This wasn't right either

[Forget Favre]

This whole Saint's controversy reminded me of this cruelty.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Even though it was against our big hated rivals, Da Bears, and Jim McMahon I hope that you can have enough class to agree that it was wrong.
It would be hypocritical to think what the Saints did was wrong and what Charles Martin did was right.

 

[SpartaChris]

I agree. It never makes me feel good to see our guys play dirty.

 

[Dan115]

I remember watching the game. At the time I did not have a problem with the play.

 

[weeds]

I'm with you Dan, AT THE TIME, I didn't have a problem neither...but I was just a 20-something who really didn't know birdsh*t from apple butter neither. The year before Kenny Stills dragged Matt Suehy out of bounds and helped him flip over one of the sideline benches...I don't remember which one of Gregg's players leveled Payton well out of bounds...it was a tough time to be a Packers fan...but...oddly enough, the dirty play came almost exclusively against the Bears...Ditka and McMahon. As I recall that team LOVED taunting the Packers and Ditka encouraged it and McMahon took it to a higher art form. McMahon was a piece of **** and I was not pleased that Martin would get a penalty like that...but, McMahon was a piece of ****. I just want to be clear about that...

 

[weeds]

Still, I don't think Martin got paid for busting up that piece of ****, McMahon. I think he just busted up McMahon because he was a piece of ****.

 

[Dan115]

To me it was a Packer bear game.

 

[weeds]

Very true....and...McMahon was a piece of ****.

 

[Dan115]

I played high school football in the late 60's. I do remember a coach telling me to take 19 out. I played linebacker and he moved me to DB to take this receiver out. Not to hit him dirty but hit him with a clean hard hit to put him out of the game.

 

[Powarun]

Packers made it up by making sure McMahon got a 2nd super bowl ring. Since Bears fans will argue the Packers took them out of contention.

I'm glad I haven't heard too much **** about the 1980's Packers bounty issue from Martin.

 

[PWT]

I remember watching the game. At the time I did not have a problem with the play.

Even in 1986, Packer defensive end Charles Martin was suspended two games by then NFL commissioner Pete Rozelle for bodyslaming Bear QB Jim McMahon.

Charles Martin , who admitted to having drinking problem was waived by Packers on Sept 23 1987 after fighting in a bar.

On Jan 15 ,1988 Packer head Coach Forrest Gregg resigned his Packer position to become Head coach of his alma mater- SMU .

Thus ending era when on the field and off the field incidents tarnished the Packer image.

 

[Dan115]

That was Forrest Gregg's Packers.

 

[jaybadger82]

...Different time but sorry, Jim McMahon

I'm not apologizing to Rex Grossman for my avatar, however.

 

[GWheels]

Back then that's the most exciting thing the Packers could muster up. Aside from a very few players we were a team of polished turds. Martin was wrong...McMahon was a di*k.

 

[El Guapo]

The Charles Martin situation was far from the only example from the 1950s-80s. Buddy Ryan was notorious for encouraging bounties. I think that the difference is that the NFL put it's "bounty language" into effect since those events occurred. Martin shouldn't have done it, but those are also the type of events that shaped the rivalry with the Bears.

NASCAR was facing a similar situation years ago. They really clamped down on the aggression and fights between drivers. What came of it was boring racing with no "flare" for the fans. NASCAR then moved to a "boys have at it" policy in order to re-encourage those aggressive behaviors. The point I'm making is that the NFL will public attempt to curb bounties, but I have no doubt they will do NOTHING to stop the networks from hyping up the next games between the teams involved (Saints, Vikings, Cardinals, etc.). They'll reap the benefits from their own "boys have at it" unwritten rules in the NFL.

 

[Powarun]

Anyone who is old enough to remember the Packers of the later 80's, anything else remarkable with them? Maybe the replay game, but anything else?

 

[TJV]

I remember being excited when Forrest Gregg was named HC. Lombardi called him the best player he ever coached and he led the Bengals to the Super Bowl. A Lombardi Packer who had success as an NFL HC had to succeed in Green Bay, right? His tenure as HC was the only time in my life I was embarrassed to be a Packers fan. I considered him a thug who encouraged thuggish behavior.

 

[Poppa San]

Anyone who is old enough to remember the Packers of the later 80's, anything else remarkable with them? Maybe the replay game, but anything else?

The memorex in my mind seems to remember an average team during the early - mid 80's. Several 7-8 win seasons. Always seemed to have a good 1/2 season. Either start slow and finish strong or start fast and fade away. Never seemed to get it together. Either a good offense and poor defense losing shootouts or a pathetic offense with a decent defense. The defense did play to the whistle and after with hard hits. Late 80's is when the team really was bad and the reputation of a lonely forbidden outpost took hold. Many players here for the check until they could get out after the contract. A lot of "me" in the t-e-a-m attitude. Much like the Bengals 3-5 years ago.

