ESPN NFL

An attorney from the private sector who advised the NFL during the Saints bounty investigation disputed linebacker Jonathan Vilma's claim that he did not intend to pay bounties for knocking Kurt Warner and Brett Favre out of playoff games in the 2009 season and the he never set out to intentionally hurt another player.

“The evidence overwhelmingly supported the charges,’’ Mary Jo White, a former U.S. attorney, said in a conference call with the media Thursday. “I haven’t seen the statement that Mr. Vilma may have issued. He plainly, as were the other players, was invited to participate with counsel in an interview to provide his side of the story if there was a different side of the story. He declined to do that.

“If you look at the press release issued yesterday, plainly the conduct there is quite specific as to bounties being pledged by Mr. Vilma. On two occasions, you know the identities of whom the bounties were placed on, the amount of the bounties and when they were placed. There is very, very strong evidence from multiple independent sources reporting those charges.’’

White also said that defensive lineman Anthony Hargrove (now with the Green Bay Packers) said he was told to lie about the bounty program when asked about it in 2010. Hargrove since has signed a declaration admitting the bounty program existed and he took part in it. White was asked if Hargrove disclosed who initially told him to lie to investigators.

“He did, but I don’t think it is appropriate to reveal that,’’ White said.

White went on to repeatedly emphasize how strong the NFL's evidence was. You can read more of what she had to say here.

There have been so many subplots to the New Orleans Saints’ bounty program that some significant ones have gotten lost in the shuffle.

Thanks to Jeff Schultz for bringing attention to one of them. In this column, Schultz writes about the role and stance the NFL Players Association has taken and suggests the union change its name to “the Union of People We Feel Like Representing."

He’s got an excellent point. In its statement after the suspensions of Jonathan Vilma, Will Smith, Scott Fujita and Anthony Hargrove were announced, the union said it had “not received any detailed or specific evidence from the league of these specific players’ involvement in an alleged pay-to-injure program."

That’s a pretty standard line from the NFLPA. Think back to last year’s lockout. How many times did we hear the union say that the NFL would not share information how much each team was making, even though the league repeatedly said the union had been supplied with as much information as possible.

It’s a similar story this time. Former New Orleans defensive coordinator Gregg Williams has admitted the bounty program took place and there is that damning audiotape of Williams talking to his players the night before last season’s playoff game at San Francisco. The NFL also has said that multiple sources said Vilma offered $10,000 of his own money for bounties on Brett Favre and Kurt Warner. The NFL said Smith assisted Williams in establishing and funding the bounty program. The league also said Hargrove submitted a “signed declaration to the league that established not only the existence of the program at the Saints, but also that he knew about and participated in it’’. The league also said Fujita pledged a significant amount of money to the bounty program.

What more evidence does the union want?

Obviously, the union is prepared to stand by Vilma, Smith, Hargrove and Fujita, who just happens to be a member of the NFLPA’s executive committee, as they make their expected appeals. Any union should stand by its members because they pay dues that should bring them support from their union.

But this is where things head to an area that looks to be painted in multiple shades of gray. The NFLPA will try to protect the four suspended members.

That screams out one huge question -- what about the union’s hundreds of other members? They pay dues too and, presumably, that buys them protection as well. Shouldn’t the union be standing by Favre and Warner, who paid dues for years? And shouldn’t the union be protecting Carolina quarterback Cam Newton and Green Bay quarterback Aaron Rodgers, who the league said were also targets of the bounty program?

By standing so firmly with the suspended players, the union seems to be giving the appearance it doesn’t care about its other members or their safety and welfare. I’m sure the union would dispute that and say it cares about all its members and there’s probably truth in that.

But perception is everything. And the way the union has handled this thing so far sure make it look like it has a serious conflict of interest on its hands.

Maybe the union should step aside on this one. I don't see how you fully can stand up for the rights of your players when one group is trying to hurt another group. The union can pick a side, if it wants. But maybe choosing to not pick a side and staying out of this one is the only way the union can avoid the perception of a conflict of interest.

New Orleans Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma, who was suspended by the NFL earlier Wednesday, issued a statement through his attorney a few minutes ago. Here it is in its entirety:

Vilma

“I am shocked and extremely disappointed by the NFL’s decision to suspend me for the 2012 season. Commissioner Roger Goodell has refused to share any of the supposed evidence he claims supports this unprecedented punishment. The reason is clear: I never paid, or intended to pay, $10,000, or any amount of money, to any player for knocking Kurt Warner, Brett Favre or any other player out of the 2009 Divisional playoff game, 2010 NFC Championship Game or any other game.

“I never set out to intentionally hurt any player and never enticed any teammate to intentionally hurt another player. I also never put any money into a bounty pool or helped to create a bounty pool intended to pay out money for injuring other players. I have always conducted myself in a professional and proud manner.

“I intend to fight this injustice, to defend my reputation, to stand up for my team and my profession, and to send a clear signal to the commissioner that the process has failed, to the detriment of me, my teammates, the New Orleans Saints and the game.’’

Vilma doesn’t quite say it, but it sure sounds to me like he’s planning to appeal the suspension.

In March, two Minnesota Vikings players -- punter Chris Kluwe and center John Sullivan -- called for the NFL to suspend New Orleans Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma for his role in the Saints' bounty program prior to the 2009 NFC Championship Game. At the time, we noted a developing and awkward dynamic: NFL Players Association (NFLPA) members advocating against their union brethren.

Sullivan, in fact, went so far as to say: "As a union member, I'll be very upset if we come to the defense of these acts. They're indefensible. You can't defend them. It's despicable, has no place in the sport."

Vilma, whom the NFL said offered a $10,000 reward for any player who knocked then-Vikings quarterback Brett Favre out of the 2009 NFC Championship Game, received a one-year suspension. We haven't yet heard from Sullivan, but Kluwe said via Twitter that the suspension is "just."

Kluwe also provided an extended and nuanced analysis of the what he called a "tough spot" for the NFLPA, which has already pledged to "vigorously protect" Vilma and the three other suspended players and "pursue all options on their behalf."

Here's what Kluwe tweeted:

"Vilma and the others deserve the right to an appeal; while I agree with the commissioner's decision others may not, and that's fine, this is America. However, the union has to simultaneously balance defending four guys against the judgment, of [Roger] Goodell (which needs oversight, make no mistake) while at the same time recognizing those four guys were attempting to harm other union members, who also deserve that same protection. The union cannot be just about appeals when someone does something wrong. It also has to be a shield for those men who are a part of it that you never hear about, but pay the same dues and play the same game. I can only hope that the leadership of the NFLPA realizes this, and acts in *all* of its members' interests, however that takes place."

I find this a fascinating, if subtle, subplot of this story. The NFLPA argues the NFL hasn't provided evidence of its accusations, but obviously there are at least some players -- and union members -- who are convinced otherwise. By definition, players engaging in a bounty system are trying to harm other players. Why isn't the union jumping to the defense of the targeted players, which according to the league includes Favre, Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers, Arizona Cardinals quarterback Kurt Warner and Carolina Panthers quarterback Cam Newton?

I realize this is a tough day in the NFL for a lot of reasons. I just think this issue merits some discussion along with everything else. The story has thus far centered around the aggressors. What about the victims?

Let's run through some of the basics on the NFL's eight-game suspension of Green Bay Packers defensive tackle Anthony Hargrove in a Q&A format:

Will Hargrove appeal?

Almost certainly, yes. He has three days to file it with the NFL.

Who will preside over the appeal?

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, who finalized the original suspension as well.

Will Hargrove file a lawsuit?

Someone will, perhaps on his behalf. The NFL Players Association said in a statement that it will "vigorously protect and pursue all options" on behalf of the suspended players. This is a potentially career-altering suspension. A source told ESPN's Adam Schefter: "Get ready for a massive multiple legal battle over this on several fronts."

When would the suspension start?

At the start of the regular season. That means Hargrove can continue to participate in the Packers' offseason program, go to training camp with them and participate in the preseason. He would be eligible to resume practicing on Monday, Oct. 29.

What does this mean for the Packers?

General manager Ted Thompson rarely signs veteran free agents, so it was fair to assume the Packers had a significant -- if not starting -- role in mind for Hargrove when they signed him. Fortunately for them, they drafted two defensive linemen last weekend, Jerel Worthy and Mike Daniels.

Did the Packers know about the suspension before signing Hargrove?

No. It's reasonable to assume they thought one was a possibility, but it's doubtful they thought it would be for eight games.

Will the Packers keep him on their roster?

That's unknown at this point. They wouldn't have to pay him during the suspension and he wouldn't count against their roster. It's worth pointing out that defensive line coach Mike Trgovac said Hargrove's intensity was already having an impact on the team's defensive line in the early stages of the offseason program.

Why was Hargrove punished so severely?

The NFL is obviously sending a serious statement about the bounty issue. But of the four players who were suspended, the NFL singled out Hargrove because he "actively obstructed the league’s 2010 investigation into the program by being untruthful to investigators," according to the league's official statement.

The league said Hargrove certified that he was aware of the bounty program and that he actively participated in it. Does that jibe with a statement Hargrove sent us in March?

In the statement, Hargrove said he did not receive any money, nor was he expecting any, for a late hit on Minnesota Vikings quarterback Brett Favre in the 2009 NFC Championship Game. He admitted to celebrating Favre's ankle injury during the game but said it was a mistake and added: "[D]id I personally want Favre INJURED? Absolutely and categorically NO!"

What's your take, Mr. NFC North blogger?

I think this thing is going to get much, much uglier before it goes away. What the NFL alleged about Hargrove's role, as well as that of the three other players, is career-threatening and life-altering. I don't see anyone absorbing such a blow without a legal fight. Hargrove has overcome a number of obstacles just to make it this far in his NFL career, having turned his life around following a year-long suspension for substance abuse in 2008. Remember, there are two sides to every story. Hargrove will be highly motivated to clear his name.

Say this much about NFL commissioner Roger Goodell -- he’s consistent.

Goodell was harsh when he issued punishment for the New Orleans Saints organization, coaching staff and front office for roles in a three-year bounty program. Saints coach Sean Payton was suspended for the entire 2012 season, former defensive coordinator Gregg Williams was suspended indefinitely, assistant head coach Joe Vitt will be suspended for the first six games of the season and general manager Mickey Loomis was suspended for the first eight games of the season. The Saints also were fined $500,000 and had to forfeit a second-round draft pick in 2012 and 2013.

When the NFL announced player discipline Wednesday, Goodell was just as harsh. He suspended New Orleans linebacker Jonathan Vilma for the entire season and Vilma no longer can take part in the offseason workouts. New Orleans defensive end Will Smith will be suspended for the first four games. Former New Orleans defensive lineman Anthony Hargrove, now with Green Bay, will be suspended for the first eight games and former New Orleans linebacker Scott Fujita, now with Cleveland, will be suspended for the first three games.

Smith, Fujita and Hargrove can continue taking part in offseason programs and will start their suspensions just before the regular season.

As it did with the announcement of discipline for the coaches, Loomis and the Saints, the NFL sent out a detailed release about why the players were suspended.

Here is the explanation from the league on what each of the four players did to earn the punishment:

Vilma: “The investigation concluded that while a captain of the defensive unit Vilma assisted Coach Williams in establishing and funding the program. Multiple independent sources also confirmed that Vilma offered a specific bounty -- $10,000 in cash – to any player who knocked Arizona quarterback Kurt Warner out of the 2009 Divisional playoff game and later pledged the same amount to anyone who knocked Minnesota quarterback Brett Favre out of the 2009 NFC Championship Game the following week (played on Jan. 24, 2010). Vilma is eligible to be reinstated after the Super Bowl in 2013.’’

Smith: “Smith, a defensive end, assisted Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams in establishing and funding the program during a period in which he was a captain and leader of the defensive unit. Multiple independent sources also confirmed that Smith pledged significant sums to the program pool for 'cart-offs' and 'knockouts' of opposing players.”

Hargrove: “Actively participated in the program while a member of the Saints. Hargrove submitted a signed declaration to the league that established not only the existence of the program at the Saints, but also that he knew about and participated in it. The evidence showed that Hargrove told at least one player on another team that Vikings quarterback Brett Favre was a target of a large bounty during the NFC Championship Game in January of 2010. Hargrove also actively obstructed the league’s 2010 investigation into the program by being untruthful to investigators.’’

Fujita: “The record established that Fujita, a linebacker, pledged a significant amount of money to the prohibited pay-for-performance/bounty pool during the 2009 NFL playoffs when he played for the Saints. The pool to which he pledged paid large cash rewards for 'cart-offs' and 'knockouts,' plays during which an opposing player was injured.’’

The league went on to say that all the players are suspended without pay for “detrimental conduct."

“In assessing player discipline,” Goodell said, “I focused on players who were in leadership positions at the Saints; contributed a particularly large sum of money toward the program; specifically contributed to a bounty on an opposing player; demonstrated a clear intent to participate in a program that potentially injured opposing players; sought rewards for doing so; and/or obstructed the 2010 investigation.”

The players can appeal the suspensions, but Goodell already is indicating that a defense saying they were just following the orders of coaches will not fly.

