masks for hours before your shift.  Pretty sure at that point it doesn't matter that you wore your mask while on-shift.  And that's not even a complete analogy because it doesn't include the rigorous testing protocols the NFL has in place.  To say nothing of the incubation period being DAYS, not hours. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Saint_James said:
38 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

I am not going to articulate the risk to you because there is no point in doing so.  You have the internet.  And I don't mean that in a condescending way or a way for me to avoid making the argument, but considering this has been a thing since February/March, I highly doubt that someone online has not read about the effectiveness (or I guess, depending on your perspective, the lack thereof) of masks.  So there probably isn't anything I can say that is going to change your mind.  Second, I don't think we're allowed to get into that in this part of the forum anyway.

 

 

Well I'm glad you don't mean it that way, because it certainly comes off as condescending.  You assume I'm ignorant about COVID, but your inability to articulate the risk just makes you seem less knowledgeable not more.   I know all about this virus.   You absolutely CAN change my mind about this, you just aren't even trying.  Is that because you actually don't know?

I'm asking you what 2+2 is and instead of simply saying "4" you're going through mental gymnastics in order to explain why the answer is just soooo obvious and simple you can't be bothered to give it.   Why? 

come on guys, I just posted the proper thread

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...