NFL News: Browns’ Fujita Not Named in Bounty Affidavit

Cleveland Browns linebacker Scott Fujita may be one step closer to having his name cleared in the New Orleans Saints bounty-based scandal that has permeated his life for the last several months.

Per CBS Sports’ Jason La Canfora, former Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams, in a signed affidavit turned over to the NFL as it prepared for its meeting with suspended “Bountygate” players, gave a lengthy statement on the origins of the Saints’ pay-for-performance program. Fujita’s name does not appear anywhere in said affidavit.

In 2009, per the testimony, Sains defensive captains Jonathan Vilma and Will Smith “endorsed the program,” made initial contributions to the pool of funds, and would contribute additional funds as players were subject to financial penalties for penalties, missed opportunities to make a big play, and mental errors. Players then reportedly received payments for sacks, interceptions, fumbles caused, interceptions caused, and defensive touchdowns.

Fujita was suspended for three games in the initial fallout of the scandal, but has since had the punishment vacated by a three-person panel. The 33-year old played in the team’s Week 2 loss to the Cincinnati Bengals, recording four tackles. He was scheduled to meet with commissioner Roger Goodell and NFL officials on Tuesday to discuss their suspensions, but the meeting will be rescheduled.

[Related: Cleveland Browns Game 2: Winners and Losers]

  • Garry_Owen

    If the affidavit only states that the fund was used for purposes of paying for “sacks, interceptions, fumbles caused, interceptions caused, and defensive touchdowns,” and to provide recompense for “financial penalties for penalties, missed opportunities to make a big play, and mental errors,” then I have absolutely NO problem with it, whatsoever. None.
    This whole thing has focused on “pay for injuries.” Does the affidavit say anything at all about this? If not, the NFL is flat wrong, IMO.

  • mgbode

    and Gregg Williams can never coach again in the NFL. what players can trust him now that he has a signed affidavit potentially condemning some of the players. which is likely what the NFL wanted anyway.

    there are other affidavits and some are suggesting that a couple could be from players. if those come out, then I would expect harsh backlash towards them from other players (if there are player affidavits that is).

  • mgbode

    Joe Vitt and others have already mentioned publicly that there was pay for “cart-offs”

    I agree that if there was no such program in place, then the NFL should have just sent a memo to teams saying to stop any pay-for-performance pools and be done with it. However, the term “cart-off” came from players/coaches as a way of softening the term “bounty” To me, they are the same (if you are awarding a player for another player getting injured by them, then you are encouraging them to injure them).

  • Garry_Owen

    In the affidavit? That’s my question. Much is being made of this affidavit, but if there’s no mention in it of “cart-offs,” then it doesn’t prove what the NFL wants it to prove. Not that it matter, because I’m a nobody, but I’d like to see some proof of the “cart-off” provision.

  • mgbode


    Joe Vitt trying to downplay the bounty program openly discusses the cart-offs. Saying players got incentives if the player they hit were injured (but stressed that it was for legal hits). To me, once you cross the line and say if a player gets injured you get $$$, then that is a bounty.