LynchMob23 Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Oooh. This should go over well here, or perhaps not: GRAHAM: Hold the line on Lynch's suspension (Edit: I was typing while you were posting, LynchMob.) No worries Lori - just spreading the word!
Cornerville Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 My opinion of it is that Marshawn got one game for the offense (which is fair), one game for it being a second offense (which is fair) and one game as a buffer so they can appeal it down to two games and both sides feel like they did their jobs. I think he will end up getting two games. It's just speculation but IMO from all he has said is that Goodel is a lot more pissed or willing to give a harsher penalty because it's the second incident, rather than the actual incident. Agreed, and good post Kelly
Kelly the Dog Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Apparently, Tim disagrees and thinks that Marshawn should serve all 3... http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nflnation/0-7-1...suspension.html Thoughts? While I see his point, and agree with a lot of it, I disagree with Tim as a whole here. I think 1-2 games is the correct punishment but 3 is too much. In both cases against Lynch, we really do not know what really happened. Sure, you can surmise all you want, and if you're likely to give Lynch the benefit of the doubt you will, and if you think he is a thug and/or completely irresponsible you won't. But the fact is that in both cases, the law decided the infractions were on the lesser side rather than the worse side. That doesn't at all mean it wasn't as bad as it appears. But what it does mean is that you can't assume it was worse. If they had any more evidence against him in both cases they surely would have used it. It would be completely unfair for The Commish to just assume he knows what happened because he simply doesn't (unless he knows something the public doesn't). Even if Goodell is pretty sure Lynch was in fact more guilty than the infractions that he got, it still would not be right to base his punishment on that opinion. Yes, he has the power, yes he can do whatever he wants, but he is really going off in bad territory if he bases these things on his gut feelings. That's why I will not at all be surprised when this is cut down to one, or more likely two games, which is what it should be based on what we know for sure.
Guest dog14787 Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Protection from what?? Being an idiot? From the "target on his back"? From the Commish? Were those Lynch's "loved ones" he was smoking with in his plateless mercedes? He could have licensed his weapon like anyone else in that jurisdiction. If he is too stupid to fill out an application, he should not be armed. Stop making excuses for this guy. He obviously doesn't give 2 shiii8ts about you, the devoted Bills fan. Maybe it appears that way to the general public but Marshawn Lynch hasn't done anything more severe than half the nations population probably hasn't done, but your right about one thing.
BillsWatch Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 In the grand scheme of things, the only real difference between ML and Plax, is ML didn't shoot himself. The possession is a huge issue, especially to those of us who 'want' law abiding gun owners so we don't get all of our rights yanked because of knuckleheads and wrong do'ers Yeah there is no difference between a gun in the pants brought to a club and a gun in a bag in the trunk.
The Dean Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Meanwhile, it gets harder and harder for high profile Folks like Marshawn Lynch to get a permit to carry a hand gun for protection. The alternative is a 24/7 body guard because the reality is in the real world high profile folks need protection, for themselves and their loved ones. That all sounds terrific, except Lynch wasn't with loved ones, and had his piece locked in the trunk. Plax carries his into a club. Again, I don't see the protection of loved ones, in either of these scenarios, and if you need a gun to protect yourself in a bar, you may need to rethink some things about your life and your choices, IMO. I'm not suggesting these guys don't have a right to protect themselves and carry a gun. I just don't think the situations they seen to get in trouble, with guns, have much to do with those things.
The Dean Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Oooh. This should go over well here, or perhaps not: GRAHAM: Hold the line on Lynch's suspension (Edit: I was typing while you were posting, LynchMob.) He makes an interesting point by adding the latest update on Marshall, who has continued to get into trouble after his suspension was reduced. Would he have done the same if Goodell had hammered him harder the first time? (Corollary: will Lynch and everyone following him pay the price now because he didn't?) I respect your opinion, but I'm not sure I agree this time, Tim. I think a two-game layoff -- what I expected to begin with -- would still send an adequate message. I agree. This whole "felony" aspect in the gun arrest should be a non-issue, because no felony was charged. Let's not be people who confuse a police report with reality. If they had a felony case, there would have been felony charges, at least to start, IMO.
Mr. WEO Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 While I see his point, and agree with a lot of it, I disagree with Tim as a whole here. I think 1-2 games is the correct punishment but 3 is too much. In both cases against Lynch, we really do not know what really happened. Sure, you can surmise all you want, and if you're likely to give Lynch the benefit of the doubt you will, and if you think he is a thug and/or completely irresponsible you won't. But the fact is that in both cases, the law decided the infractions were on the lesser side rather than the worse side. That doesn't at all mean it wasn't as bad as it appears. But what it does mean is that you can't assume it was worse. If they had any more evidence against him in both cases they surely would have used it. It would be completely unfair for The Commish to just assume he knows what happened because he simply doesn't (unless he knows something the public doesn't). Even if Goodell is pretty sure Lynch was in fact more guilty than the infractions that he got, it still would not be right to base his punishment on that opinion. Yes, he has the power, yes he can do whatever he wants, but he is really going off in bad territory if he bases these things on his gut feelings. That's why I will not at all be surprised when this is cut down to one, or more likely two games, which is what it should be based on what we know for sure. I'm sure that Goodell spoke with the Culver City PD and as well asked ML what happened. It is easy to believe he knows things now about this incident that are not widely known. I'm guessing that he has reason to believe that he doesn't buy whatever explanation of the events of that night that ML gave him in the office. Let it go boys--ML did this to himself and he did it to YOU. Be mad at him that he can't act like an adult. No one has ever punished this juvenile---certainly not the criminal justice system. Maybe he needs a responsible adult male in his life---and "Daddy" isn't happy!
Kelly the Dog Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 I'm sure that Goodell spoke with the Culver City PD and as well asked ML what happened. It is easy to believe he knows things now about this incident that are not widely known. I'm guessing that he has reason to believe that he doesn't buy whatever explanation of the events of that night that ML gave him in the office. The "guessing" on your part is surely fair, and what this board is all about. We are just guessing. You may well be right. And if Goodell does indeed have significant information about the incidents that we don't know about, and is 99% sure that the offenses were worse than the ultimate charges then I agree with you. I mean, we pretty much know OJ was guilty, so if it was something like that, sure. But I am "guessing" that he doesn't know much more. And no one really knows what happened in either of the offenses because they weren't there and no one who was is talking. The cops smell pot in a car but they don't know if Lynch was smoking and it wasn't a lot of pot and everyone denies it. And I am guessing that Goodell knows this. Which is why I think he cuts it down by appeal and that he should.
merlin Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 But the fact is that in both cases, the law decided the infractions were on the lesser side rather than the worse side. That doesn't at all mean it wasn't as bad as it appears. But what it does mean is that you can't assume it was worse. If they had any more evidence against him in both cases they surely would have used it. It would be completely unfair for The Commish to just assume he knows what happened because he simply doesn't (unless he knows something the public doesn't). Even if Goodell is pretty sure Lynch was in fact more guilty than the infractions that he got, it still would not be right to base his punishment on that opinion. Yes, he has the power, yes he can do whatever he wants, but he is really going off in bad territory if he bases these things on his gut feelings. That's why I will not at all be surprised when this is cut down to one, or more likely two games, which is what it should be based on what we know for sure. You are probably right, in that this will ultimately get reduced to 2 games .... or 1 game plus 1 more game check as a fine ... but I disagree that Goodell should base his decision on the "legal outcome" of the infractions. His sole criteria should be the affect it has on "public opinion" about the NFL, its teams, and its players. What Lynch did may not have had horrific legal implications, but it still is, at best, another embarrassing black-eye for the league, and the Commissioner has the responsibility to do anything/everything he can to show that the league won't tolerate such behavior, and to provide a deterrent against future incidents, both from ML, and from other players. So no matter what he really "knows" about what happened, or what ML did or did not do, his only concern is to do what he can to protect the image/integrity of the league, its teams, and its players. And considering the current state, that's definitely going to be an uphill battle which may require him to come down harder on players for stuff like this ... especially repeat offenders who keep putting themselves and the league into "embarrassing" situations like ML has done.
Mr. WEO Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 The "guessing" on your part is surely fair, and what this board is all about. We are just guessing. You may well be right. And if Goodell does indeed have significant information about the incidents that we don't know about, and is 99% sure that the offenses were worse than the ultimate charges then I agree with you. I mean, we pretty much know OJ was guilty, so if it was something like that, sure. But I am "guessing" that he doesn't know much more. And no one really knows what happened in either of the offenses because they weren't there and no one who was is talking. The cops smell pot in a car but they don't know if Lynch was smoking and it wasn't a lot of pot and everyone denies it. And I am guessing that Goodell knows this. Which is why I think he cuts it down by appeal and that he should. The difference from last year's episode is that this time, he was caught in the act of commiting the crime, so details do exist from firsthand witnesses, icluding the perpetrator. Last year, ML refused to cooperate in any way (as, mysteriously, did his passenger and bar hopping mate that night), so the police could not obtain enough evidence to prove a crime had been committed. My point was that Goodell asked ML what happened (like "were you smoking the kronic in the car?") and a 3 game suspension suggests that he did not like or believe the answer, based on his understanding of the known facts. This isn't hard to surmise, is it?
jester43 Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Hate to be the bearer of bad news: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4054396 he deserves the three games. lets see if this knothead starts screaming about being a victim again after his contrite apology a couple weeks ago.
