Freddie Kitchens wore a "Pittsburgh Started It" t-shirt

[peterpan]

16 hours ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

No one with an ounce of common sense can watch that play and think anyone other than Garrett started it by slamming Rudolph (and his head)  to the ground long after the ball was gone.

 

It's not even close to being considered any other way.

Exactly.  Some people are taking crazy pills to blame this on the Steelers.  

 

I think a lot of people like to just argue on the internet so they will take an obvious ridiculous position, just to argue with everyone else. 

Edited December 1, 2019 by peterpan

[Hapless Bills Fan]

9 hours ago, Captain_Quint said:

When's the last time a QB was to blame when someone hit him? You're not that dumb, this is just a troll job. 

 

It may or may not be a "troll job" but it raises some points.

 

First, one reason Kitchens shirt is so inflammatory (leaving aside it being worn by Kitchens) is because opinions will forever vary on assigning blame during the lead up to the incident.

1) was it very strange playcalling with 8 second left and down by 2 TDs, to have the QB passing?  I dislike "garbage time" but even if Rudolph throws a perfectly caught Hail Mary, they're still gonna lose.  That's the epitome of garbage time.  Why not just kneel it?

2) Garrett's reaction was matching strangeness - you're in his face, he's already dumped it off, why take him to the ground?  Sabre-rattling on both sides IMO

3) The Garrett hit was similar in lateness to some that have been flagged as late hits, including several on Allen in the Cowboys game, but at times those hits slide.  It wasn't that "long after the ball was gone" egregious, or at least, that's a matter of debate.

4) Other QBs accept that they'll be hit late and plot their revenge by throwing TDs, they don't kick and claw at the defender's helmet.  Best Response Ever to an arguably late hit:  Allen to Cowboys defender "That was a touchdown, you know"

 

So who "really started it" will forever be a matter of debate, trolling or not trolling.  Useless debate because......

 

It is also COMPLETELY not important "who started it"- what finished it is an action that simply can not be allowed, Period.  You can't have players clocking each other on the bare head with helmets. 

 

Helmets get ripped off, sure - happened to Bease in the Cowboys game and got penalized 15 yards.  Bease all like "why did you take my helmet off?"  (unspoken: That hurt, but Thanks for the extra yards!).  But they can't be used as weapons when they are.

 

And to have the Head Coach - the HEAD COACH - looping around in debatable useless land......that's just a Special Kind of Stupid.

 

[Gugny]

I think it should be noted that before he ripped Rudolph's helmet off and hit him with it, he pulled Rudolph up to his feet by .... you guessed it ... his facemask.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

21 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

Clown show up there 

 

 

...anybody know where Fred is working next year?.....heard Haslam needs dishwashers at his truck stops.....positions get rebates too..........

[Hapless Bills Fan]

9 hours ago, StHustle said:

Hap...Maybe you can explain to me why so many people think this was such an egregious "late hit" by Garrett. The point where the ball comes out is on the side of Garrets helmet where he cant see the ball. He gets there probably 1/10 of a second (IF THAT LONG!) after the ball comes out.  The way he had Rudolph wrapped up he could have picked him up and power drived him into the turf if he wanted to. Instead he simply pulls him down on top of him. Literally the softest way you can tackle a QB. Video clearly shows exactly what Im describing below:

 

 

I can't, really.  It seems to fall within the "two steps" rule.  Rudolph clearly sees Garrett coming and dumps the ball off quickly.  But Garrett has a full head of steam and is only two steps away when Rudolph throws, maybe takes one more step and as you say, has his head to the side to come in with a textbook wrap and roll.

 

Garrett could probably have pulled up in some manner, and similar "roughing" plays have been called (with clap back and controversy), but it's just not any sort of egregious late hit.   Didn't drive his helmet into him, didn't drive him into the ground, didn't land with his weight on him.

 

In my opinion, anyway.

 

But again, that's all moot.  QB get hit late, players get chippy, helmets come off, that's all part of football. 

 

The part that isn't part of football and that can't become part of football is clocking another player in the un-helmeted head with a weapon (helmet).

[Mr. WEO]

At what point does the NFL try to force Haslam out of ownership? 

