STL Fan Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Eh it's football. In a critical game emotions run high. Not defending him, but with tensions running high i'm sure it took its toll. But i don't know the last time someone had their head pinned to the ground and then kicked for no reason? Would be weird if it was fully unprovoked. Does not make it ok to do though. I bet if he came out and said that Dietrich-Smith called him a racial slur everyone would be on his side. It's just a matter of situation and nobody here knows the situation besides Suh and Dietrich-Smith. We'll likely never fully get a true story. But it's fun to speculate. Again just to clarify, not defending Suh, just throwing another situation out there as food for thought. Sorry, this doesn't hold water. Football is an aggressive, physical game and every player is "baited" to do something stupid on every play. The ones that handle it legally, during normal play are called football players. The cheap-shot cowards who don't have enough brains or self control are called thugs. Did anyone else see his little "Happy Thanksgiving" wave earlier in the game with other Lions players and enjoy the irony? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennykravitz2004 Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Last year: "Bradford or Suh"? As bad as Bradford has been this year, Rams still made the right call. Suh is a POS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Can I get a ruling on whether this is still just "good old fashioned football the way men play it" or are all the effing blowhards around here who were defending this kid going to admit that he needs to check himself? I was sitting there eating my 15th plate of food yesterday and didnt have comp access. After seeing the Suh play I said oh man that thread will be raging at the huddle. A lot of people should be wearing the bag in this thread today Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 I bet if he came out and said that Dietrich-Smith called him a racial slur everyone would be on his side. [OJ] So? That's just going with what works. God bless liberal white guilt [/OJ] Marcus Vick did the same damn thing in a bowl game for VATech and never left the game. Why should he, you racist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 He needs to get off the steroids and play cleaner football. Dirty play and legal violence are different things. As you will see no one here defending Suh stomping that guy because it was dirty. I guess it's convenient to completely separate what many of us were pointing to as a pattern of conduct with yesterday's actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 The NFL doesn't need him. They'll be just fine without him. Give him his walking papers and be done with it before he does something that disgraces the league for years to come. I can't think of a single good reason not to. I'm sure at least half of the league (offensive players) would approve of the move, and not because he is a good lineman. Wow, what planet are you from? Kick him out of the league forever? The only way that would happen is if he was a serial killer or otherwise convicted of crimes which would land in him in jail forever. LOL @ "disgrace the league." In case you haven't noticed, the league has been peppered with a wide variety of thugs and lowest of the low POSs for many years and obviously is fine with it. Mr Goodell "tough guy" proved to be no tougher than any of his limp-wristed predecessors. Don't get me wrong I'm not ripping you at all, you're spot on, but you're also in dreamland or denial about what the league has become. They don't care about anything other than CYA and making money. Just win baby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Last year: "Bradford or Suh"? As bad as Bradford has been this year, Rams still made the right call. Suh is a POS. If that makes you feel better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Can I get a ruling on whether this is still just "good old fashioned football the way men play it" or are all the effing blowhards around here who were defending this kid going to admit that he needs to check himself? Not sure if you are referring to me as one of the blowhards?? I will say what he did yesterday was dirty - I mean forget the stomp - the pushing the head into the turf a few times was also dirty. I defended Suh in this thread but I was not really defending Suh - I was defending him on the play where he hit Cutler and the helmet went off. yes Suh has a lot of dirty plays and he is DIRTY but I still don't think the play with Cutler was dirty - to me it was a play that was so fast that the helmet did come off - compare to yesterday when he had hands to the face - most players would let go - he did not and continued to try and rip the helmet off. That is different to the Cutler hit. There were a couple of times that helmets came off in the Green Bay game and they were not all dirty hits. I do think Suh is dirty but I can't be convinced that the ONE specific play with Cutler was intent to rip the helmet off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennykravitz2004 Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 (edited) If that makes you feel better. Not really. My team would probably still suck if we picked Suh #1 overall. Just one less headache to deal with. Suh is a loose cannon to the nth degree, and when he opens his mouth, he's only exacerbating the fact he's a POS. Anybody trying rationalize what he did, is either dumb, messed up n the head, or both. I'm leaning more and more toward "both". Edited November 25, 2011 by lennykravitz2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 (edited) I bet if he came out and said that Dietrich-Smith called him a racial slur everyone would be on his side. It's just a matter of situation and nobody here knows the situation besides Suh and Dietrich-Smith. We'll likely never fully get a true story. But it's fun to speculate. Again just to clarify, not defending Suh, just throwing another situation out there as food for thought. Thank goodness none of that food was on my plate yesterday. It looks and tastes like ####. So you are saying that in the middle of kicking Suh's ass and putting him to the ground in a very physical way, that Dietrich-Smith decided to call Suh a racial slur at the same time? It was pretty obvious that Suh's reaction was the result of being pancaked by Dietrich-Smith. And if Dietrich-Smith had used a racial slur while in the process of flattening Suh, don't you think that would have come up in Suh's post-game excuse-making session? Given the incredibly weak excuses that he was using to brush off what he did, I'd guess that he'd reach for the race card in a heartbeat if it was there for him to play. Hell, as long as we're making up hypothetical excuses, how about if Suh was suddenly demonically possessed for a few seconds? My God, it's horrible, especially since Tebow wasn't there to immediately cleanse him. We all need to feel complete sympathy for him and contribute to a fund to have him flown to the Vatican so that the Pope can provide relief to this suffering wretch. Or maybe just as Dietrich-Smith laid Suh out, aliens gave Sun an invisible anal probe. Hell, that would set anyone off. The poor guy. Edited November 25, 2011 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Not sure if you are referring to me as one of the blowhards?? If he wasn't, he should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelsosi Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 (edited) but I can't be convinced that the ONE specific play with Cutler was intent to rip the helmet off. when you have Suh's track record, I dont think you get the benefit of doubt Edited November 25, 2011 by nelsosi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 He's got a future with the Pats at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 I defended Suh in this thread but I was not really defending Suh Are you a politician? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Are you a politician? If you would have kept reading you would have saw the rest of what I said - I defended him on one play. Again - you try to spin and make things look different than what was already said. Typical for you. All I was doing was trying to take one play on tat specific plays merits. If you took the play where Suh hit Cutler and the helmet came off and replaced Suh with Clay Mathews I don't think anybody would be calling it dirty. If you take the stomp on the arm and replace with Mathews it is still dirty. just trying to be objective and not assume because Suh made the hit that intent was there to injure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 when you have Suh's track record, I dont think you get the benefit of doubt This. Many of us see a guy who is out of control and pushes the rules as far as he can, often crossing the line. Others say, "Well, on this play, the dude moved his helmet in the way of his fist at the last second. And on this play, dude just happened to do this at the last second. And on this play he was going for his back but just managed to aim a tiny bit to high and slammed in the back of the helmet with both forearms..." etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 This. Many of us see a guy who is out of control and pushes the rules as far as he can, often crossing the line. Others say, "Well, on this play, the dude moved his helmet in the way of his fist at the last second. And on this play, dude just happened to do this at the last second. And on this play he was going for his back but just managed to aim a tiny bit to high and slammed in the back of the helmet with both forearms..." etc. Why can't you just take each play on it's own merits? I think that is what most people have been discussing in this thread??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Why can't you just take each play on it's own merits? I think that is what most people have been discussing in this thread??? I'd say there's more than a pattern here. Although excuses are possible for many of the plays, Suh appears in all of them. Sooner or later the dots get connected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Why can't you just take each play on it's own merits? I think that is what most people have been discussing in this thread??? Because the vast majority of the players in the NFL manage to play hard and not constantly be involved in plays like this. That tells me the guy is not trying to play fair, but just playing recklessly and then bitching about it when he gets called for crossing the line the few times it may not be his fault. We've all worked with that guy. The guy who is always late, only the time it really gets him in trouble, it wasn't his fault because he was stuck behind a wreck. And then he cries about how unfair it is because, this time, it wasn't his fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Good analogy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stethant Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 I'd say there's more than a pattern here. Although excuses are possible for many of the plays, Suh appears in all of them. Sooner or later the dots get connected. This is the problem - a pattern is harder to ignore. It's interesting that the "dots" in this case have really minor consequences - no injury to Cutler, or Dietrich-Smith, or Matt Ryan with the taunting business. What is the benefit of this behavior, then, to Suh? It almost seems like juvenile "acting out" behavior. Remember Mike Tyson? Never recovered. Well, except for his Hangover II comeback... The fact that he was allowed to speak at a conference and offer an anti-defense makes me really question the coaching and institutional control of the Lions. Suh's young and can still learn - some adult on the coaching or management side should have shut him up. It's possible they do feel persecuted, but at some point you man up, take the punishment, learn the lesson, and move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infinity Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Thank goodness none of that food was on my plate yesterday. It looks and tastes like ####. So you are saying that in the middle of kicking Suh's ass and putting him to the ground in a very physical way, that Dietrich-Smith decided to call Suh a racial slur at the same time? It was pretty obvious that Suh's reaction was the result of being pancaked by Dietrich-Smith. And if Dietrich-Smith had used a racial slur while in the process of flattening Suh, don't you think that would have come up in Suh's post-game excuse-making session? Given the incredibly weak excuses that he was using to brush off what he did, I'd guess that he'd reach for the race card in a heartbeat if it was there for him to play. Hell, as long as we're making up hypothetical excuses, how about if Suh was suddenly demonically possessed for a few seconds? My God, it's horrible, especially since Tebow wasn't there to immediately cleanse him. We all need to feel complete sympathy for him and contribute to a fund to have him flown to the Vatican so that the Pope can provide relief to this suffering wretch. Or maybe just as Dietrich-Smith laid Suh out, aliens gave Sun an invisible anal probe. Hell, that would set anyone off. The poor guy. Have you ever played football? There's constantly things going on between players. Smack talk, pushing, shoving, cursing etc. It's a mans sport. Regardless, i already said i'm not defending him. But i'll disagree with you if you're going to say the only two things that caused this play was one pancake and Suh being such a thug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 The fact that he was allowed to speak at a conference and offer an anti-defense makes me really question the coaching and institutional control of the Lions. Suh's young and can still learn - some adult on the coaching or management side should have shut him up. It's possible they do feel persecuted, but at some point you man up, take the punishment, learn the lesson, and move on. This. The sheer number of penalties given up by the Lions yesterday indicates a complete lack of control and discipline. Without those penalties, they run GB closer than they did (though likely still lose). Yesterday the Lions looked worse than the Raiders as far as stupid penalties go. Blame the refs all you want, and it's fair to say they threw more flags than they really had to, but they were desperately trying to keep control of a game where one side seemed determined to break as many rules as it could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 I haven't read much of this thread so not sure if I am the only one to think this but....I don't think it looks like he was "trying" to step on him...looked like he was trying to pull his foot/leg away as if it was hung up and that was the end result, which did look bad...to me it looked like when you are holding someone that is trying to get into a tussle and they try to pull their arm away and it slips out and a punch lands on someone...but it wasn't really a punch..that is sorta how it looked to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 I am fine w/a little extra shove and stuff like that which sometimes the refs are too quick to flag IMO. But stomping on someone, ramming their head to the ground etc otoh is BS which should get swift and harsh punishment. 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.