ESPN NFL

Yes, the start of training camps is two months away, but it’s never too early to consider the coming season. A look at the best-case and worst-case scenarios for the Saints in 2012.

Dream scenario (13-3): The ending of this dream is simple. It ends exactly where it starts -- in the Mercedes-Benz Superdome. That’s the site of this season’s Super Bowl and there’s no sweeter vision in the eyes of Saints’ fans than watching their team win the NFL’s biggest spectacle at home. If revenge is sweet, this would be 1,000 times sweeter.

New Orleans fans and players are mad about how severely the NFL punished the Saints for their bounty program. They would love it if Roger Goodell hands the Saints the Lombardi Trophy in their own building.

It actually could happen. Think about it: Other than suspended coach Sean Payton, the Saints really haven’t lost that much from a team that went 13-3 last season. Linebacker Jonathan Vilma also is suspended for the entire season, but Vilma’s age (30) started to show last year. The Saints are better off with Curtis Lofton at middle linebacker. The Saints also will have to get through the first four games without suspended defensive end Will Smith.

But, other than that, this team remains loaded with talent. Drew Brees and the offense always will put up a bunch of points. If new coordinator Steve Spagnuolo can make the defense better, the Saints easily are a playoff team. They’ll be motivated by an us-against-the-world mentality, so anything is at least possible.

Nightmare scenario (6-10): It’s easy to say Payton had a great system in place and a veteran team, so the assistants can just run the show and it will be business as usual. I tend to agree with that theory. But what if the importance of a head coach is even greater than we realized? And what if the emotional weight of the most turbulent offseason in NFL history catches up to the Saints?

That’s when all bets are off and when things could start falling apart. Since winning the Super Bowl in the 2009 season, the defense hasn’t been very good. The greatness of the offense has been enough to carry the Saints to the playoffs the past two seasons, but it hasn’t been great enough to carry them deep into the postseason. There’s no doubting Spagnuolo has a good defensive mind, but he might not have all the personnel he needs to run his scheme successfully.

Well, the easy thing to say is the offense will carry this team no matter what. But even if Payton wasn’t suspended, it’s hard to imagine the offense being even more productive than last season. Take Brees and the offense back down to what they were in 2007 and ’08, give New Orleans a defense that’s no better than last year and the Saints could tumble to a middle-of-the-pack team.

James Harrison doesn't always criticize NFL commissioner Roger Goodell in a tasteful manner, but you have to give the Steelers linebacker some credit for standing up to him again and again.

Other players would have gone silent after receiving more than $100,000 in fines from the NFL and becoming the first player suspended under the league's stricter guidelines for player safety. Not Harrison. He goes after Goodell harder than he does Joe Flacco.

Harrison doesn't take shots at Goodell simply out of bitterness. His beef is with Goodell's power, which goes unchecked in certain situations.

That's why Harrison is applauding Jonathan Vilma's defamation lawsuit against Goodell. "It is really a win-win, whether he wins the case or if he loses it," Harrison said Wednesday. "If he loses it, it shows that Goodell does have too much power and if he wins it, it opens up the floodgates."

You can dislike Harrison for his controversial hits. You can think Harrison is disrespectful and crossed the line with Goodell last year when he said, "If that man was on fire and I had to piss to put him out, I wouldn't do it. I hate him and will never respect him."

Still, you have to be impressed how Harrison doesn't care that he puts a bigger target on his back every time he speaks out like this. He's been fined. He's been suspended. But Harrison won't be muted when it comes to Goodell.

It appears as if NFL commissioner Roger Goodell might not be done punishing New Orleans.

Goodell said at Tuesday’s league meeting in Atlanta that New Orleans, along with Honolulu, is a candidate to host this season’s Pro Bowl. New Orleans already is the site for this season’s Super Bowl.

In the distant past, I would have said getting the Pro Bowl would be a wonderful thing for New Orleans. But, have you watched the Pro Bowl in recent years, particularly this past season?

If you did, you saw a game in which offensive and defensive linemen barely touched each other and a stadium filled with fans in Hawaii booed an obvious lack of effort. The Pro Bowl has outlived its usefulness and the NFL knows it.

The game used to be played the week after the Super Bowl. In an attempt to make it more relevant, the NFL moved it to the week before the Super Bowl. That didn’t help and it might have made things even worse because Super Bowl participants can’t play in the Pro Bowl.

There even has been some talk about simply doing away with the Pro Bowl. The league still is having discussions about what to do with the Pro Bowl and nothing has been resolved.

“If we can’t improve it and can’t make it more competitive, then we shouldn’t play,” Goodell said.

I vote for scrapping the Pro Bowl. I don’t see how the league can improve it or make it more competitive. Players don’t want to risk injury after their season is over. The product is unwatchable.

But Goodell said, if a Pro Bowl is held this season, it will be held either in New Orleans or Honolulu.

Is that really necessary? I say no. I say Pro Bowl teams still should be elected. Hold some sort of ceremony in New Orleans the week of the Super Bowl to honor the Pro Bowlers. But there’s no sense playing a game players and fans don’t care about.

Rules changes in the NFL will make thigh and knee pads mandatory for all players, and Herm and Marcellus know the players won't be happy about it; new Bucs head coach Greg Schiano talks about changing the culture in Tampa.

Don’t look for quick rulings on the appeals of the suspensions of New Orleans linebacker Jonathan Vilma and defensive end Will Smith.

Wrapping up an owners meeting in Atlanta, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said he will not rule on the appeals until after grievances filed by the NFL Players Association have been resolved. One grievance previously was heard by an arbitrator, but not ruling has been issued. Another grievance is scheduled to be heard by a system arbitrator May 30. Goodell also said he can foresee a release of evidence in the Saints’ bounty scandal after the appeals process is over.

Goodell declined comment on a defamation lawsuit filed by Vilma.

Goodell said he knows a lot of fans are unhappy with the suspensions he’s handed out to players, coaches and Saints general manager Mickey Loomis. Appeals for Loomis and the coaches already have been heard and their suspensions have been upheld. But Goodell said he’s looking forward to meeting with the players during the appeals process.

“That’s what the appeals process is for,’’ Goodell said. “You want to hear what the players have to say. When we get to the appeals, we’ll be able to talk about it and we’ll be able to hear from one another.’’

Welcome to Courtroom Football, the sequel. Following the 2011 version, “The Lockout,” we now have the 2012 version, “The Bounties.”

Following NFL commissioner Roger Goodell’s suspensions of Saints head coach Sean Payton and general manager Mickey Loomis, which went (relatively) smoothly, Goodell’s player suspensions haven't been received quietly.

The NFLPA first filed two grievances -- one heard Wednesday, one to be heard on May 30 -- advancing different legal theories to remove jurisdiction from Goodell. Now Jonathan Vilma has raised the stakes with a defamation lawsuit against Goodell. Seeking to clear his name and reputation -- and perhaps pick up monetary damages along the way -- Vilma has filed in his “home court” in the Eastern District of Louisiana, requesting a jury trial in front of likely Saints fans.

The suit advances two basic arguments:

Defamatory statements

The comments at issue are 1) a March 2 memo and March 21 release, both alleging Vilma had offered $10,000 to any player who knocked Brett Favre out of the NFC Championship Game in 2010, and 2) a May 2 release alleging Vilma assisted Gregg Williams in establishing and funding the bounty program, and that Vilma had personally placed a bounty on Kurt Warner and Favre.

Vilma argues, as he has tweeted publicly, that he neither established a bounty program nor contributed any funds to such an enterprise.

Vilma argues Goodell’s statements are false and injurious to Vilma’s professional and personal reputation, a reputation tarnished to the public, to NFL clubs, and to future potential employers outside the NFL.

Need for evidence

Vilma argues that Goodell has not revealed any direct evidence demonstrating the Saints bounty program existed, relying on “at best, hearsay, circumstantial evidence and lies." This merges with the NFLPA’s repeated requests for more detailed and specific evidence.

With Goodell having negotiated -- through the collective bargaining agreement -- the continuing right to be the ultimate arbiter on player conduct, the NFLPA has no ability to go inside Goodell’s decision-making process. Now that Vilma has taken this out of the realm of the personal conduct policy into court, the NFLPA hopes that -- through Vilma -- this will provide them the evidence they have been requesting.

NFL response

Goodell’s lawyers -- and there is quite a roster -- will immediately try to have the case dismissed, arguing Vilma's claims are “pre-empted, ” as disputes between players and the commissioner are expressly governed by the CBA.