 

Every coaching choice has been a disaster and there have been too many to count. 

[Lieutenant Aldo Raine]

23 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I can't, really.  It seems to fall within the "two steps" rule.  Rudolph clearly sees Garrett coming and dumps the ball off quickly.  But Garrett has a full head of steam and is only two steps away when Rudolph throws, maybe takes one more step and as you say, has his head to the side to come in with a textbook wrap and roll.

 

Garrett could probably have pulled up in some manner, and similar "roughing" plays have been called (with clap back and controversy), but it's just not any sort of egregious late hit.   Didn't drive his helmet into him, didn't drive him into the ground, didn't land with his weight on him.

 

In my opinion, anyway.

 

But again, that's all moot.  QB get hit late, players get chippy, helmets come off, that's all part of football. 

 

The part that isn't part of football and that can't become part of football is clocking another player in the un-helmeted head with a weapon (helmet).

 

Based on that video, Garrett could have let up just like MLB did - he saw the ball come out.  Garrett hung on him and made an actual twist to gain torque to bring him down and Rudolph face plants in to turf.  Was it an unnecessary hit by the rule book - no I don't think so, but was it necessary for Garrett to hang on him and twist on the last play of the game - no I don't think so either.  The MLB had already retreated 5 yds by the time Garrett wrestled him down.

 

Edited December 1, 2019 by Lieutenant Aldo Raine

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 minute ago, Lieutenant Aldo Raine said:

Based on that video, Garrett could have let up just like MLB did - he saw the ball come out.  Garrett hung on him and made an actual twist to gain torque to bring him down and Rudolph face plants in to turf.  Was it an unnecessary hit by the rule book - no I don't think so, but was it necessary for Garrett to hang on him and twist on the last play of the game - no I don't think so either.

 

Agreed.  On the other hand, was it necessary for Pitts. to be trying to pass on the last play of the game with 8 seconds left, down by 2 scores - arguably not.

Plenty of poor/strange decisions to go around.

[Saratoga Leo]

12 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I can't, really.  It seems to fall within the "two steps" rule.  Rudolph clearly sees Garrett coming and dumps the ball off quickly.  But Garrett has a full head of steam and is only two steps away when Rudolph throws, maybe takes one more step and as you say, has his head to the side to come in with a textbook wrap and roll.

 

Garrett could probably have pulled up in some manner, and similar "roughing" plays have been called (with clap back and controversy), but it's just not any sort of egregious late hit.   Didn't drive his helmet into him, didn't drive him into the ground, didn't land with his weight on him.

 

In my opinion, anyway.

 

But again, that's all moot.  QB get hit late, players get chippy, helmets come off, that's all part of football. 

 

The part that isn't part of football and that can't become part of football is clocking another player in the un-helmeted head with a weapon (helmet).

 

You are exactly right. Everything is moot except Garrett swinging the helmet. 

 

The point of this thread is Kitchens. I would like someone to name a head coach past or present (besides Rex who we all know is a complete a-hole) who would wear the shirt Kitchens wore no matter who was at fault. Kitchens is a F***ing moron. No other way to put it.

Cleveland and Buffalo fans have gone through many of the same trials and tribulations over the past several decades. I really believe we can understand them and they can understand us. They thought this was their year. Kitchens has strained their loyalty with this being the cherry on top.  They are realizing they may have 'Rex Jr". Not a good feeling as we know. I am so glad we have McDermott. Sean is class plain and simple. 

[Lieutenant Aldo Raine]

1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Agreed.  On the other hand, was it necessary for Pitts. to be trying to pass on the last play of the game with 8 seconds left, down by 2 scores - arguably not.

Plenty of poor/strange decisions to go around.

 

Arguably not, however how often to do you see teams passing at the end of the game to move the ball even though they know the game is over.  Almost all the time.

[Gugny]

8 minutes ago, Lieutenant Aldo Raine said:

 

Arguably not, however how often to do you see teams passing at the end of the game to move the ball even though they know the game is over.  Almost all the time.

 

That's how many QBs who suck end up with pretty stats.

