BeastMode54 Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 do you agree? He says it will be a major upset to get it reduced. I just don't understand how Marshall could get his reduced to 1 but Lynch has to stay at 3. http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/The+W...9/afc051709.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 3 seems right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanInUticaTampa Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 i am not a fan of that site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nonsense - it will be reduced to one game, or possibly to just a stern warning, because Lynch already said he's really sorry and that he won't do it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Doug Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 I don't understand why it would get reduced. In the eyes of the NFL, he is a repeat offender. It doesn't matter if he's guilty of not, his name is in the news as an NFL player who was arrested. That's the real problem here. The NFL frowns upon this type of publicity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Doug Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Lynch already said he's really sorry and that he won't do it again. Well, in that case... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamRoller67 Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 I don't understand why it would get reduced. In the eyes of the NFL, he is a repeat offender. It doesn't matter if he's guilty of not, his name is in the news as an NFL player who was arrested. That's the real problem here. The NFL frowns upon this type of publicity. Brandon Marshall was a repeat offender as well. The precedence has been set. It will be reduced to 1 to 2 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Cold Bruschi Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 I don't really care if it gets reduced as long as he still misses the monday nighter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeastMode54 Posted May 18, 2009 Author Share Posted May 18, 2009 I don't understand why it would get reduced. In the eyes of the NFL, he is a repeat offender. It doesn't matter if he's guilty of not, his name is in the news as an NFL player who was arrested. That's the real problem here. The NFL frowns upon this type of publicity. True, but then how do you explain Brandon Marshall. You need to be consistent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Brandon Marshall was a repeat offender as well. The precedence has been set.It will be reduced to 1 to 2 games. The precedent was set, and then Marshall screwed up again. Bad luck for Lynch and all who follow. I doubt Goodell would go any lower than two games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 I don't really care if it gets reduced as long as he still misses the monday nighter Why? Because you didn't see enough of Fred Jackson (26 carries, 134 yards) against the Cheatriettes* in December? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 The precedent was set, and then Marshall screwed up again. What has the Commish done to Marshall after screwing-up again? Nothing. Yeah, that's some consistency. And Jared Allen had his suspension reduced from 4 games to 2 at the beginning of 2007, and hasn't had a problem since. So that excuse (i.e. that it didn't work with Marshall and thus won't work for anyone) doesn't wash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellDressed Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 I still don't understand why it was an odd number of games?? Most plyers get 2, 4, 8 or 10........but lets screw Lynch.....give 'em 3!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellDressed Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 I don't really care if it gets reduced as long as he still misses the monday nighter It's nice that you pats* folks are weary of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dog14787 Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Nonsense - it will be reduced to one game, or possibly to just a stern warning, because Lynch already said he's really sorry and that he won't do it again. but I don't think he said it though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 3 seems right To me, 2 seems like the right number. But, 1, 2 or 3...it's hard for me to quibble with these differences. Like Pisa's contract with the Bills, maybe it isn't perfect, but it is close enough for me to keep quiet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 To think that missing 3 games will definitely teach Lynch a lesson, while a 1 game suspension won't, is funny. I'd even submit that a 1 game suspension won't really teach him anything, and he either got it or he didn't when he was nailed with a misdemeanor and given probation. And look for the personal conduct policy to die after this season, never to be seen again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 To think that missing 3 games will definitely teach Lynch a lesson, while a 1 game suspension won't, is funny. I'd even submit that a 1 game suspension won't really teach him anything, and he either got it or he didn't when he was nailed with a misdemeanor and given probation. And look for the personal conduct policy to die after this season, never to be seen again. Are you serious? It's the keystone of Goodell's legacy, and the players are on board. http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=67753 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Are you serious? It's the keystone of Goodell's legacy, and the players are on board.http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=67753 Check that, the players were on board. They agreed to it as a bargaining chip for getting 5% more in total revenue from the owners. Now that the owners will be demanding more money back from the players, don't look for the players to agree to continue a policy that takes more money from their pockets. And Goodell can take his legacy and... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 They absolutely did NOT agree to it as a bargaining chip. In fact, some of the players wanted to include even harsher punishment, including a three-strikes-and-you're out provision: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7031402709.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts