Suh Stepping
- Thread starter Greg29fan
- Start date
Stitch01 said:
It is well deserved. The Lions have all the talent in the world and no one to lead them. The fact they brought in Stonefaced Caldwell is a joke or a sign they don't actually want to handle the players they have.
Just saw that Suh will appeal the suspension. Merely a formality, since I probably have better odds of winning the lottery than he has of winning the appeal.
How stupid can you be? Your teammate is suspended for the game for stomping on an opposing player, so you know the league is watching closely, but you blatantly step on the quarterback's injured leg anyway? Unreal.
I'm glad he did it, though. I was afraid he would do that to Romo. Better Rodgers than him.
Edit-I don't think this is like baseball. The appeal will be ruled on before the game.
How stupid can you be? Your teammate is suspended for the game for stomping on an opposing player, so you know the league is watching closely, but you blatantly step on the quarterback's injured leg anyway? Unreal.
I'm glad he did it, though. I was afraid he would do that to Romo. Better Rodgers than him.
Edit-I don't think this is like baseball. The appeal will be ruled on before the game.
ivanvamp said:
The Patriots have $141 million committed to their salary cap next season. Let's assume that Revis' number will come down some as the Patriots negotiate a new contract (or something worse). They also need to re-sign McCourty. I don't see Suh coming here under those circumstances.
Devizier said:
Plus when Cleveland sends the Pats Josh Gordon, they'll have major salary cap issues [/twitter]
Bosoxen said:
Um no, I think there is a decent chance he wins the appeal since the act was not nearly as egregious as the Raiola incident and he can at least make a flimsy case that is was accidental. Also we are talking about a playoff game not a reg season game. I do wonder if the arbitrator can rule that he has to serve the suspension next season as opposed to a playoff game. That would appear to be the most logical decision.
Lastly it is entirely irrelevant that Rodgers leg was injured at the time.
There is no way in hell it was accidental. You know it. I know it. The league knows it. He can make the case all he wants, but calling it flimsy would be putting it lightly. His best case scenario is getting the suspension pushed back to next season.j44thor said:
Lastly, Rodgers' leg being injured is absolutely relevant. It's a giant flag pointing to a motive for the action. Suh has a reputation for being a dirty player, and Rodgers having missed time in the game for a leg injury will not help his defense in the slightest. Whether that's why he did it or not only he would know, but it's not irrelevant to the discussion.
Wait, why is it irrelevant? If Rodgers leg isn't hurt, Suh probably doesn't purposely step on it.j44thor said:
The most damning evidence that it was intentional was the fact that Suh didn't even glance back at what he had just stepped on, even after Rodgers punched him in the leg. If he had truly done it on accident he would have wondered why he was getting hit from behind. Not even a flinch.
j44thor said:
Sorry, nothing accidental about what he did,
He steps on Rodgers leg with his right foot, then steps on it with his left. If it was accidental, when he stepped on his leg with his right foot, the natural reaction would have been to turn around and do the "Oh gee, sorry" gesture and walk away, not to then step on the same leg with his left foot.
This guy has million dollar talent with a .05 cent head, just a total cheat shot bastard with history of chicken shit crap like this.
I don't see how it's entirely irrelevant that Rodgers leg was injured at the time; it's totally relevant, the entire point of stepping on it twice was intent to injure it further.
j44thor said:
He has no shot at winning his appeal. The reason he has no shot is that the act was especially egregious specifically because Rodgers leg was injured at the time, which implies an intent to injure. The arbitrator will not rule that he can serve his suspension next year because that would make absolutely no sense given the timing of the act and the intent.
To summarize: everything you wrote here is wrong.
I really don't get people defending Suh. It was clearly on purpose and served no purpose other than to inflict pain and attempt to injure. Mike Pereira is defending Suh on twitter, and says it isn't as bad as a hit he put on the Tampa QB a few weeks ago. They didn't show any video of that hit, but if the QB had the ball at some point before the hit then you can't really compare the two.
Suh's hit reminds me of Wade injuring Rondo a few years ago. It's a dirty play and has no place in the game.
Suh's hit reminds me of Wade injuring Rondo a few years ago. It's a dirty play and has no place in the game.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
My favorite part from this article about the Suh suspension is this:
I mean, if anyone would know, it's him, right?
I mean, if anyone would know, it's him, right?
This is the part that bugs me. Logical? Sure, let's give him a game off next year. That'll show em! Why even penalize him if you are going to do that? Far from logical.j44thor said:
And that's fine. I suspect there is a good chance that Suh's suspension will be lifted too.
This is about sending messages, one from the team the other from the NFL (to Suh), with almost indifference as to whether the discipline is upheld.
If they are seriously negotiating the lost year, it becomes very difficult to argue that this is all about the Browns screwing Josh. They brought it on themselves, but the Browns have a locker room that needs fixing.
This is about sending messages, one from the team the other from the NFL (to Suh), with almost indifference as to whether the discipline is upheld.
If they are seriously negotiating the lost year, it becomes very difficult to argue that this is all about the Browns screwing Josh. They brought it on themselves, but the Browns have a locker room that needs fixing.
dcmissle said:
I believe there is almost no chance that Suh's suspension is lifted. The cases are not similar and the appeals process is probably the least similar component.
Agree with you about the Browns locker room.
Am I wrong or did Subway drop Suh from their ad campaign and replace him with Justin Tuck? I was surprised he was even in that campaign with other *star* athletes in the first place.Bosoxen said:
I think that's a bad decision. Raiola got a 1 game suspension and even though his act could have been more damaging, if you look at the tape, it’s possible he might have been trying to jump over the guy and not contact him. But in Suh’s case, there is no question he deliberately stepped on Rodgers ankle.
It was a step not a stomp. He was looking in the other direction. I am sure he told Cotrell it was unintentional. Cotrell had no strong evidence to the contrary. Rodgers was not injured as a result. We're talking about a playoff game this weekend.
I do not like Suh. I think he is beyond fixing, so I would not want him on the Pats despite immense talent. But this was a very predictable appeal result.
I do not like Suh. I think he is beyond fixing, so I would not want him on the Pats despite immense talent. But this was a very predictable appeal result.
Apparently Suh's slate was clean due to the length of time between violations. Now he's technically a first time offender. Merton Hanks suspended him and Cottrell disagreed. Simple as that. Info per Judy Battista.
soxfan121 said:
Fuck, I knew I forgot to do something!
Seriously, what a God damn joke. Really looking forward to him stomping on Murray's left hand or Romo's back on Sunday, because, you know, he can do that and get away with it.
I'm shocked they overturned it. But I shouldn't be. The NFL is funny in a lot of ways. They protect the QB to an insane amount, where if a D lineman breathes on them they get a 15 yard penalty. And then Suh does the do si do on Rodgers' ankle and they do the opposite.
I think Suh is a punk of the highest order but seems to me that suspension was earned by reputation. Didn't look intentional or malicious to me. Even if he had eyes in the back of his head his helmet would have been covering them.
Raiola on the other hand I think got off easy with a 1 game, especially after his admitted shenanigans in the Pats game.
Raiola on the other hand I think got off easy with a 1 game, especially after his admitted shenanigans in the Pats game.
Read Judy Battista's Twitter timeline for the explanation of why he is considered a first-time offender. Facts are fun to deal with instead of hyperbole.
Does j44 get an apology now for this rather over the top response? The last line was rather prescient though.Average Reds said:
RedOctober3829 said:
It really doesn't matter to me what he's considered, honestly. I view what he did as intentional, and I think it's suspension-worthy for a first-time offense. Keep in mind he also got away with leg-whipping Schaub in the nuts a couple years ago, and I'm pretty confident that was intentional, as well.
The league didn't claim to determine intent. I think that's why the suspension was reversed on appeal. If the disciplinary officer had found intent, I suspect that finding wouldn't have been disturbed on appeal, and the suspension would have stood.BigSoxFan said: