darin3 Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 He won the appeal, the NFL was wrong. They overreached trying to send a message, and failed. He gets to play and that is all that matters. You really are dense, guy. I mean really, really dense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 I think in typical NFL fashion the NFL only considered what they wanted to accomplish. What they have always wanted to accomplish was higher ratings and accumulation of wealth - they don't give a rat's ass about the health and welfare of the players. The only time there is consideration given to the health and welfare of the players is when they perceive there might be a negative impact to their ratings and/or accumulation of wealth. Then the reaction is to protect ratings and/or wealth -NOT- to protect the health and welfare of the players. The whole concussion thing is a perfect example of this. Never does the health and welfare of the players enter into the equation unless it is a factor in the retention of ratings and in the accumulation of wealth. Whenever we see the NFL levy a punishment against any player, the punishment isn't intended to modify that player's behavior it is intended to mollify the media/public. The NFL wants high profile players to play in high profile games, like playoff games. Player punishments/fines/suspensions only exist to give the NFL the appearance that they care about the health and welfare of the players. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTSuper7 Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 (edited) You really are dense, guy. I mean really, really dense. Why is he "really, really dense"? Because he doesn't share your opinion? Take a look at the NFL's history with suspensions and you'll see an alarming trend under Goodell. Suspending players used to be a really big deal. Take a look at this list and take a guess when Goodell took over as commissioner: http://en.wikipedia....Football_League I'm not saying that there shouldn't be suspensions when warranted, but you can hardly take a piss in the locker room without fear of getting fined for not washing your hands long enough afterward. ETA: This is what it took to earn a 2-game suspension in 1986 (skip to 47s to see the replay): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wilIF30NLRU. What would Charles Martin have gotten in today's NFL for that hit? Edited December 31, 2014 by MTSuper7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Why is he "really, really dense"? Because he doesn't share your opinion? Take a look at the NFL's history with suspensions and you'll see an alarming trend under Goodell. Suspending players used to be a really big deal. Take a look at this list and take a guess when Goodell took over as commissioner: http://en.wikipedia....Football_League I'm not saying that there shouldn't be suspensions when warranted, but you can hardly take a piss in the locker room without fear of getting fined for not washing your hands long enough afterward. I stand corrected, to a certain degree... The NFL's new policy, as of this year, gives "repeat offenders" a reprieve. Basically they are given a "clean slate" after 32 consecutive games without an "infraction". This includes 2 preseason games, regular-season games and playoffs. Coincidentally, Suh's slate was wiped clean AFTER Week 15. How curious. Steve-o has a history of being on the dense side. The fact he's arguing that Suh's cleats could have had a ton of turf in them being the reason he couldn't feel Rodgers' leg is just par for the course. Sorry to be a realist. The guy is just on another planet sometimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTSuper7 Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Grits nailed it. Well done, sir. The rise in suspensions and fines under Goodell correlates beautifully with the emergence of social media. In essence, it became easier for people to have access to replays of punishable offenses and for those same people to a create a louder collective voice to disapprove. That, in turn, can impact whether or not a sponsor wants to be associated with a player, team or the NFL overall which feeds right into what Grits says about maximizing ratings and wealth accumulation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTSuper7 Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 The fact he's arguing that Suh's cleats could have had a ton of turf in them being the reason he couldn't feel Rodgers' leg is just par for the course. I won't disagree with this at all. I thought the dense comment was more about what he said regarding the NFL overreaching or something else in that specific comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn5033 Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 (edited) I could care less whether he played or not but the fact is these guys are never going to learn unless you hit them where it hurts. 70k to a guy that's making 12.5mil this year is nothing. If he would have had to miss a playoff game he may have learned his lesson. Guaranteed he will do something like this again. Edited December 31, 2014 by Finn5033 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 The NFL said he did not win his appeal...they did not buy into his excuse but did change the punishment. He appealed being suspended and the suspension was lifted, I'd call that a win and expect Suh does as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBalata Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Aaron Rodgers was clearly trying to trip Suh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BA Baracus Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 I think in typical NFL fashion the NFL only considered what they wanted to accomplish. What they have always wanted to accomplish was higher ratings and accumulation of wealth - they don't give a rat's ass about the health and welfare of the players. The only time there is consideration given to the health and welfare of the players is when they perceive there might be a negative impact to their ratings and/or accumulation of wealth. Then the reaction is to protect ratings and/or wealth -NOT- to protect the health and welfare of the players. The whole concussion thing is a perfect example of this. Never does the health and welfare of the players enter into the equation unless it is a factor in the retention of ratings and in the accumulation of wealth. Whenever we see the NFL levy a punishment against any player, the punishment isn't intended to modify that player's behavior it is intended to mollify the media/public. The NFL wants high profile players to play in high profile games, like playoff games. Player punishments/fines/suspensions only exist to give the NFL the appearance that they care about the health and welfare of the players. 100% agree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.