 

[Powarun]

Thanks, yeah I don't hear a lot of good things about the Packers before Favre.

 

[Rocky11]

That was the culture in those days. I played football in the early 70's and we were always being told to take out so and so. The NFL is evolving for sure. It used to be 3 yards and a cloud of dust but now it's drop back and get a quick touchdown. This whole culture of hurting people on purpose is winding down now. There will be so many rules that soon you won't be able to touch anyone. (that's a little extreme) It will always seem that way to us older guys. We grew up with it and it still don't seem that bad. I'm sure it will balance out some day.

 

[gwh11]

I remember being excited when Forrest Gregg was named HC. Lombardi called him the best player he ever coached and he led the Bengals to the Super Bowl. A Lombardi Packer who had success as an NFL HC had to succeed in Green Bay, right? His tenure as HC was the only time in my life I was embarrassed to be a Packers fan. I considered him a thug who encouraged thuggish behavior.

I agree. Gregg also made a few dicey personnel decisions, and was criticized when he cut certain veterans in an attempt to replace some of Starr's players with younger players that he could presumably influence more.
At one point several Packers tested positive for marijuana, and Gregg called a team meeting. According to Greg Koch, Gregg warned the players that back in the late '60s male hippies joined communes and eventually grew female breasts as a result of their pot smoking.

 

[Dan115]

Anyone who is old enough to remember the Packers of the later 80's, anything else remarkable with them? Maybe the replay game, but anything else?

The Monday night win over the skins--- 48-47. I think it was 1983.

 

[ivo610]

an extremely late hit and your coaches paying you to put a player out of a game are very different.

 

[Bogart]

All teams run the bounty program.

It bothered me that the Saints got singled out....No one cared when the Ravens admitted to it back in 2008, and like people that are coming out and defending them, it's true, all teams do it.


You know, all the talk about them trying to knock Favre out of the game, let me ask you this...

Why weren't the Vikings protecting him better?

That should be the question, instead of "they had a bounty on him, they were trying to kill him". His offensive line let him take that beating.

I don't think anyone would care about this 20 years ago. It would not have been made into a big deal. But the way the media blew this whole story up, makes the entire league look like they care more about drama than actually playing football. All the talk about them knocking Kurt Warner out, hey that was a legal hit. is Kurt Warner on ESPN *****ing about it? Nope, even he said it was a clean hit on him, and nothing wrong with it.

If you want to say they were wrong for beating on Favre like that, you better also call the 49ers dirty for beating up Eli like they did in the NFC Championship. What does that tell you when you see a defense giving a lights out beating to the quarterback like that? The last 3 NFC Championships. The Saints beat down Favre, hurt him, he came back raddled. The Packers knocked Cutler out of the game and were pass rushing him like crazy, the 49ers were desperately beating the living hell out of Eli Manning...But what does that tell you? If you ask me, it should tell you This is a team that wants to go to the Super Bowl.


But the one thing that bothered me the most was how the media was claiming no defensive player should be paid extra money for getting interceptions and fumbles. What are they supposed to do then? Just stand there and let the offense score? I guess that's why the Vikings lost. Not only did the Saints "get away with beating up Favre" but they also were paying Tracy Porter and company to get interceptions that changed the game *****. That's the defense's job!!! Why they made a big deal of them getting paid bonus money for making interceptions and fumbles is beyond me, cause I am sure all 32 teams have done that before.

 

[okcpackerfan]

That was the culture in those days. I played football in the early 70's and we were always being told to take out so and so. The NFL is evolving for sure. It used to be 3 yards and a cloud of dust but now it's drop back and get a quick touchdown. This whole culture of hurting people on purpose is winding down now. There will be so many rules that soon you won't be able to touch anyone. (that's a little extreme) It will always seem that way to us older guys. We grew up with it and it still don't seem that bad. I'm sure it will balance out some day.

Despite the fact you probably think I don't like you or you don't like me because we had disagreements in another thread (and a good amount of people on this board are overly sensitive) this post is dead on. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said balance. I believe that it will balance out eventually as well. Did you play college ball in the 70's?

 

[Forget Favre]

Wow!
I can't believe that there could be a few on here who are OK with what Martin did because it's against Jim McMahon for just being Jim McMahon.
I don't think Jim McMahon's behavior really matters.
Actions speak louder than words.
Intentionally hurting someone as Martin did is/was thousands of miles worse than anything Jim McMahon ever said about the Packers.

I'll admit that I wasn't really following the Packers at this time but I did know how Jim McMahon could be cocky and I actually thought it was a hoot.
I still get a kick out of the Bears Super Bowl Shuffle.