Myles Garrett suspended indefinitely

[Soggust]

1 hour ago, SmittyBacall said:

We've been over this before. Garrett has the right to make that tackle. It wasn't excessive; especially when you consider he wasn't certain the ball was out. It was a on time, very tame form tackle.

Not knowing whether the ball is out or not has never been justification for an overexcessive tackle. The hit was on time, the tackle was fine, the problem is that he dragged him down late (in 2019 standards). I'm not saying it was malicious or even ill-intended, but that's a standard flag in 2019 9/10 times, despite whether or not it "should" be.

[Elky]

1 hour ago, SmittyBacall said:

We've been over this before. Garrett has the right to make that tackle. It wasn't excessive; especially when you consider he wasn't certain the ball was out. It was a on time, very tame form tackle.

That's putting it lightly. Rudolph instigated the entire event. Without Rudolph reacting the way he did there would be no suspensions or fines. The game would have ended. Instead, he snapped and tried to rip the helmet off of an opponent. Then he decided to charge him again after they were separated. 

I think he should of at least got a game. A fine means nothing to these guys.

A fine would hit Rudolph pretty hard since he's making peanuts.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Elky

[SmittyBacall]

4 minutes ago, warfelg said:

Mason did this, Mason did that, like Mason was the only person responsible for controlling his actions.  If Mason pulling and tugging at Myles helmet that way was that bad, and that dangerous, why are you following up with the similar concern for Mason in that part of the brawl. 

People are only ragging on Rudolph because he basically got away with the event scot-free by avoiding suspension. Which is the NFL saying he's innocent in all this. So people like me are picking apart how Rudolph was also in the wrong, and should be punished accordingly. No one is saying what he did was as bad as Garrett, or that Garrett isn't getting blamed. The difference for me is that Garrett's punishment fits the crime. Rudolph's doesn't. 

15 minutes ago, warfelg said:

I'm sorry but in an ugly incident where both players were idiots and did something wrong; why do we somehow have to make one guy 'more wrong'.

I don't see anyone doing that.

[seriously27]

1 hour ago, SmittyBacall said:

We've been over this before. Garrett has the right to make that tackle. It wasn't excessive; especially when you consider he wasn't certain the ball was out. It was a on time, very tame form tackle.

That's putting it lightly. Rudolph instigated the entire event. Without Rudolph reacting the way he did there would be no suspensions or fines. The game would have ended. Instead, he snapped and tried to rip the helmet off of an opponent. Then he decided to charge him again after they were separated. 

I think he should of at least got a game. A fine means nothing to these guys.

Not that I disagree with the other stuff you said I certainly wouldn't say a fine means nothing to these guys. Especially to someone like Rudolph who isn't guaranteed much of anything after his first two or three years. 

[warfelg]

2 minutes ago, Elky said:

A fine would hit Rudolph pretty hard since he's making peanuts.

I did the math, and if they hit him with the standard $35,095 that they had hit someone with what he did (per Schefter), that's 6% of his base salary or 4% of his total salary.

If they do more than $60,000 they will have officially docked his pay by more than 10%.

That 6% is equivalent of losing an entire game check.  Losing more than 10% will hit the same as losing 2 game checks.

 

To put this into perspective, Sherman was fined ~$29,000 2 weeks ago (week 10) for a hit on a defenseless WR.  Sheman's base salary is $7mil,  so based on that his fine was 0.4% of his base salary or 0.29% of his total salary.

 

Similar fines, much larger impact.

[warfelg]

1 minute ago, SmittyBacall said:

People are only ragging on Rudolph because he basically got away with the event scot-free by avoiding suspension.

So losing 6% of your yearly income is scot-free?  The issue there is making suspension the only penalty that means anything.

[SmittyBacall]

10 minutes ago, Elky said:

A fine would hit Rudolph pretty hard since he's making peanuts.

Boy I wish I could make that peanut salary. He's made $2,070,531 USD in two seasons. I think he'll be fine forking over 35k. 

[MWil23]

Garrett deserved every game that he got for what he did, make no mistake about it. Here's my breakdown of what I have an issue with.

Mike Tomlin's comments saying the following:

Quote

“I don’t know. You’ve got to ask those guys,” Tomlin said. “You, know, I don’t know that we did anything to make it happen anyway in the first place. That’s why I said we didn’t have anything to learn from it.”

He basically is saying "Mason and us didn't instigate anything", which is a blatant lie. Then again, I would expect as much from the same guy who gave Joey Porter a game ball after the ugly Cincinnati helmet fest playoff win that he instigated by provoking several Bengal's players at the end of the game, getting them into field goal range.