“No bounty program can exist without active player participation,” Goodell said. “The evidence clearly showed that the players being held accountable today willingly and enthusiastically embraced the bounty program. Players put the vast majority of the money into this program and they share responsibility for playing by the rules and protecting each other within those rules.”

Wow. We all knew that new Green Bay Packers defensive lineman Anthony Hargrove was a member of the New Orleans Saints during the time when the NFL says the Saints' well-discussed bounty program was in place. But I'm not sure any of us expected Hargrove to receive the second-harshest penalty among Saints players as a result of the investigation.

But that's the upshot of Hargrove's eight-game suspension, announced Wednesday by the NFL. Only linebacker Jonathan Vilma, whom the NFL says put up a $10,000 bounty on Minnesota Vikings quarterback Brett Favre in the 2009 NFC Championship Game, received a longer suspension. Let me pass along two bits of information for you to digest before we start getting into analysis and implications.

First, here is the full NFL statement on Hargrove's role: "Defensive lineman Anthony Hargrove (now with the Green Bay Packers) is suspended without pay for the first eight games of the 2012 regular season. Hargrove actively participated in the program while a member of the Saints. Hargrove submitted a signed declaration to the league that established not only the existence of the program at the Saints, but also that he knew about and participated in it. The evidence showed that Hargrove told at least one player on another team that Vikings quarterback Brett Favre was a target of a large bounty during the NFC Championship Game in January of 2010. Hargrove also actively obstructed the league’s 2010 investigation into the program by being untruthful to investigators."

In March, Hargrove provided us with an extensive statement about his role, or lack thereof, in the bounty program. I've posted it verbatim below. We'll be back in a bit.

ANTHONY HARGROVE STATEMENT FROM MARCH 2012

"First of all, the purpose of this statement is simply to address the comments that have been made about me in the media. I will not address anything to do with anyone else but myself.

"In regards to the hit I made on Brett Favre that has been talked about: it was one of about five times I got to him and the only one that was late. I agree it was a late hit, but in the heat of the moment I was simply trying to make a play. I can assure you that when I got up, I was thinking two things, one, that I cost my team, and two, that I might have just cost myself some money if the NFL fined me.

"To put things in perspective, I received a game ball for my play that day and yet got fined while receiving nothing and expecting to receive nothing for the play some keep referencing. Kudos to Brett, he even asked me if that was all I had! Gotta love him.

"And in regards to my comments that have been talked about where I say that Favre is done, I readily agree that it sounds bad in retrospect. A lot of things look bad when we look back and realize how they sound. Trust me, I've said much, much worse. Heck, I probably say worse every day.

"But did I personally want Favre INJURED? Absolutely and categorically NO! Did I feel like we, the Saints, had a better chance of being in the Super Bowl with Favre on the sideline? Of course. Would the Patriots and their fans have probably been excited to see Eli [Manning] on the bench with his foot up whispering that he was done [in Super Bowl XLVI]? Would players on the sideline have made comments to that effect? Right or wrong, I'm guessing yes.

"Probably every Saints fan, player and coach got an adrenaline rush when thinking Minnesota might be in trouble. I said what many people were probably thinking, though maybe I said it in a way that sounded a bit too excited. Those who know me best know that I lean toward the animated side a bit. Okay, a lot! It's who God made me. I do regret saying it, though.

"I have made many mistakes in my life and have paid dearly for some of them, and the late hit and the comments were both mistakes, in my opinion. But players all over the league do the same thing every Sunday, make late hits and say stupid things. But I can say with absolute certainty that neither the late hit nor the comment have anything whatsoever to do with the issue being so hotly discussed in the media."

The Seattle Seahawks appreciated Anthony Hargrove's contributions to their defense in 2011, including the pivotal safety Hargrove provided during a comeback victory over the New York Giants.

That the Seahawks decided to replace Hargrove with veteran free agent Jason Jones this offseason appears fortuitous now that the NFL has levied an eight-game suspension against Hargrove for his participation in the New Orleans Saints' bounty program.

The NFL announced its bounty investigation March 2. Seattle reached agreement with Jones two weeks later. Hargrove signed with Green Bay in late March.

Hargrove, who defended his play with the Saints in a statement earlier this offseason, signed with Green Bay, where the Packers expected him to fit well. The league hammered him in a statement released Wednesday:

"Hargrove actively participated in the program while a member of the Saints. Hargrove submitted a signed declaration to the league that established not only the existence of the program at the Saints, but also that he knew about and participated in it.

"The evidence showed that Hargrove told at least one player on another team that Vikings quarterback Brett Favre was a target of a large bounty during the NFC Championship Game in January of 2010. Hargrove also actively obstructed the league’s 2010 investigation into the program by being untruthful to investigators."

