Jump to content

Steelers Browns: who should get suspended and how long?


Kelly the Dog

Which Players Should be Suspended?  

173 members have voted

  1. 1. After Garrett's late hit in Rudolph, who should get suspended?

  2. 2. What should the length of the suspension be for Garrett?

    • 1 game
      0
    • 3 games
    • Rest of This Season
    • Indefinite - there's no place for that
  3. 3. What should the length of the suspension be for Pouncey



Recommended Posts

Just finished watching the incident now.

 

Very entertaining.  One of the better melees I've seen on an NFL field.

 

Garrett: 5 minutes fighting; 10 min. misconduct; Gross misconduct

 

Rudolph: 2 minutes instigator; 5 minutes fighting; 10 min. misconduct; game misconduct

 

Ogunjobi: 2 minutes roughing; 10 minute misconduct

 

Pouncey: 5 minutes fighting; Gross misconduct

 

 

Edited by Nextmanup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Giuseppe Tognarelli said:

Myles Garrett should be banned for life.

 

Having said that, I have a feeling the following will be lost in the discussion: Mason Rudolph did commit the first non-football act of aggression there. Let's not pretend that didn't happen. It in no way justifies what followed, but it nonetheless occurred and should not be ignored just because Rudolph was brutalized. He should be suspended a game.

Please.

 

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

Rest of the season (six games) and the first four games next year.  Hefty fine as well.  The NFL has no choice.

That's ridiculous.

 

I'm guessing he gets a couple games.

 

 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chicken Boo said:

 

An appropriate suspension as Mcsoreley had a history.

 

I'm not saying NOT to suspend Garrett, I'm specifically talking to the fans and their selective outrage.

 

Guy flips a bat in MLB and his next at bat he gets a 90mph fastball toward his head and neck and it's just "a part of the game".  

 

I hate the double standard and I hate when fans overreact.

 

I gotta say: I agree with you.
I've watched that video several times and... I just don't see it. I don't see where the complete and total outrage comes from.

To those saying he could have killed him: I mean, he DID hit him in the head, with the leading edge of the helmet, and Rudolph was 100% fine. I'm not going to try to understand the thoughts going through Garret's mind, or his intentions, but is it possible he took some mustard off his swing so as to NOT injure him. Because a lot of the panic this morning seems to be centered on "imagine if he had hit him in the head and killed him!", and, again, he DID hit him in the head. Intentionally. With the most dangerous angle of the weapon. And Rudolph was very obviously fine.

I'm way, way, way more fascinated with the battle lines being drawn so quickly, and how the internet escalates that process. It's 2019 America at it's finest. It's the most egregious thing EVER that needs a HISTORIC suspension and NO ROOM FOR DEBATE. Every week there's a new headline to get our dopamine receptors activated, a new outrage of historic proportions that we will surely still be talking about tomorrow at lunch (we won't).

Anyways, I'm open to changing my mind on my stance, but after reading through this thread I still don't see a justification for anything more than... a 2 game ban? Maybe, MAYBE 4 because the other player was defenseless, in the sense that they were without their helmet.

 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Buffalo Junction said:

I’d like to see at least an 8 game suspension so they’re penalized next season as well. This is a situation where the league can and probably will send a message.


 

I agree - my thought is make it 8-10 regular season games and take it into next year.  If they make the post season those games do not count toward the suspension.  
 

If he misses the rest of this year and the first 2-4 games next year - then you have a bit of discipline to fall back on.

 

They also need to get the NFLPA to discuss this and actually back the attacked player rather than fight for the scum bag.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chicken Boo said:

 

An appropriate suspension as Mcsoreley had a history.

 

I'm not saying NOT to suspend Garrett, I'm specifically talking to the fans and their selective outrage.

 

Guy flips a bat in MLB and his next at bat he gets a 90mph fastball toward his head and neck and it's just "a part of the game".  

 

I hate the double standard and I hate when fans overreact.

You're one of the few posters in this thread making sense.

 

I find the level of "outrage" at this ultimately meaningless incident as really bizarre and kind of humorous.

 

These guys are out here destroying their bodies an turning themselves into brainless zombies all the time, whether you notice it or not.  A little scrap like this is almost harmless in comparison to a 10 year career, just from the brain trauma aspect of it, let alone the abuse to joints, organs, and everything else.

 

 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, JohnnyGold said:

 

I gotta say: I agree with you.
I've watched that video several times and... I just don't see it. I don't see where the complete and total outrage comes from.

To those saying he could have killed him: I mean, he DID hit him in the head, with the leading edge of the helmet, and Rudolph was 100% fine. I'm not going to try to understand the thoughts going through Garret's mind, or his intentions, but is it possible he took some mustard off his swing so as to NOT injure him. Because a lot of the panic this morning seems to be centered on "imagine if he had hit him in the head and killed him!", and, again, he DID hit him in the head. Intentionally. With the most dangerous angle of the weapon. And Rudolph was very obviously fine.

I'm way, way, way more fascinated with the battle lines being drawn so quickly, and how the internet escalates that process. It's 2019 America at it's finest. It's the most egregious thing EVER that needs a HISTORIC suspension and NO ROOM FOR DEBATE. Every week there's a new headline to get our dopamine receptors activated, a new outrage of historic proportions that we will surely still be talking about tomorrow at lunch (we won't).

Anyways, I'm open to changing my mind on my stance, but after reading through this thread I still don't see a justification for anything more than... a 2 game ban? Maybe, MAYBE 4 because the other player was defenseless, in the sense that they were without their helmet.

 

Then we have people like yourself who exaggerate the amount of people that actually get hyped up over twits teeeting on Twitter. 

 

It’s out of a damn movie script, ripping off someone’s helmet then smashing them in the head with it. There is no place for that in the game at any level. I don’t need the media to tell me that. He should be suspended for a long time.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, JohnnyGold said:

 

I gotta say: I agree with you.
I've watched that video several times and... I just don't see it. I don't see where the complete and total outrage comes from.

To those saying he could have killed him: I mean, he DID hit him in the head, with the leading edge of the helmet, and Rudolph was 100% fine. I'm not going to try to understand the thoughts going through Garret's mind, or his intentions, but is it possible he took some mustard off his swing so as to NOT injure him. Because a lot of the panic this morning seems to be centered on "imagine if he had hit him in the head and killed him!", and, again, he DID hit him in the head. Intentionally. With the most dangerous angle of the weapon. And Rudolph was very obviously fine.

I'm way, way, way more fascinated with the battle lines being drawn so quickly, and how the internet escalates that process. It's 2019 America at it's finest. It's the most egregious thing EVER that needs a HISTORIC suspension and NO ROOM FOR DEBATE. Every week there's a new headline to get our dopamine receptors activated, a new outrage of historic proportions that we will surely still be talking about tomorrow at lunch (we won't).

Anyways, I'm open to changing my mind on my stance, but after reading through this thread I still don't see a justification for anything more than... a 2 game ban? Maybe, MAYBE 4 because the other player was defenseless, in the sense that they were without their helmet.

 

The NFL dished out large sums of money to settle concussion lawsuit with former players.  They've made major rule changes to avoid plays that increase the likelihood of a concussion.  A player took off an opposing player's helmet and struck him in the head with it.  If you think the penalty is only a few games suspension you're not that bright.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he gets 4 games. This is on the same level as Haynesworth raking his cleat across a guy's exposed head. 

 

On a side note, the rematch in a little over two weeks should be fun to watch. 

Edited by H2o
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said:

The NFL is so bizarre and unpredictable with stuff like this.

 

I am going to say four games. It should be the rest of the season. They will screw it up some way. There is zero excuse for it, and it really could have injured Rudolph badly.

 

What say you?

Should be the rest of the year, probably be 4 games.  That said I like the fact Mayfield called Garrett out for acting that way. About time someone in that organization at least tried a t like a leader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...