[Westside Madness]

Obviously I will be watching BAL play, but this nonsense has me wanting to watch the CLE/PIT game so bad.

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

That hit wasn’t necessary, it wasn’t necessary for the Steelers to be passing, and it wasn’t necessary for Garrett (Arguably their best player) to be out on the field in garbage time. Some dumb mistakes were made all the way around.

 

but I don’t see how any of the dumb mistakes are relevant to Garrett trying to hit Rudolph In the head with his helmet. Rudolph could have called him every racist name, hit him in the groin, punched him in the face, whatever— I’ve never seen anyone (let alone a super big and strong guy) strike another player with a helmet in the head. Rudolph could have died. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

14 minutes ago, Lieutenant Aldo Raine said:

 

Arguably not, however how often to do you see teams passing at the end of the game to move the ball even though they know the game is over.  Almost all the time.

 

At the end of the game, yes. 

 

With only 8 seconds left?  Debateable.  And if you do....Why was Rudolph even looking to dump one off? 

You look downfield to launch one and accept that you might get nailed if you don't loose it fast enough, or you spike/kneel.

[ganesh]

48 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

The part that isn't part of football and that can't become part of football is clocking another player in the un-helmeted head with a weapon (helmet).

This is the only thing that really matters to the NFL...If you really care about Players safety, you simply cannot have this nonsense!

[Wayne Arnold]

2 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

2) Garrett's reaction was matching strangeness - you're in his face, he's already dumped it off, why take him to the ground?  Sabre-rattling on both sides IMO

 

Pretty obvious that Garrett didn't know Rudolph didn't have the football. But keep ignoring that.

[ColoradoBills]

3 hours ago, timekills17 said:

Are we really discussing whether Pittsburgh/Mason or Cleveland/Garrett started it?

 

I thought the point was none of that matters in regards to a head coach of a team perpetuating discussion about an incident that was wrong across everyone involved.

It's one thing to blame the coach for players getting heated on the field. That can happen.

But the actions of the coach and team afterward - they can and should be held accountable. 

That's why they're the COACH.

 

As we debate "who really started it"  - it's moot. Even if you 100% agree that "Pittsburgh started it", there is NO WAY a senior team rep (i.e. non-player) should ever be initiating that discussion in public. Ever. 

 

The fact it's the head coach...wow.

 

I want to thank you for your post.  There was going to be enough animosity between these 2 teams today.

Kitchens juvenile move just adds to it and shows he has a no concept of what true leadership is.

 

Personally whether or not a CLE loss helps or hurts the Buffalo Bills playoff chances I can't see myself hoping for a Kitchens win today.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

33 minutes ago, Wayne Arnold said:

 

Pretty obvious that Garrett didn't know Rudolph didn't have the football. But keep ignoring that.

 

Why is this of all things the point you keep fixating on?

In today's game, the pass rusher has to know where the football is.  If he didn't know, he needs to start figuring out how to figure that out.

 

But it's really irrelevant to what happened - a point several others have made. 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Annoying the bills lost to this dummy

[StHustle]

1 hour ago, Lieutenant Aldo Raine said:

 

Based on that video, Garrett could have let up just like MLB did - he saw the ball come out.  

 

 

You dont live in reality. At BEST he saw him begin his throwing motion. QBs pump fake all the time. As a defender coming in you dont pull up in that situation cause its totally LEGAL to hit a QB if the throw the ball right before you get there.

 

There is a stat called QB HITS. You ever heard of that? It's not a LATE HIT. Did you not know that QBs can legally get hit after they throw when its a split second later? 

 

Imagine if Garrett let go of Rudolph ASSUMING (cause he did NOT see it) that he actually threw the ball but in reality it was a pump fake. He misses out on a sack and Rudolph can still make a play making Garrett look foolish at the same time. Cause its the end of the game means nothing. Steelers elected to keep playing. What Garrett did was a 100% clean football play. Rudolph getting upset and attempting to rip his helmet off was not and CLEARLY what started the fight. THATS THE ONLY POINT IM MAKING. Two things can be true. A guy can start a fight and the other guy overreact and use excessive force. Because the second party uses excessive force, does not somehow rewrite history and mean the other guy didnt start it.