As for Mason Rudolph, here's what I thought was hilarious:

Quote

“The way I saw it, on the final play of the game with the game in hand the way it was, it had been, we had already lost two of our players to targeting penalties from the game,’’ Rudolph said,

The Browns are a dirty organization and it's clearly their fault. Let me paint the setting for you/control the narrative.

Quote

reading from a statement.

He read from a statement. Anyone who reads from a statement didn't write it, doesn't mean it, and isn't sincere about it.

Quote

“As I released the ball, I took a late shot.

Please let me paint the narrative that I'm in fact the victim. Please remember that I'm the victim. Pay no attention to the part where there was NO FLAG on the play for roughing the passer.

Quote

Did not agree with way he took me to the ground

My offensive coordinator bears no blame in calling a screen pass with 13 seconds left, and even though Myles Garrett had no visual way of knowing that I had released the ball, he tackled me anyway. 

Quote

and my natural reaction was to get him from off on top of me.

My natural reaction was to get him from off on top of me by pulling him on top of me further, placing my hands inside his helmet, and trying to pry his helmet off, thus defying basic laws of physics on push/pull relationships.

Quote

And again, I should have done a better job of handling that situation.”

I haven't actually apologized for anything. Let me be as vague as possible to pacify the masses so that they think I've actually apologized, which I haven't. I will also get angry with a reporter who calls me on this ridiculous statement, and double down on "tried to get him off of me" despite video evidence showing what actually happened.

 

 

Edited November 21, 2019 by MWil23

[SmittyBacall]

14 minutes ago, warfelg said:

So losing 6% of your yearly income is scot-free?  The issue there is making suspension the only penalty that means anything.

Come on, man. You know it doesn't move the needle much at all.

[warfelg]

Ok, @SmittyBacall, I do want to ask something before I put out a rebuttal, because I want to be fair to you in this:

Part of Myles Garrett's defense to appealing the suspension was the Antonio Smith case of having only 3 game suspension for his actions.  Do you feel that argument should shorten his suspension?

[TXsteeler]

34 minutes ago, warfelg said:

I believe there's already a rule in place that it's a 15 yard penalty and ejection.  Going beyond that is overkill.  In the last 30 years there's only 2 instances (that I can find) of pulling off and opponents helmet and swinging it, and 2 instances in NFL history (that I can find) of swinging it and connecting.  Creating a rule off something that happens so infrequently is not really worth it.

Swing or no swing it should be a suspension, and I might be wrong but I believe I've seen plenty of attempts at removing helmets over the years, maybe they weren't successful but the new rule would stop it from being attempted again.

As far as being "worth it", I don't really see a cost.

[SmittyBacall]

28 minutes ago, Soggust said:

The hit was on time, the tackle was fine, the problem is that he dragged him down late (in 2019 standards).

There is no such thing as dragging him down late if the initiation of the tackle was on time. It's crazy to me that we're complaining about how this hit was excessive. I'm sure a QB would take that tackle in its entirety over the various amounts of shots they take every Sunday. No question.

[SmittyBacall]

3 minutes ago, warfelg said:

Ok, @SmittyBacall, I do want to ask something before I put out a rebuttal, because I want to be fair to you in this:

Part of Myles Garrett's defense to appealing the suspension was the Antonio Smith case of having only 3 game suspension for his actions.  Do you feel that argument should shorten his suspension?

No, because Garrett actually made contact with the head. 

[warfelg]

1 minute ago, SmittyBacall said:

No, because Garrett actually made contact with the head. 

Ok, which is fair enough.

I think what puts the NFL in a hard place is they typically do punishments not based in merit but based in precedent of previous punishments.  In the past guys have been fined for pulling at helmets, but not suspended for it.  And I think that tipped their hand here because that would have been to go to defense.  So that's why I would fight back on  saying suspend him because of that act.

However (and I'm going to give you my easy out here), if you want to say he should be suspended because he instigated the brawl and played a part in escalating the brawl, I don't think there's much I can say back to that, because guys have been suspended for that before.  And that's a statement that's hard for the Mason Rudolph team to have an appeal rebuttal for.

[Soggust]

6 minutes ago, SmittyBacall said:

There is no such thing as dragging him down late if the initiation of the tackle was on time. It's crazy to me that we're complaining about how this hit was excessive. I'm sure a QB would take that tackle in its entirety over the various amounts of shots they take every Sunday. No question.

Surely you don't believe that. We see examples of this almost every week.

Again, I'm not trying to sell this as "omg what a terrible hit". But certainly, in 2019, that is flagged more often than not. Doesn't give Rudolph a right to grab his helmet and further instigate, the same way Garrett didn't have a right to swing a helmet. He should have petitioned to the ref, if anything. I'm just saying those who act like that never gets called are being disingenuous with the soft rules surrounding hitting the QB in 2019.