Jump to content
Carolina Huddle


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

660 Good

1 Follower

About Sasquatch

  • Rank

Social Stuff

  • Twitter Handle

Recent Profile Visitors

6,145 profile views
  1. Not true, my intent was to indicate that there was more than one pool. Both do not comply with rules however intent to injure is a different scale of wrong. I know it's hard to accept but there probably was a Saints player or 2 that had some integrity and didn't want their names and reputations tarnished by involvement. You gotta be a special kind of stupid to use them as evidence that the pay to injure didn't exist when it clearly did.
  2. Pretty easy answer, They weren't in the pool. They were in a separate pool with payouts for good plays such as fumble recoveries etc. but couldn't be link to intended injuries. Get your facts straight. https://www.nola.com/saints/2012/06/nfl_presents_evidence_suspende.html
  3. Great, so they only earned the bonus if they took somebody out without the refs seeing it. That makes it OK.
  4. So your only defense for the Saints actions is semantics? Gotcha. So, what would be the reason for fining any bone jarring hits?
  5. I watched the AAF. I'll watch replacements if they're televised. I'll watch the XFL too.
  6. The only place Saint come out of the bounty issue totally vindicated is in their own minds.
  7. If he's on the roster week 1, his salary for the year becomes guaranteed.
  8. Not even a valid comparison. Norwell WAS a combine participant and projected to be a late round pick. This guy was not invited to the combine and, if you watch the videos, outside of a very few plays, calling him Luke is an insult to Luke. He;ll be lucky to be on a practice squad by September.
  9. Is this him? The 2019 UDFA future HOF Panthers franchise savior? There's one every year.
  • Create New...