The NFL also suspended Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma for the 2012 season. Will Smith received a four-game suspension. Scott Fujita received a three-game suspension.

"Fujita, Hargrove and Smith may participate in all off-season activity, including preseason games, prior to the suspensions taking effect," the NFL said." Each player disciplined today is entitled to appeal the decision within three days. If an appeal is filed, Commissioner [Roger] Goodell would hold a hearing at which the player may speak on his behalf and be represented by counsel."

Cleaning out my notebook after the 2012 NFL draft:

It can be difficult to gauge the value of coaching the annual Senior Bowl, but it's worth noting that two of the Minnesota Vikings' draft choices played under their coaching staff for the North team at this year's affair. That included Notre Dame safety Harrison Smith, whom the Vikings traded up to draft at No. 29 overall, and NC Sate linebacker Audie Cole, a seventh-round pick.

In the case of Smith, the Vikings were so convinced of his value after the Senior Bowl that they didn't speak again through the entire draft process. They didn't interview him at the annual scouting combine and didn't invite him to their facility for a pre-draft visit.

"When we got into our meetings and we put our board together and seeing how it was going to develop and knowing that we do need some help on the back end to improve our secondary," general manager Rick Spielman said, "that was the one huge advantage of being able to coach the Senior Bowl because we got to know those players inside and out and know what they are about. How they are in a meeting room. How they are out on the field. Our coaches know what it’s like to coach that player so that was a huge advantage for us and we know exactly what we are getting in Harrison Smith."

We've noted that the Green Bay Packers drafted six defensive players to open the draft. Another trend we noted: The Vikings drafted three pairs of players from the same school.

But we probably didn't spend enough time in the latter stages of the draft pointing out that the Detroit Lions finished the draft by selecting six consecutive defensive players -- including three cornerbacks -- while also drafting three players from Oklahoma.

We should probably chalk up the Sooner connection -- receiver Ryan Broyles, defensive end Ronnell Lewis and linebacker Travis Lewis -- as coincidence. But I wouldn't say the same thing about the defensive trend, considering how poorly the Lions' defense played over the second half of the 2011 season.

The impact of that decision is "yet to be seen," Lions coach Jim Schwartz said. He added: "Drafting them doesn't do anything other than drafting them. They have to play well in preseason and training camp and they have to prove their draft status. So, yeah, it adds more guys to the roster and creates competition and things like that. ..."

With that said, I would think the Lions' cornerbacks should consider themselves on notice. Third-rounder Dwight Bentley is a smallish but feisty corner who had an excellent Senior Bowl against elevated competition. And fifth-rounder Chris Greenwood might have played at Division III Albion, but he is 6-foot-1 and ran the 40-yard dash in 4.42 seconds. Players with those kind of measurables eventually get their opportunity.

The Chicago Bears' decision not to draft a lineman would appear an endorsement of their returning starters. So it's worth noting that coach Lovie Smith refused to say where offensive lineman Chris Williams will play in 2012, calling into question the short- and long-term future of the Bears' No. 1 draft choice in 2008.

First, here's what Smith said when asked if Williams would resume his role as left guard when training camp begins: "I can't tell you that right now. We have options with him. We'll see how it all shakes out. Chris, of course, can do both [guard and tackle]. Right now, we're two weeks into our offseason program. Let us get into it a little more and we'll be able to define some roles a little better."

That's hardly an endorsement for a player who has started at right tackle, left tackle and left guard in his disappointing career. Brad Biggs of the Chicago Tribune makes some excellent points in suggesting Williams' most likely 2012 destination is a swing backup.

Williams was drafted as a left tackle, but the Bears chose J'Marcus Webb to play there last season and don't appear interested in looking back. Gabe Carimi, the 2011 first-round pick, figures to return at right tackle, making it easy to move Lance Louis back to one of the other guard spots. Louis, Chris Spencer and newcomer Chilo Rachal would be top candidates to start at the other two guard spots.

Everything is subject to change. But clearly there remain some parts in motion along the Bears' offensive line.

I'm sure the Packers have kicked around the idea of signing a veteran backup quarterback, and it could still happen. But after drafting Tennessee-Chattanooga's B.J. Coleman in the seventh round Saturday, the Packers don't appear eager to add anyone else. In other words, former No. 3 Graham Harrell is going to get every opportunity to win that job.

"I don't think you just say, 'I need a veteran backup,'" Packers coach Mike McCarthy said. "We have the MVP in Aaron Rodgers as our No. 1, and now we feel that we have three really good candidates to compete for two spots. ... The roster will shake that out."

Those candidates are Harrell, Coleman and Nick Hill, a former Arena Football League player who signed in January.

Some people cringed when the Coleman spoke reverentially about his pre-draft work with and respect for Brett Favre. Coleman seemed oblivious to the hard feelings surrounding Favre's departure in 2008 and his return with the Vikings in 2009 and 2010.

Maybe Coleman was a bit naïve, but I thought his giddiness was instructive as much as anything and perhaps illustrative of the big-picture way most of the football world view the relationship between the Packers and Favre.

In the big picture, the Packers-Favre separation was a small portion of a two-decade marriage that is destined to be reconciled. We are hypersensitive to that blip because we lived through it on this blog, but not everyone was as affected. If we aren't already, we'll all be closer to Coleman's perspective than we probably ever thought possible.

PALM BEACH, Fla. -- Although his franchise quarterback, Cam Newton, was one of four players named as specific targets in the Saints’ bounty program, Carolina coach Ron Rivera doesn’t anticipate further problems with the Panthers and Saints.

“I'd be surprised if there's any retribution, I really would,’’ Rivera said during a breakfast for NFC coaches Wednesday morning at the owners meetings.

The NFL report announcing the Saints’ punishment, listed Newton and Green Bay’s Aaron Rodgers as well as retired quarterbacks Brett Favre and Kurt Warner as players that specifically were targeted for injury. As NFC South opponents, the Saints and Panthers play each other twice a season.

“When we play them it's not going to be about that,’’ Rivera said. “It's going to be us playing them trying to win our division. And that's what it should be. It should be about the game, and not what happened.’’

That’s a good message, and I’m sure Rivera will share it with his team before playing the Saints next season. Rivera’s a coach that is respected by his players and his words could keep things from getting out of hand on the field. But NFL players are intense competitors and I’m sure at least some of the Panthers will have added motivation against the Saints because they know that team was trying to injure their quarterback.

Rivera also weighed in on another issue related to the Saints’ bounty program. Former New Orleans tight end Jeremy Shockey was accused by former NFL defensive lineman and current television analyst Warren Sapp of being “the snitch’’ that started the investigation into the bounty program. Shockey, who played for Carolina last season and currently is a free agent, has issued strong denials.

“If you know Jeremy Shockey, you know that's not Jeremy Shockey,’’ Rivera said. “I know there was an insinuation that he had been the guy. But that's not Jeremy's makeup. That's not who Jeremy Shockey is. Jeremy Shockey's a guy that, if there was something going on, that's their business. I would be surprised, I really would. It wouldn't hurt him in my eyes either way because first of all I think Jeremy Shockey's a tremendous person. I think he's also a very good football person -- a football personality who understands this game.’’

We just completed an unprecedented week of NFL news, one that revealed details of a New Orleans Saints bounty program that targeted two NFC North quarterbacks over the past three seasons. But the occasion brought forth disparate views among NFL players, especially among those who play defense and those who play offense.

Specifically, who should be blamed for the beating Minnesota Vikings quarterback Brett Favre took in the 2009 NFC Championship Game? The Saints' (apparently incentivized) defenders? Or the Vikings' pass protection?

Consider these statements from two of our players this week. First, here is what Chicago Bears linebacker Brian Urlacher said about bounties during an ESPN 1000 radio interview.

"If you don't want your quarterback to get hit, protect him," Urlacher said. "You don't want to get hit? Then don't play offense. They're going to hit you. It's the referee's job to mandate [legality]. If they think it's excessive, throw a penalty on it. That's all there is to it."

On the other hand, Vikings center John Sullivan objected to criticism his offensive line took after that game.

"A lot of the hits on Brett were illegal," Sullivan told KFAN-1130. "So what are you supposed to do to prevent that? That's not our job. That's the official's jobs."

In essence, Urlacher is saying it's up to the offense to protect its quarterback and for officials to punish defenders if they play beyond the rules. Sullivan, on the other hand, suggested it's up to officials to provide enough deterrent to eliminate illegal plays.

We could spend days in a college-style sociological debate on the effectiveness of deterrence as a form of discipline. But what do you think? How much do you blame the Saints for what happened to Favre? And how much should the Vikings themselves be blamed? Or did the officiating crew drop the ball? I'm all ears.