Kelly the Dog Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 You are probably right, in that this will ultimately get reduced to 2 games .... or 1 game plus 1 more game check as a fine ... but I disagree that Goodell should base his decision on the "legal outcome" of the infractions. His sole criteria should be the affect it has on "public opinion" about the NFL, its teams, and its players. What Lynch did may not have had horrific legal implications, but it still is, at best, another embarrassing black-eye for the league, and the Commissioner has the responsibility to do anything/everything he can to show that the league won't tolerate such behavior, and to provide a deterrent against future incidents, both from ML, and from other players. So no matter what he really "knows" about what happened, or what ML did or did not do, his only concern is to do what he can to protect the image/integrity of the league, its teams, and its players. And considering the current state, that's definitely going to be an uphill battle which may require him to come down harder on players for stuff like this ... especially repeat offenders who keep putting themselves and the league into "embarrassing" situations like ML has done. I probably didn't explain my point well enough. I don't at all think that Goodell should only base his decision on the "legal outcome". I was just looking at the specifics of these two specific cases against Lynch only. And in both of them, there is a huge difference between what may have happened and what we know for sure happened. IF Lynch really did run down a woman, and leave her there on the street knowingly, that is a pretty heinous offense, regardless of whether she was hurt bad. But we don't at all know that and the legal outcome showed that there wasn't a lot of evidence that is what happened. In fact, a lot of evidence leaned to the idea that he didn't know and didnt plow her down and no one accused him of being drunk or anything. So I am saying that because of the legal outcome, one can't assume Lynch was worse than the offense. He could have been but we just don't know and you can't "send a message" based on no proof or facts. He could have been completely innocent in it (I don't believe he was completely innocent myself but he very well could have been) In the second case, if Lynch indeed just make a mistake by not registering his weapon, and it indeed was just in a bag locked in a trunk, and he was indeed just sitting there while a small amount of pot was being smoked in a car in a blunt, then it doesn't warrant IMO sending some huge message. It warrants a game suspension. Goodell himself knows a lot of these guys carry guns because they are scared of stuff like the Sean Taylor incident. If it was clear that Lynch was smoking and mouthing off and brandishing a gun around recklessly that is a different story and more harsh action needs to be taken by the Commish. But the results of the legal investigation with no pot arrest and no felonies and nothing but a single misdemeanor suggest otherwise. And two games seems justified for the two infractions.
Kelly the Dog Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 The difference from last year's episode is that this time, he was caught in the act of commiting the crime, so details do exist from firsthand witnesses, icluding the perpetrator. Last year, ML refused to cooperate in any way (as, mysteriously, did his passenger and bar hopping mate that night), so the police could not obtain enough evidence to prove a crime had been committed. My point was that Goodell asked ML what happened (like "were you smoking the kronic in the car?") and a 3 game suspension suggests that he did not like or believe the answer, based on his understanding of the known facts. This isn't hard to surmise, is it? Not at all. But my reading, as I stated, was the Commish is giving him one game for last year, one game for this gun thing, and one game that will eventually be overturned by appeal so the union and Lynch's lawyers and the Bills can feel like they were treated fairly. The same way prosecutors add charges they know full well will be pled down.
Guest dog14787 Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 That all sounds terrific, except Lynch wasn't with loved ones, and had his piece locked in the trunk. Plax carries his into a club. Again, I don't see the protection of loved ones, in either of these scenarios, and if you need a gun to protect yourself in a bar, you may need to rethink some things about your life and your choices, IMO. I'm not suggesting these guys don't have a right to protect themselves and carry a gun. I just don't think the situations they seen to get in trouble, with guns, have much to do with those things. I thought I said high profile folks, but if you want to take what I said and compare it on a case to case basis then its senseless to argue with you about it.
The Dean Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 I thought I said high profile folks, but if you want to take what I said and compare it on a case to case basis then its senseless to argue with you about it. Since you posted it in the thread about Marshawn, I went ahead and assumed you thought it was relevant to this case.