In the event the case is not dismissed, Goodell will argue that Vilma, as a well-known NFL player, is a "public figure" thus required to show "actual malice" and knowingly false statements by Goodell, a high standard of proof.

My sense is that the NFL’s concern here is less with the merits of the defamation suit and more with the discovery phase of the trial, if it gets to that, where Goodell would have to disclose sensitive information that he has been unwilling to share with the NFLPA or the public to this point.

Where there is a lot of money at stake, and there is here, there will be lawyers and lawsuits. Welcome to the return of Courtroom Football. Stay tuned.

New Orleans Saints fans, who have been screaming for the NFL to produce more evidence in the bounty scandal, just might get their wish.

Linebacker Jonathan Vilma has filed a defamation lawsuit against NFL commissioner Roger Goodell. The suit claims Goodell made false statements about Vilma while discussing the league’s investigation of the bounty system. Vilma has drawn the harshest punishment of any player, drawing a suspension for the 2012 season. The league has identified Vilma as a leader of the bounty program and said he put up money as an incentive for Saints defenders to injure opponents.

Vilma has repeatedly denied those allegations and he did it again Thursday on his Twitter account.

"As I've said before..I NEVER PAID, NOR INTENDED TO PAY ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY,TO ANY PLAYER FOR INTENTIONALLY HURTING AN OPPONENT. "Maybe this will get some people(‘s) attention."

Vilma already has appealed the suspension to Goodell and the NFL Players Association has filed grievances on behalf of Vilma and the three other suspended players. But the lawsuit against Goodell ups the stakes.

It may take the ball out of the NFL’s court. When Goodell was playing judge and jury, the NFL only revealed the evidence it wanted to. In a court of law, the NFL could be forced to reveal all of its evidence and where it came from.

The lawsuit asks for unspecified legal damages, but I don’t think Vilma is simply looking for money. I think he’s trying to clear his name and resume his career. Vilma is the only person to take to the legal system so far, but I wouldn’t be surprised if any of the coaches, administrators or other players who have been punished or named in the investigation follow his lead.

Chad Ochocinco is known to be different. When everyone goes right, Ochocinco usually goes far to the left.

That is why it's no surprise that Ochocinco showed his sincere and heartfelt support for NFL commissioner Roger Goodell on Friday. The New England Patriots receiver is one of the few players -- at least publicly -- who backs Goodell 100 percent after a rough year that included a lengthy lockout, increased fines, the bounty scandal and high-profile deaths that may be linked to football-related injuries.

The NFL is booming. But this is an unprecedented time of dissension between current and former players and the league office. The league is facing various lawsuits. Goodell also is tweaking the game -- some believe too much -- in the name of safety. Many players disagree with his methods or motives, or both.

Ochocinco addresses many of those issues in his letter to Goodell, whom Ochocinco refers to as a father figure.

"You are in one big [expletive] catch-22 and quite frankly, I am not sure there is any solution," Ochocinco wrote. "One thing I think can help is killing the NFL PR machine."

Goodell is stern, corporate and to the point. Ochocinco is boisterous and playful. Yet the two always got along, despite several fines Ochocinco has received over the years.

Do not expect many players to follow Ochocinco and write emotional letters in support of Goodell. Right or wrong, Ochocinco is on an island when it comes to player support of Goodell.

Perhaps the end of Ochocinco's letter was most pertinent for Patriots fans. According to Ochocinco, he will have a bounce-back year and plans to do a lot of touchdown celebrations in 2012. Ochocinco scored just one touchdown all last year.

As you've probably heard by now, the NFL Players Association has taken its first steps toward appealing the bounty-related suspensions of Green Bay Packers defensive lineman Anthony Hargrove and three other current and former New Orleans Saints players. As ESPN's Andrew Brandt points out, the crux of the NFLPA's efforts are to circumvent NFL commissioner Roger Goodell as the point man of the appeal and put it in the hands of independent arbitrators.

Instead of Goodell, the NFLPA wants longtime arbitrator Stephen Burbank to adjudicate the appeal.

Be sure to check out the news story linked above or Brandt's "SportsCenter" appearance in the video if you're interested in the details of the proceedings. But the bottom line is that Hargrove's eight-game suspension won't be final until the appeal process is complete, and that could take some time.

The question of what happens in the meantime isn't yet relevant for Hargrove. The terms of his punishment state that he can continue to participate in the Packers' offseason program, organized team activities (OTAs), minicamp, training camp and even preseason games. His suspension wouldn't begin until Week 1 of the regular season. So he has four months of flexibility before the timing of the appeals process becomes an issue.

Earlier: Hargrove said in a declaration to the NFL that he was instructed to lie about the Saints' bounty program during a 2010 investigation. That lie is the primary reason Hargrove received the second-longest suspension among the four players who were punished.

Appeals of player suspensions in the New Orleans Saints’ bounty program haven’t been filed yet, but the NFL Players Association has gone ahead and started the legal ball rolling.

The union filed a grievance with the NFL’s vice president of labor arbitration and litigation, Buckley Brooks. The NFLPA also has asked for system arbitration.

The filings claim that the punishments “violated the (league’s) duty of fairness to the players.” The union also claims various procedural requirements of the collective-bargaining agreement were violated, including the limits of NFL commissioner Roger Goodell’s authority, and a failure to disclose sufficient evidence.

The league has said all along that the ultimate decision on any discipline rested with Goodell.

The union also claims that a big chunk of the three-year bounty program doesn’t even qualify for discipline. The union says that part of the collective-bargaining agreement, signed last summer, stipulated that the league agreed to overlook any conduct matters from prior to the agreement.

Much of the specific evidence cited in the announcement of the punishments was related to games in the playoffs at the end of the 2009 Super Bowl season.

New Orleans linebacker Jonathan Vilma has been suspended for the entire 2012 season, and linebacker Will Smith will be suspended for the first four games. Former New Orleans defensive tackle Anthony Hargrove, now with Green Bay, drew an eight-game suspension, and linebacker Scott Fujita, now with Cleveland, will be suspended for the first three games.

The gap between the New Orleans Saints' savagely stated intentions and their on-field actions provides an opening to question the punishment handed down by commissioner Roger Goodell.

Jonathan Vilma's season-long suspension for helping to establish and fund the program carries particular interest in the NFC West.

"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," the NFL announced in meting out the punishment.

Saints defensive end Bobby McCray did knock Warner from the game for a time with a crushing hit following an interception, but Warner himself feels as though the Saints did not cross a line with their actions that day.

Warner's comments to Burns & Gambo on Arizona Sports 620 made clear his feelings:

"I could have been seriously hurt every time I stepped on that football field. There is no question that players went out to hurt me and knock me out of games many times throughout my career, whether or not there was a $10,000 bounty on me. Again, I look at it and say, 'Did somebody hit me harder in that situation because the bounty was there?' I don't know. I don't believe so. I believe that was a situation [on the McCray hit] that was set up perfectly for any defensive player, and any defensive player would have taken it. And it was a clean hit and it was a bigger man hitting a smaller man who wasn't prepared for it. And i got crushed.

"I would be mad if someone took a shot at me that was outside the rules of engagement to try to hurt me. If i got hurt because of that, then I would be extremely angry and to me that would cross way over that line.

"I believe that there have been defensive linemen in the locker room many a times say, 'Hey, the first one to knock Kurt out of the game, I'm buying dinner or I'm doing this after the game or whatever. I believe that stuff has gone on for years and years and years. And it wasn't the intention of taking a cheap shot. It was the intention of giving their team a benefit from knocking out a good player on the other team. No doubt in my mind, that that has gone on for years.

"There have been games where I felt like, 'They're really just trying to take me out of this game. They're going a little above and beyond.' I didn't feel that in that playoff game against the Saints. I felt it was a good, hard, competitive football game where the hits on me were clean."

While Goodell is punishing the Saints specifically, he's attacking the bounty mind-set in general. Punishing Vilma and the Saints so harshly may or may not be fair to them. The NFL culture is the broader target.

Vilma and the Saints aren't being punished this week for the hits they put on Warner. League officials already reviewed those hits after the game as a matter of course. The punishment attacks the intentions and makes it easier for the NFL to counter in court allegations it hasn't taken player safety seriously enough.

Note: The video above features discussion on the punishment for Vilma and other players. Warner did not participate in that discussion.

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.”