Minnesota punter Chris Kluwe isn’t the only member of the Vikings to say that New Orleans linebacker Jonathan Vilma should be permanently banned by the NFL for his role in the Saints’ bounty program.

NFC North colleague Kevin Seifert reports Minnesota center John Sullivan agreed with Kluwe on Vilma and also said former Saints Darren Sharper and defensive end Bobby McCray also should receiver harsh penalties. Sullivan was a first-year starter in the 2009 season, when the Vikings played the Saints in the NFC Championship Game. In its report announcing the Saints’ punishment, the league said Minnesota quarterback Brett Favre was a specific target of New Orleans defenders in that game.

"If you want to offer money to knock somebody out of a game on a clean hit, fine," Sullivan said. "But the guys that went after it in the wrong way, that's the exact opposite of sportsmanship. It's just disgusting. To think that you're going to take money to hit someone illegally and hurt them out of the game, I can't even fathom that somebody would do that."

Sullivan talked about McCray’s hit on Favre after a second-quarter handoff and implied that at least one of Sharper’s hits on Favre was illegal.

"I really think if you go back and look at that game, anybody who took a shot at Brett illegally and you can see with the intention of trying to injury him [should be banned]," Sullivan said. "And the big two that come to mind are Sharper and Bobby McCray. They've got to do something to those guys too, whether it's no Hall of Fame [or] you're not allowed to be associated with the NFL anymore. I have a hard time talking about it. It just disgusts me that you would go out there and try to hurt somebody and take away their livelihood. It' s just gross."

Sullivan also questioned the suspension of New Orleans general manager Mickey Loomis for the first eight games of the season. Loomis will be allowed to continue in his job throughout the offseason, including training camp and most of the preseason. Loomis’ suspension will start when NFL rosters are cut down to 53 players just before the start of the regular season.

"Seems like it would be more effective as a punishment during the draft," Sullivan said.

Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe has never been afraid to speak his mind, and on Thursday he went on ESPN 1500 radio in the Twin Cities and called for a lifetime ban of New Orleans Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma.

According to the NFL, Vilma offered $10,000 to any player who knocked Vikings quarterback Brett Favre out of the 2009 NFC Championship Game. Commissioner Roger Goodell has punished the Saints, general manager Mickey Loomis and coach Sean Payton, but he hasn't announced specific discipline for players involved in the Saints' bounty program and is awaiting a recommendation from the NFL Players Association.

"I think this is a spot," Kluwe said, "where the [NFLPA] definitely has to take a stand and say, 'Look, you put other guys' livelihoods in danger. You're jeopardizing other guys' chances to play.' Football is violent enough as it is. It's hard enough to stay healthy in the league and so by maliciously trying to hurt people they need to show, we need to show, that there's no place in the game for that kind of behavior."

Based on the Saints' abuse of Favre, Kluwe said he spoke with Vikings place-kicker Ryan Longwell during the game about the possibility of a bounty.

"But you don't want to believe that something like that is happening because you think better of the other players."

Kluwe's point is well taken, and Goodell has already surprised most observers with the harshness of his initial penalties. A lifetime ban might be unrealistic, but we've already learned our lesson about projecting Goodell's plans in this instance.

Forget the feud between Warren Sapp and Jeremy Shockey. That’s old news.

It’s time for a new chapter in the sad saga that is the fallout from the New Orleans Saints bounty program. Now, it’s Minnesota punter Chris Kluwe telling a Minnesota radio station he believes New Orleans middle linebacker Jonathan Vilma should be banned from the NFL.

"My position has always been that I think Vilma and [former New Orleans defensive coordinator] Gregg Williams should be banned for life and then [coach Sean] Payton should get a year, their GM [Mickey Loomis] should get a year and anyone who knowingly took money after a hit that injured someone should get a year as well,’’ Kluwe said.

Vilma was specifically named in the NFL’s report for putting up $10,000 of his own money to anyone who injured Minnesota quarterback Brett Favre in a Jan. 24, 2010 playoff game in New Orleans. Kluwe recalled it was obvious something out of the ordinary was going on.

"Me and [kicker] Ryan [Longwell] were kind of looking at each other on the bench going, 'Are they really going after Brett?'" Kluwe said. "Like, 'Is this really what they're doing?' But you don't want to believe that something like that is happening because you think better of the other players.

"You don't want to think that they're doing something like that. I think that was part of the thing that the league was looking at [in its investigation] was like, 'OK, we've really got to make sure that this is true because otherwise it's going to make the sport look really bad.'"

Payton has been suspended for a year and Williams has been suspended indefinitely. There has been no disciplinary action taken against Vilma yet. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is expected to first meet with representatives from the NFL Players Association before issuing any punishment for players involved.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell announced heavy penalties (suspensions, a heavy fine and the forfeiture of draft picks) against the New Orleans Saints on Wednesday. But this story is far from over.

Let’s take a look at what else might happen.

What’s left to come?

Pat Yasinskas: Disciplinary action against the players. The NFL has said anywhere from 22 to 27 players were actively involved in a three-year bounty program in which Saints’ defenders were offered financial incentives to intentionally injure opponents. The players also were involved in funding the programs. Goodell has said there will be disciplinary action against the players, but he didn’t announce it when he revealed the suspensions for coach Sean Payton, former defensive coordinator Gregg Williams, assistant head coach Joe Vitt, general manager Mickey Loomis, a $500,000 fine for the team, and the loss of second-round draft picks in 2012 and 2013.

That’s because Goodell has agreed to allow the NFL Players Association some time to complete an independent investigation into the situation. Goodell is expected to meet soon with union leader DeMaurice Smith and will listen to recommendations on penalties. The ultimate decision on that rests with Goodell, and given the severity of the punishment he already has handed out, look for the penalties against players to also be harsh.

Expect multiple suspensions and heavy fines. Goodell is intent on making sure nothing like this ever happens again. He already got the message out to coaches and administrators. But he also has to make it clear to players.

When will those penalties come?

PY: Unless Goodell and Smith meet very quickly, there probably will be a little lag time on this. The annual NFL spring meeting begins Monday in Palm Beach, Fla., and Goodell will have to travel there sometime over the weekend. Once the meeting gets started, he’ll be tied up with other matters.

The likely scenario is that an announcement will come late next week or early the following week.

Which players have the most to lose?

PY: It’s hard to say, because the NFL’s report didn’t go into a lot of specific details on players. But the one player that was singled out in the report was New Orleans middle linebacker Jonathan Vilma. The NFL said he was responsible for placing a $10,000 bounty of former Minnesota quarterback Brett Favre. That’s not going to look good when a decision on his punishment is made. It’s likely Vilma will face a multiple-game suspension, and he probably will be the player with the most severe punishment.

But it’s not likely to end with Vilma. The NFL obviously turned up a lot of details in its investigation, but held back details on specific players. Those details likely will come out when discipline for players is announced. Expect more suspensions and plenty of fines.

Will the NFL stagger the suspensions, or will they all come at the same time in the 2012 season?

PY: Keep in mind, the punishment on this one isn’t likely to be limited to just the Saints. There are former New Orleans defenders scattered about the league, and some are out of the NFL. They’re still subject to discipline. But it’s likely the Saints will have multiple defenders facing penalties. If a lot of them are facing multiple-game suspensions, the NFL might have to stagger the suspensions. You could argue the penalties already have put the Saints at a competitive disadvantage. But forcing them to play multiple games without, let’s just say for example, half their defense, would make the Saints completely non-competitive. If there are a lot of players suspended, the NFL might have to spread things out.

How will the Saints replace the suspended players?

PY: Again, much will depend on the number of players suspended. But the fact that Loomis will be allowed to work through the offseason, and begin his suspension just before the regular season opens, will give him time to put a plan in place. He’s likely to go heavy on defensive players in the draft, although the Saints won’t have a pick in the first two rounds (the first-round pick was lost last year when the Saints traded up to get Mark Ingram. The second-round choice was forfeited as part of the punishment). So the Saints might have to play some of their middle-round draft picks very early in the season.

The Saints already have added free-agent defensive tackle Brodrick Bunkley, and have had multiple free-agent linebackers in for visits. The Saints have been active in free agency throughout the Loomis/Payton era. But there’s an additional challenge this year, because the Saints are very tight against the salary cap. Part of the issue is that quarterback Drew Brees is currently carrying the franchise tag while he and the team try to work out a long-term contract. A new deal isn’t likely to free up much cap room. In fact, unless there’s some unusual structure to it, Brees’ cap figure will probably be in the $19 million range. But the Saints need to get him signed just to create some stability.

Then, there are other ways Loomis can work with the cap. There are several players who could be released to free up cap room, and several other contracts that easily could be restructured. There’s little doubt the Saints will remain players in free agency. They also could catch a bit of an in-season cap break. Once players begin suspensions, they don’t count against the cap. They’ll again count against the cap once they are reinstated, but their pro-rated salary for the games they miss won’t continue to count against the cap, because they won’t be paid for the games they miss due to suspension.