As of 4PM (EST) Tuesday, Profootballtalk.com has not updated its story from yesterday on the Packer “bounty” non-scandal. We sent this email:
Are you guys going to update the post below, as your “stay tuned” coda suggests? We’re particularly interested in the line in which you erroneously, and in our view irresponsibly, suggest that Adrian Peterson’s injury might have come as a result of these alleged financial incentives between Packer teammates. “But to the extent that limiting a player’s production can be satisfied in part by, for example,
tearing the player’s LCL, it’s probably not a good idea for incentives of this nature to be dangled in
front of NFL players.”
As the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel’s Greg Bedard has pointed out, the incentives were to have been paid
from defensive backs to defensive lineman. Cornerback Al Harris is the one who hit Peterson on the play in
question. Therefore, if the motive was in fact financial — a silly proposition given that the $500
total is a rounding error for Harris and his accountants — Harris would have had incentive NOT to
We’ll be happy to post your answer for our very interested readers at Packergeeks.com.
A quick note on why we’re pursuing this. First, the original story zipped around the internet and even made traditional news websites like ESPN and CNN. The use of the word “bounty” in the context of prohibited (but relatively harmless) side wagers between teammates, has led to irresponsible conjecture about motives of Packer players — speculation like that found at PFT.
For those of you not famililar with the site, Profootballtalk.com is a very powerful blog covering the NFL. NFL beat writers check in several times a day to see what rumors and gossip are floating around locker rooms and board rooms across the league. How powerful? The league’s television network, NFL Network, advertises on the website. The PFT guys are often very funny and almost always very irreverent. And to their credit, the PFT guys call the newsy part of their website the “rumor mill” and poke fun of themselves as “internet hacks.”
But sometimes they try to make scandals out of nothing. (See their string about Shawne Merriman yesterday for another example.) And when someone who is forced to answer questions first raised on PFT (as Colts President Bill Polian had to do recently) refers obliquely to disreputable websites, they object strenuously. As with many blogs, when they’re good, they’re very good. But when they’re bad, they’re awful. And this is clearly a case of the latter.