I Understand The “Idea” Of The Bounty, But…

I understand the idea behind the defense of these bounty programs because they were not really for hitting specific people or injuring them as it was about trying to get plays made.  So, players were only getting paid for good, clean plays.  I can understand that.  I really can.  I even heard Mike Golic on the radio yesterday say the same thing.  You’re trying to make plays.

However, the problem with this kind of stuff is that, even when the explanation is good, it rings a little hollow.  A former Redskins coach said:

“If the game was on the line and we had to kick off.  There would be players that would come into the special teams huddle and say, ‘If you get a tackle.  Inside the 20-yard line, hey, that’s 500 bucks.’ And they would do the same thing in practice and everything. It was just the culture. Players trying to get each other motivated.”

Kedric Golston agrees:

“I’ve never seen a player get any money for hurting anybody.  Gregg did fine people, and he’d pay out. It would be if you got a sack or an interception, or you made a pivotal play. He did fine us, and he did give that money back for doing things ‘the right way’ — as he liked to put it.”

And, I get all that.  But, still.  I think the big problem is that it’s secret, and, a player would have a much better chance of making money off more violent plays that could potentially injure someone.  So, yeah, you want coaches to do things the right way and you want to believe that that’s what they were teaching the players, but…

I have a hard time believing that violent plays, more dangerous plays, didn’t result from these programs.

It’s just too easy in the game of football to go there.


Speak Your Mind