26CornerBlitz Posted December 7, 2017 Author Posted December 7, 2017 4 minutes ago, 3rdand12 said: I am of the same mind actually. Still sick about this one.That was not Football. That was borderline behaviour on a couple levels for me. What the hell did the Patriots put in Hernandez's Special smoothies. Cuz Robert was stealing them and swilling them under the table when no one was looking. I am having fun here, but...dude ain't right in the head Exactly the point irrespective of the act being committed on the field. Criminal behavior that had nothing to do with the game.
Hellcamino Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 I believe the reason he only got one game is because the Pats play the Steelers in 2 weeks. You know the NFL would never punish the Pats in any way for a meaningful game. I'd be willing to bet money that if the Pats were playing the Steelers this week instead, Gronks appeal process would have taken much longer and he would have been allowed to play this week and then been suspended for the following week. I truly believe that.
Sweats Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 The NFL has learned nothing..............get sued for billions of dollars over CTE issues and then give out a whopping one game suspension for a deliberate dirty hit on a defenseless player. Shameful..........just shameful.
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 too many pages to re-read. I thought someone said the hit happened on the Pats sideline and that is why there wasn't a big scuffle Isn't this the play in question?
BuffaloHokie13 Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 22 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said: too many pages to re-read. I thought someone said the hit happened on the Pats sideline and that is why there wasn't a big scuffle Isn't this the play in question? No, that was the one that should've been an interception, but Gronk ended up with the ball. 1
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 so Gronk-roid got pissed because it happened more than once and by a rookie
Hapless Bills Fan Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 20 hours ago, Mr. WEO said: It's obvious he took that into account. Then he said what he said. He doesn't think guys should be suspended for these acts. Di you think he just woke up that day and suddenly had this opinion after seeing the Gronk hit? Of course not. As a player, this is his truly held opinion. As a fan, you came up with your opinion after the hit on White. The fact that the vast majority of NFL players (and all of the Buffalo Bills) don't do any of this "retaliation" that endless threads on this board have called them out for is proof of the vast difference in the way the actual players view all of this and the way fans do. What I said was "his comments don't take that into account" If you disagree, point to what part of Fitz comments take the injury to Tre White and his loss (or diminished effectiveness) to his team into account - "taking into account" /= agreeing, it means you acknowledge them. His comments don't. Whether or not he takes it into account in his mind, while forming his opinion - you appear better versed in his inner thought processes so I'll leave that to you
Mr. WEO Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 37 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: What I said was "his comments don't take that into account" If you disagree, point to what part of Fitz comments take the injury to Tre White and his loss (or diminished effectiveness) to his team into account - "taking into account" /= agreeing, it means you acknowledge them. His comments don't. Whether or not he takes it into account in his mind, while forming his opinion - you appear better versed in his inner thought processes so I'll leave that to you It's clearly implied that he knows the hit and what it might mean for the player---or do you think he just happened to be thinking of this very topic coincidentally to the Gronk hit and the other suspensions? Like he just woke up that day and figured he's tweet his thoughts about the league suspending players----with absolutely no consideration of the events of Sunday? That's not a very convincing argument you are trying to put forward. He's a player who gets hit on nearly every catch. Why would you presume to tell him he's stupid for holding the opinion he has? You are a fan who watches him on TV.
Albwan Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 On 12/6/2017 at 9:29 AM, Sky Diver said: I am curious what case he made to the league to have his suspension revoked. "Guys, cmon... it was the bills"
Doc Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 5 hours ago, Mr. WEO said: It's clearly implied that he knows the hit and what it might mean for the player---or do you think he just happened to be thinking of this very topic coincidentally to the Gronk hit and the other suspensions? Like he just woke up that day and figured he's tweet his thoughts about the league suspending players----with absolutely no consideration of the events of Sunday? That's not a very convincing argument you are trying to put forward. He's a player who gets hit on nearly every catch. Why would you presume to tell him he's stupid for holding the opinion he has? You are a fan who watches him on TV. More silliness. You don't even need to have played Pee Wee football to realize that "a player shouldn't be suspended (even if he commits assault on the field) because it can hurt his team" is about as stupid as it comes. I can only surmise that since you're defending Larry's idiocy, that you agree with him and think that the cretin shouldn't have been suspended. Is that correct? 1
Shaw66 Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 Finally looked this up: When the Saints got in trouble for putting bounties on players, to my recollection no opponent ever was injured. In addition I don't recall that any Saints player during that time intentionally hit another player in a clear dead ball situation. The NFL handed out punishments an said this: "We are all accountable and responsible for player health and safety and the integrity of the game. We will not tolerate conduct or a culture that undermines those priorities," said Goodell. Penalties? Payton and Gregg Williams suspended for a year each. Vilma was suspended for the entire 2012 NFL season.[5] Former Saints defensive tackle Anthony Hargrove was suspended for eight games. Saints defensive end Will Smith was suspended for four games. Former Saints linebacker Scott Fujita (then with the Cleveland Browns, now retired) was suspended for three games. Gronkowski got one game. It's ridiculous. 2 1
Manther Posted December 8, 2017 Posted December 8, 2017 18 hours ago, Sweats said: The NFL has learned nothing..............get sued for billions of dollars over CTE issues and then give out a whopping one game suspension for a deliberate dirty hit on a defenseless player. Shameful..........just shameful. Agreed! It really shows the priority on player safety is not really where they say it is.
