VOR Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Well, ok, we'll see...I still haven't seen a valid reason why Marshawn Lynch should get any harsher suspension than anyone else. Again, I am condoning absolutely nothing that he did and feel that he should be punished but to the extent that it puts our team at a disadvantage that other teams would not be put at? No way. Again the closest case is Brandon Marshall and Marshawn hasn't come close to his rap sheet...Marshall got one game. Too lenient? Yes, but that's the standard that Goodell set and it will be the standard that the union holds him too. I agree. Marshall's case was one of repeated violent actions. Lynch was found with an illegal gun in his car. Not even close to the same situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heels20X6 Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Lynch is one more bad incident away from becomming the next Pacman Jones. Over-exaggerate much? Last I checked Marshawn got busted for a gun in his trunk...not for "making it rain" on strippers and then shooting up bouncers.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Well, ok, we'll see...I still haven't seen a valid reason why Marshawn Lynch should get any harsher suspension than anyone else. Again, I am condoning absolutely nothing that he did and feel that he should be punished but to the extent that it puts our team at a disadvantage that other teams would not be put at? No way. Again the closest case is Brandon Marshall and Marshawn hasn't come close to his rap sheet...Marshall got one game. Too lenient? Yes, but that's the standard that Goodell set and it will be the standard that the union holds him too. Dead on post. I don't condone anything Lynch did, but given the past precedent set by the NFL and Goodell, there's no reason for Lynch to end up with anything longer than 1 game. And even Marshall had 3 arrests prior to the single game suspension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurlyBurly51 Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Good call! When its all said and done after appeals and such, i'll be shocked if he's suspended for more than 1 game. I'm betting on no suspension. I'm with Ramius on this one...I think he skates! He didn't let Lynch slide last year. This will be lynch's first criminal offense. Last year he got off with a traffic violation, so while that may raise the eyebrows, it really doesn't count. Unless goodell wants to set the precedent that traffic violations will get you suspended. Goodell may have given him a talking to, but i dont think that was "strike one." This is strike one on marshawn, and Goodell usually doesn't hand out suspensions on strike one. A lot of you people are forgetting about a little thing called the union. Even if Goodell decides to drop the hammer down to, as many of you say, teach Lynch a lesson, the union will not let him receive any harsher of a penalty than anybody else with like convictions. Well, ok, we'll see...I still haven't seen a valid reason why Marshawn Lynch should get any harsher suspension than anyone else. Again, I am condoning absolutely nothing that he did and feel that he should be punished but to the extent that it puts our team at a disadvantage that other teams would not be put at? No way. Again the closest case is Brandon Marshall and Marshawn hasn't come close to his rap sheet...Marshall got one game. Too lenient? Yes, but that's the standard that Goodell set and it will be the standard that the union holds him too. This is proof once again why John Clayton is one of the best in the business! I said he'll get 1 game max, and i still doubt he'll get suspended. Clayton isn't exactly a beacon of truth. Anything more than 2 games would be complete bull sh--, given the previous precedent set by Goodell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Good call! I'm still standing by everything i said. He'll appeal, and it'll get knocked down some. Or did the appeal already occur this morning and lynch got denied? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurlyBurly51 Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 I'm still standing by everything i said. He'll appeal, and it'll get knocked down some. Or did the appeal already occur this morning and lynch got denied? Well, you said no suspension, and were wrong on that one. Since you hedged your call, we'll see if it gets reduced to one game - but since Goodell hears the appeal, I find that doubtful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Well, you said no suspension, and were wrong on that one. Since you hedged your call, we'll see if it gets reduced to one game - but since Goodell hears the appeal, I find that doubtful. Who heard Marshall's appeal, that got his original 3-game suspension reduced to 1 game? Someone other than Goodell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurlyBurly51 Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Who heard Marshall's appeal, that got his original 3-game suspension reduced to 1 game? Someone other than Goodell? Which doesn't change the fact he got suspended to begin with, contrary to some prognostications around here which are now being hedged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Which doesn't change the fact he got suspended to begin with, contrary to some prognostications around here which are now being hedged. Yeah, like your "with his file, 8 games at least." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurlyBurly51 Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Yeah, like your "with his file, 8 games at least." Do you have a learning disability? You don't seem to be able to comprehend what is being written about, and intertwine 2 different subjects into one. For clarification, my reply was talking about Lynch, to which you replied that Goodell also heard Marshall's appeal. I in turn brought it back to the point, which is that you among others predicted there would be no suspenssion at all (now keep up - for Lynch), which you were obviously wrong about. Then you reply with another Marshall reference? Huh? On that subject, yes I believe Marshall could be in line for an 8 game suspension, but what has that got to do with the fact you were wrong in believing Lynch would receive no suspension? Also, BTW, we live in the real world where circumstances and dynamics change from time to time, so you can't necessarily draw such a linear equation that since Marhsall did this, then Lynch should get that. Goodell reserves the right to adjust as circumstances dictate, and if the league wants to make a emphasis on gun issues, then your simplistic logic may not work so well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 Do you have a learning disability? You don't seem to be able to comprehend what is being written about, and intertwine 2 different subjects into one. For clarification, my reply was talking about Lynch, to which you replied that Goodell also heard Marshall's appeal. I in turn brought it back to the point, which is that you among others predicted there would be no suspenssion at all (now keep up - for Lynch), which you were obviously wrong about. Then you reply with another Marshall reference? Huh? On that subject, yes I believe Marshall could be in line for an 8 game suspension, but what has that got to do with the fact you were wrong in believing Lynch would receive no suspension? Also, BTW, we live in the real world where circumstances and dynamics change from time to time, so you can't necessarily draw such a linear equation that since Marhsall did this, then Lynch should get that. Goodell reserves the right to adjust as circumstances dictate, and if the league wants to make a emphasis on gun issues, then your simplistic logic may not work so well. My bad on the 8 games thing. But apparently you have a learning disability as well because I've consistently said that based on what Marshall ultimately got, Lynch would ultimately at-most serve (which means what he'll actually miss, not what suspension was initially be handed-down) a one-game suspension, and that there was an outside chance at no suspension, after appeal. I never said he would definitely not get suspended. And yes, I know about the real world, dynamics changing, yada, yada, yada. I presume that what you're getting at is that since Burress shot himself in the leg, Lynch shouldn't get his suspension reduced like Marshall did, because his latest run-in with the law involved a gun. Well I guess that means that now that Stallworth killed a man while DUI, henceforth any player caught DUI will now get an automatic suspension, right? You know, changing dynamics and all. Do you think that has a realistic chance of happening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebug Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 If Marshawn was a member of the Pats*, he would be the biggest thug the world has ever seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 If Marshawn was a member of the Pats*, he would be the biggest thug the world has ever seen. ...or he might not be suspended, at all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebug Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 ...or he might not be suspended, at all... I see your point, but I meant on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted April 11, 2009 Share Posted April 11, 2009 I see your point, but I meant on this board. Me, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts