|
Post by Morkim on Dec 30, 2014 11:17:29 GMT -5
I think you may be wearing silver-and-blue-colored glasses. There is no way, no how, that he didn't know after the first step that he was on Rodgers, and then he steps back again, putting 300 pounds of pressure onto the guy's ankle? Bullshit. He knew exactly what he was doing. So he didn't stomp on Rodgers. So what? He's done it before, he tried to do it again, and I hope he loses his appeal, not because I have any special investment in seeing the Lions lose, but because it's a BS, unsportsmanlike move that doesn't belong in a game. He got caught, and he has a history of it. Fourth repetition of similar crap? Sorry, buddy, have a seat on the bench. Spare me the "He's been a nice guy since the last time" line. Guys go their entire careers without pulling shit like this even once. A serial killer who hasn't killed in the last 3 years is still a serial killer. The stomp was pretty obvious. The first step looked like an accident--- but the second was definitely purposeful. I can understand why-- in the heat of the moment-- he did it. Rodgers was carted into the locker room after crumpling into a heap on the field. Flynn comes in and the Lions tie the score. Third quarter-- Rodgers is back and the Pack are now up by 7. Lions can't get a sack on him to save their life. The NFC North championship, first round bye, and home field are on the line. Oh-- and the Lions haven't won at Lambeau in over 20 years. All Suh needed to do was apply a little pressure, we go back to Flynn, and the Lions have a slim chance of winning. Imagine the uproar, if that actually would have happened. One, it wasn't on his ankle. It was his calf area. Second the whole "if he'd actually tried to hurt him we could have been in trouble" makes it feel like to me it wasn't that intentional. I mean, if it was, why would he settle for pissing off Rodgers and not actually hurt the guy?
|
|
|
Post by gobolts25 on Dec 31, 2014 4:37:06 GMT -5
The stomp was pretty obvious. The first step looked like an accident--- but the second was definitely purposeful. I can understand why-- in the heat of the moment-- he did it. Rodgers was carted into the locker room after crumpling into a heap on the field. Flynn comes in and the Lions tie the score. Third quarter-- Rodgers is back and the Pack are now up by 7. Lions can't get a sack on him to save their life. The NFC North championship, first round bye, and home field are on the line. Oh-- and the Lions haven't won at Lambeau in over 20 years. All Suh needed to do was apply a little pressure, we go back to Flynn, and the Lions have a slim chance of winning. Imagine the uproar, if that actually would have happened. One, it wasn't on his ankle. It was his calf area. Second the whole "if he'd actually tried to hurt him we could have been in trouble" makes it feel like to me it wasn't that intentional. I mean, if it was, why would he settle for pissing off Rodgers and not actually hurt the guy? Actually, it was on his ankle. Watch the replay. Suh's foot is entirely on Rodgers' black semi-hightop shoes that barely reach above his ankle. Then he stops and lifts his other foot off the ground instead of shifting his weight to that foot, which I know for a fact is a natural reaction to stepping on something. Maybe he figured...if I can do something that's borderline I'll get away with a small fine and maybe hurt Rodgers enough that he'll have to come out. 300 pounds of pressure, even momentarily, is enough to cause damage. Really sick of these talking heads babbling about how they'd have to have 'absolute proof' of his intent to suspend him. Last I looked, unless you're psychic, that ain't happenin', and Suh sure as hell isn't going to admit it. He got away with it is the bottom line. And THAT is bullshit. Thanks, PC NFL.
|
|
inoccent
NFL Starter
Die Hard Lions Fan or Idiot #1 if you prefer
Posts: 1,751
|
Post by inoccent on Dec 31, 2014 7:21:58 GMT -5
"The repeat offender policy has been modified for 2014 in terms of what a player must do in order to be removed from the 'repeat offender' category. Specifically, any player who violates a safety-related rule will be considered a potential repeat offender and will be treated as such should he commit a further violation during a subsequent period of 32 consecutive games. After that period, the player will no longer be considered a potential repeat offender and will be subject to discipline as a first-time offender should he commit an additional violation. For the purposes of calculating the 32-game period, preseason, regular season, and post-season games will be counted; however, only two of the 32 games can be preseason games."
|
|
Miss Lacy
NFL Draft pick
Professor
In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back.
Posts: 1,242
|
Post by Miss Lacy on Jan 1, 2015 11:27:07 GMT -5
SOURCEIn a letter to Suh explaining the decision to allow Suh to play on Sunday but fine him $70,000, a copy of which PFT has obtained, Ted Cottrell makes clear that he believes Suh knew he was standing on Rodgers’s leg.Romo better watch his back.
|
|
|
Post by Jindred on Jan 1, 2015 13:26:30 GMT -5
I just realized there is a pun here and I am incredibly sad it wasn't used.. Should have been Suh-spended.. I am disappointed in you for missing that inoccent!
|
|
inoccent
NFL Starter
Die Hard Lions Fan or Idiot #1 if you prefer
Posts: 1,751
|
Post by inoccent on Jan 1, 2015 15:03:50 GMT -5
I just realized there is a pun here and I am incredibly sad it wasn't used.. Should have been Suh-spended.. I am disappointed in you for missing that inoccent! Suh isn't Suh-spended so now the Lions are going to the Suh-per Bowl
|
|
|
Post by Jindred on Jan 1, 2015 16:16:31 GMT -5
I just realized there is a pun here and I am incredibly sad it wasn't used.. Should have been Suh-spended.. I am disappointed in you for missing that inoccent! Suh isn't Suh-spended so now the Lions are going to the Suh-per Bowl Adding the second pun you have instantly made up for your lack of the original well done sir!
|
|
inoccent
NFL Starter
Die Hard Lions Fan or Idiot #1 if you prefer
Posts: 1,751
|
Post by inoccent on Jan 1, 2015 18:26:16 GMT -5
Suh isn't Suh-spended so now the Lions are going to the Suh-per Bowl Adding the second pun you have instantly made up for your lack of the original well done sir! *takes a bow* thank you, thank you
|
|
|
Post by mitch9234 on Jan 1, 2015 18:28:40 GMT -5
Suh isn't Suh-spended so now the Lions are going to the Suh-per Bowl Adding the second pun you have instantly made up for your lack of the original well done sir! I agree, cause it would have Suh-cked
|
|