John from Riverside Posted December 8, 2017 Posted December 8, 2017 They should have given him an extra game for appealing it! 1
dhg Posted December 8, 2017 Posted December 8, 2017 11 minutes ago, John from Hemet said: They should have given him an extra game for appealing it! Isn't the NFLPA obligated to appeal every fine and/or suspension?
Wily Dog Posted December 8, 2017 Posted December 8, 2017 20 hours ago, Shaw66 said: Finally looked this up: When the Saints got in trouble for putting bounties on players, to my recollection no opponent ever was injured. In addition I don't recall that any Saints player during that time intentionally hit another player in a clear dead ball situation. The NFL handed out punishments an said this: "We are all accountable and responsible for player health and safety and the integrity of the game. We will not tolerate conduct or a culture that undermines those priorities," said Goodell. Penalties? Payton and Gregg Williams suspended for a year each. Vilma was suspended for the entire 2012 NFL season.[5] Former Saints defensive tackle Anthony Hargrove was suspended for eight games. Saints defensive end Will Smith was suspended for four games. Former Saints linebacker Scott Fujita (then with the Cleveland Browns, now retired) was suspended for three games. Gronkowski got one game. It's ridiculous. like i have said , New England and Dallas control the NFL. The Gronk situation kind of proves it. The Pat's knew that they had to do something so they allowed the NFL to suspend Gronk for one game with the stipulation that Gronk would appeal and the appeal would be denied.They knew that a firestorm would ensue but like all firestorms they will become embers and are soon forgotten. It's only Buffalo
Doc Posted December 8, 2017 Posted December 8, 2017 22 hours ago, Doc said: More silliness. You don't even need to have played Pee Wee football to realize that "a player shouldn't be suspended (even if he commits assault on the field) because it can hurt his team" is about as stupid as it comes. I can only surmise that since you're defending Larry's idiocy, that you agree with him and think that the cretin shouldn't have been suspended. Is that correct? I guess I have my answer. Pathetic.
BadLandsMeanie Posted December 9, 2017 Posted December 9, 2017 (edited) I will say this vague maybe and I won't "clarify" what I mean or elaborate on it in the unlikely event somebody asks. I think they were looking ahead to a Premiere game of Steelers Patriots in a period of ratings decline. It is an important game. Also I think Roger Goodell needed Kraft's support to get his 50 million dollars per year contract including a free jet for life (of all things) because Jerry Jones was fighting it tooth and nail. Focus on those two things influenced their decision. That decision is to me, very clear evidence that NFL leadership has a near total lack of vision for the longer term future, bordering on idiocy. It is unlikely it will be forgotten because this was Buffalo. Here is why I think that. We have a culture and national history that we share to differing degrees. That is the larger context in which that event occurred. It is bigger than the football game. The image of Rob Gronkowski's jumping on Tre White pulls for that. For some or a lot of us, it is literally impossible not to have it call to mind things from our history and shared culture. We can then dismiss it as not relating to culture or history. But it was a reminder, and it matters a lot how it looked. It matters as much or more how it looked than whatever process they use to treat everything else, in this case the rule book, the ratings and a fat contract coming up. In my opinion what they had to do was manage the appearance it created. It is a big deal and they had to. But they didn't. So now for a good percentage of us, there is no other reasonable way to see what has happened here except in the context of our culture. They had to avoid that at all costs and they didn't. That's what I think. I think everybody including Rob Gronkowski would have been much better off if they threw the book at him. Now instead he will be the guy who got off easy out there on the football field game after game.. And the League will be the guys who let him off. We will see what comes of having made that impression. Even though as I say, I do think the Steelers Pats game has a big part as does Kraft and Goodell and all that. But that isn't how it looks when you just look at the pictures and look at what was done. Edited December 9, 2017 by BadLandsMeanie
Happy Posted December 9, 2017 Posted December 9, 2017 1 hour ago, BadLandsMeanie said: I think they were looking ahead to a Premiere game of Steelers Patriots in a period of ratings decline. It is an important game. Also I think Roger Goodell needed Kraft's support to get his 50 million dollars per year contract including a free jet for life (of all things) because Jerry Jones was fighting it tooth and nail. Focus on those two things influenced their decision. That decision is to me, very clear evidence that NFL leadership has a near total lack of vision for the longer term future, bordering on idiocy. This theory might be a little far fetched, but one does have to wonder about the lenient suspension decision. I wouldn't be surprised if it has to do with Gronk's status as an NFL star and a NE Patriot. Goodell ended up getting a 5 yr, $200M extension, so $40M/year. I'm not sure about whether he got access to a private jet and health insurance for him and his family for life.
BadLandsMeanie Posted December 9, 2017 Posted December 9, 2017 4 minutes ago, Happy Gilmore said: This theory might be a little far fetched, but one does have to wonder about the lenient suspension decision. I wouldn't be surprised if it has to do with Gronk's status as an NFL star and a NE Patriot. Goodell ended up getting a 5 yr, $200M extension, so $40M/year. I'm not sure about whether he got access to a private jet and health insurance for him and his family for life. Ok. I was going by what was reported before he signed it. Thanks. The article I read said they want him around because the new CBA will be coming in 3 years and they think he is good at that part of it. I think they should get him to stick to that part and have somebody else do the PR and discipline stuff.
Recommended Posts