Meatloaf63 Posted November 16, 2019 Posted November 16, 2019 On 11/15/2019 at 12:00 PM, Happy Gilmore said: Rudolph shouldn’t get anything. He got his helmet ripped of and used against him as a weapon. He kicked him in the groin and tried to rip his helmet off. Should get a game or two... 1
LOVEMESOMEBILLS Posted November 16, 2019 Posted November 16, 2019 2 minutes ago, Meatloaf63 said: He kicked him in the groin and tried to rip his helmet off. Should get a game or two... He pushed off with his foot in Garrett's groin. You forgot to add that he did so as Garrett was picking him up off the ground by his facemask. Would you just sit there and let him pick you up by your head? Maybe he should've tried playing possum? I don't think anyone has been suspended for trying to take someones helmet off.
YoloinOhio Posted November 16, 2019 Author Posted November 16, 2019 3 hours ago, frostbitmic said: Same with the Steelers/Ravens. And Steelers/Bengals (when Bengals were decent)
frostbitmic Posted November 16, 2019 Posted November 16, 2019 5 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said: And Steelers/Bengals (when Bengals were decent) The common denominator is the Steelers, they don't play well with others.
Spiderweb Posted November 16, 2019 Posted November 16, 2019 On 11/15/2019 at 12:02 PM, MAJBobby said: Where did I bring Race into Anything? You really need to learn Reading Comprehension I'll second that. One tires of those who continually make something racist when it wasn't.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 16, 2019 Posted November 16, 2019 16 hours ago, SinceThe70s said: If you can't beat 'em - beat 'em! What's different here is that the Browns were playing at home, had the game in hand and hadn't beaten the Steelers in 5 years. Usually it's the team on the losing end that does the dumbest sh!t. Should have been a great night for the Browns. One of my clients is a lawyer. The guy stands about 6'5" and 280ish. His motto is "if I can't beat 'em in the courtroom, I'll beat 'em on the courthouse steps." I believe it. 1
C.Biscuit97 Posted November 16, 2019 Posted November 16, 2019 I think the craziest part is wasn’t the knock on Garrett coming out That he was soft, didn’t love football, and was kinda like an art guy? The suspension is well earned. It was completely awful. Rudolph did play a part but certainly Didn’t deserved that. 63 for the Browns deserved more games for that because that was a total coward move. And Pouncey didn’t deserve a single game. He defended his teammate (makes how pathetic the Bills response to Gronk look even worse). but the Browns are our of control. There is zero chance Kitchens makes it to a second season. What a waste of a really good roster. 2
Doc Posted November 16, 2019 Posted November 16, 2019 1 hour ago, Rob's House said: The argument that Rudolph started the whole thing is pretty weak in itself, but even if we take that as a given the rest of your argument still makes no sense. You're arguing that because Garrett's penalty is slightly harsher in length, although identical in nature, to previous penalties for similar behavior, Rudolph should face a penalty of a nature never before imposed for such behavior because ???. Saying the penalty for one particular behavior is "unprecedented" does not necessitate imposing an "unprecedented" penalty for completely different behavior. To even get to that point you're saying that even though nothing Rudolph did is suspension worthy in itself, the fact that Garrett responded to it the way he did renders it suspension worthy. That's also nonsensical. If I've somehow misrepresented your position please explain exactly what principle it is you're espousing. Where are you getting that Rudolph being suspended would be "unprecedented"? Lots of players have been involved in fights and been suspended. Off the top of my head is Talib and Crabtree from 4 or 5 seasons ago. As for Haynesworth, who got the longest, he attacked an unsuspecting victim who didn't physically provoke him, like in Tre's situation. Are you trying to claim that Rudoph had no fault in the incident? Because that's patently false and absurd.
C.Biscuit97 Posted November 16, 2019 Posted November 16, 2019 2 hours ago, DaBillsFanSince1973 said: Todd Haley: Myles Garrett’s behavior falls on Freddie Kitchens “This to me, this comes back to coaching,” Haley said. “This falls squarely right on the head coach. Because the head coach talks to every assistant coach, who then talk to their group of players. And there’s an old saying in coaching: ‘You’re either coaching it or you’re allowing it to happen.’” Haha, I love when terrible coaches try to call out other coaches. 3 minutes ago, Doc said: Where are you getting that Rudolph being suspended would be "unprecedented"? Lots of players have been involved in fights and been suspended. Off the top of my head is Talib and Crabtree from 4 or 5 seasons ago. As for Haynesworth, who got the longest, he attacked an unsuspecting victim who didn't physically provoke him, like in Tre's situation. Are you trying to claim that Rudoph had no fault in the incident? Because that's patently false and absurd. Suspending Rudolph would be good for the Steelers.
Doc Posted November 16, 2019 Posted November 16, 2019 6 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said: Suspending Rudolph would be good for the Steelers. Yeah. I LMAO at the tweet that said the NFL punished the Steelers by not suspending him. 1
C.Biscuit97 Posted November 16, 2019 Posted November 16, 2019 1 minute ago, Doc said: Yeah. I LMAO at the tweet that said the NFL punished the Steelers by not suspending him. Sad part is I kinda liked him in college. If Pittsburgh had Big Ben, they would be SB contenders.
Doc Posted November 16, 2019 Posted November 16, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said: Sad part is I kinda liked him in college. If Pittsburgh had Big Ben, they would be SB contenders. I wasn't too high on him. And the Steelers I think would be around where they are anyway, maybe a game better. Edited November 16, 2019 by Doc
Doc Brown Posted November 16, 2019 Posted November 16, 2019 5 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said: Suspending Rudolph would be good for the Steelers. Exactly. Not suspending him is a more severe punishment for the Steelers. The Rudolph started argument is weak. If I cut a guy off in line at a Wendy's I don't expect the guy behind me to pull out a gun and graze my shoulder with the bullet.
Happy Posted November 16, 2019 Posted November 16, 2019 2 hours ago, Meatloaf63 said: He kicked him in the groin and tried to rip his helmet off. Should get a game or two... At most Rudolph will get a fine.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted November 16, 2019 Posted November 16, 2019 1 hour ago, C.Biscuit97 said: I think the craziest part is wasn’t the knock on Garrett coming out That he was soft, didn’t love football, and was kinda like an art guy? Perhaps he is over-compensating?
Rob's House Posted November 16, 2019 Posted November 16, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, Doc said: Where are you getting that Rudolph being suspended would be "unprecedented"? Lots of players have been involved in fights and been suspended. Off the top of my head is Talib and Crabtree from 4 or 5 seasons ago. As for Haynesworth, who got the longest, he attacked an unsuspecting victim who didn't physically provoke him, like in Tre's situation. Are you trying to claim that Rudoph had no fault in the incident? Because that's patently false and absurd. Have you been studying at the Tibs school of semantic bull *****? I'll try to break this down into simple terms: 1. You are the one who said the "unprecedented" suspension on Garrett was the reason Rudolph should receive an unprecedented penalty. It wasn't a terribly logical argument, but it was your argument. 2. Suspending Rudolph would be unprecedented. You cannot name ONE example of anyone in the history of the league who has ever been suspended for behavior similar to Rudolph's. You proved that by citing an example that is not remotely similar. You knew it wasn't similar which is why you intentionally obscured the facts by broadening the scope to the blatantly dishonest "been involved in fights" standard. I'm honestly surprised. I thought you were better than that. Actually, I still do. 3. No one has claimed that Rudolph had no fault in the incident. I am claiming that his level of culpability does not rise to the level of suspension. I support that claim with historical precedent. You've offered no evidence suggesting that a suspension is the standard outcome in this situation, and no rational argument to explain why the league should deviate from the standard. 4. Your argument that Garrett's suspension is longer than that of other players in similar cases, does not logically lead to the conclusion that Rudolph should suffer additional punishment. It could be offered as a rational argument for reducing the length of Garrett's suspension, but that's about it. 5. I really don't care that much that you hold this opinion. As far as I'm concerned it's an interesting topic to discuss, but a fairly trivial matter overall, and the opinions of anyone on this board are wholly inconsequential. I do, however, find the dishonest approach to a straightforward discussion irritating. Edited November 16, 2019 by Rob's House
OZBILLS Posted November 16, 2019 Posted November 16, 2019 2 hours ago, RaoulDuke79 said: In a perfect world Would the suspension/dialogue be different if it was Brady that Garrett smashed? I imagine the NFL would ban Garrett for Life
RaoulDuke79 Posted November 16, 2019 Posted November 16, 2019 5 minutes ago, OZBILLS said: Would the suspension/dialogue be different if it was Brady that Garrett smashed? I imagine the NFL would ban Garrett for Life He'd be on death row by January. 1
Recommended Posts