Steely Dan Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Totally inappropiate for the situation. I am not a big fan of Godell's I think he is ruining the game not saving it. are you kidding? the league is finally starting to do right by the league and is punishing the criminal aspect of it. We are all pissed because it is Marshawn but the truth of the matter is that he has broken the law, and while the law has given him the lighter side of punishments, it does not mean that the NFL has to do that. I hope that his suspension gets reduced, but either way, he made the mistakes and now he is going to deal with the consequences. Maybe it forces him to grow up and realize he is destroying his career, or he goes the way of someone like Adam Jones, and just hopes someone else will give him a chance. What he said. Wrong. Even if he didn't shoot himself, Plax carried a loaded weapon into a nightclub. While I agree unregistered guns are an issue (strangely several retired military guys down here in Florida disagree), carrying a gun into a nightclub is far different than having one locked in the trunk, IMO. I agree. Oh yeah? Get a 'load' of this! http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2009/ap...s/?breakingnews I sent this to all my buds and they replied that this Yankee 'better do all your drinkin' at home'. Cool let the drunken red necks kill each other. I think this is the best thing for Lynch longterm. He is probably the best guy in all of sports when it comes to apologies. And i want to give him the benefit of the doubt that he is sincere. But if this doesn't sevre as a wake up call to him, then nothing will. He should learn from this and understand how much he has let himself down, and his team. At some point everyone of us here has gotten a wake up call. Well most of us. And someone sat us down and told us this is life. We all have made mistakes, a man is judged ultimately on how he responds to the mistakes he has made. It will be tough going the first few games with out him, but ultimately this could be the best thing for Lynch and the Bills. I believe the Bills will wait till training camp cuts before they sign a vet. A guy that could come in and play during the first part of the season while Lynch is out, and while he gets back into game day shape. I like Jackson a lot, but he will need another competent back splitting time with him those first few games. And also will help Jackson have better legs later on in the season, while he is splitting time with Lynch. Lynch will be allowed to practice with the team during preseason correct? I have no idea how you reached that conclusion. After his hit and run accident he refused to talk to the media for months. If the Commissioner hadn't become involved in his latest scrape then I doubt he would have apologized at all unless the Bills forced him to.
merlin Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 I probably didn't explain my point well enough. I don't at all think that Goodell should only base his decision on the "legal outcome". I was just looking at the specifics of these two specific cases against Lynch only. And in both of them, there is a huge difference between what may have happened and what we know for sure happened. I understand what you are saying, but my point is it all comes down to a pattern of, at best, "stupid decisions" (or "mistakes") that put the player, and by association the team and the league, in an embarrassing position. That in and of itself is enough for the Commissioner to come down on the player as hard as he thinks is necessary to make sure nothing like this happens for a THIRD time. In the end, that's probably a 1 or 2 game suspension and fine at this point, but not because of anything ML may or may not have actually done, but just because he is showing a continuing pattern of "stupidity" that is reflecting badly on the league.
Guest dog14787 Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Since you posted it in the thread about Marshawn, I went ahead and assumed you thought it was relevant to this case. What I said about high profile people feeling the need for protection and rightfully so, I thought was relevant when defending Marshawns possible reasons for having a gun handily available in his trunk.
Kelly the Dog Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 I understand what you are saying, but my point is it all comes down to a pattern of, at best, "stupid decisions" (or "mistakes") that put the player, and by association the team and the league, in an embarrassing position. That in and of itself is enough for the Commissioner to come down on the player as hard as he thinks is necessary to make sure nothing like this happens for a THIRD time. In the end, that's probably a 1 or 2 game suspension and fine at this point, but not because of anything ML may or may not have actually done, but just because he is showing a continuing pattern of "stupidity" that is reflecting badly on the league. I totally agree with all of that. Part of my point is something I have said before, but that is tough to articulate. I think that Goodell can't just come down on players based on assumptions. 90% of the posters here believe he can. Sure he has the power and the ability to. And publicly he says he will and I think he should. I don't at all think he has too much power, nor do I think he abuses that power at all. But I simply don't think he can just "assume" things, because the unions and teams would come down so hard on him it wouldnt be worth it. So yes, I totally agree that he can and will and should send a message that what Lynch is doing is bad for the league and put it in an embarrassing position. He can't throw the book at him. So what I don't believe is that he can do things without really knowing. He knew Pacman did a series of bad things. He knew Marshall shot the gun. He knew that Marshawn put himself in at least one really bad situation and probably two. But he has the legal authority but not the moral authority to assume the worst. That's why he can't get too hard on Lynch and I think he knows this.
Recommended Posts