Gronk suspended 1 game for elbow drop

[childofpudding]

6 hours ago, FourThreeMafia said:

I just dont get how Juju and Gronk get the same exact punishment.    

Now, perhaps Juju standing over Burfict taunting him did him in, but the actual hit he was suspended for was pretty clearly incidental helmet to helmet DURING THE PLAY.   And even if you wanted to attempt to argue Juju's hit was intentional, there is no way to prove CLEAR intent on that play.

With Gronk, he dove at a players head, sitting on the ground, out of bounds, AFTER the whistle.   There is no way you can argue that he did not have malicious intent.    And yes, I would be saying the same thing if it were a Steeler player who did that....in fact, I have.   A few years ago, Chris Kemoeatu did something similar, and I argued he shouldve been suspended....even though it never happened.

Bottom line....if you want to act like Juju's hit was worth a game, fine....but Gronk shouldve gotten 2 more games than Juju for the "clear intent".   Instead, the NFL wants to continue to pretend it cares about player safety and not look at these as individual cases where one was clearly intention and one wasnt.

JuJu and Iloka shouldn't have been suspended. It should have been a fine for JuJu for taunting, at most, and nothing for Iloka. It seems like they're being punished for the history of Steelers-Bengals games being rough.

[Broncofan]

Gronk might have been justified to get 2 games on the merit of how vicious, after-the-play, and head-targeted that his infraction was.  If you want to argue that, fine.    But Juju and Illoka getting 1 game was ridiculous.  Neither should have got 1 game.  To use them as an argument to increase Gronk is silly.   It's a bad look for the NFL - just shows how inconsistent their whole penalty system is.  But hey, the NFLPA agreed to this system, too.  Blame all the way around.

[Jlowe22]

5 hours ago, Pats#1 said:

After being reminded of and seeing the Mike Evans full speed hit from behind after the play and him getting 1 game...I don't see why anyone is surprised by it being the same amount.

I'm not surprised, but both hits were more dangerous than other cases, and both guys should have gotten more than one game.  

These two cases should really show how good these two rookie CBs are.  They are getting into the heads of great offensive players...in their rookie year.  

[grubs10]

7 hours ago, lancerman said:

Because people here are doing this intellectually dishonest thing where instead of looking how the vast majority of the penalties are handed across the board for this type of infracture, they are singling out lower end one's and saying "omg how can you say this is comparable to Gronk". When you could easily look at the Mike Evans hit and say well that's similar, and it got one game. Or you can look at Adam Jones basically using his helmet as a weapon and say well that got less than Gronk. Or you can look at Talib and Crabtree having an extended brawl and it ultimately after appeal yielding one game. 

So yeah you can look at the Juju hit and say Gronk deserves more because his was worse. But as soon as you go to two or three games all of a sudden you can look at multiple other instances and say well then Gronk's get overpunished based off all these other instances. Generally this is a one or two game suspension. Like you said Kemoeatu didn't get a suspension. 

So it's pretty clear how the NFL rules on these, so none of this should be a surprise. We can have the discussion that the NFL should place more emphasis on the context and result of the violation, but realistically that's a conversation for next off season when the rules committee can get involved, players can get notification, and a new precedent can be sent. 

 

What precedent is there for Juju getting a one game suspension for what he did?

[Pats#1]

6 hours ago, Jlowe22 said:

I'm not surprised, but both hits were more dangerous than other cases, and both guys should have gotten more than one game.  

These two cases should really show how good these two rookie CBs are.  They are getting into the heads of great offensive players...in their rookie year.  

I agree Gronk/Evans could have easily gotten 2 games and it would be justified.

 

As for getting in the heads, not sure I agree. The Mike Evans thing was an extreme overreaction to a CB smacking the QB's arm out of the way or something, really, it all happened because Winston was being a jackass.

 

With Gronk, I think it was slow simmering build up to where he finally blew a gasket for people not getting called mugging the crap out of him every game and he reacted in a dangerous and idiotic way. He had an awesome game against Buffalo other than that play tbh.

[Jlowe22]

17 minutes ago, Pats#1 said:

I agree Gronk/Evans could have easily gotten 2 games and it would be justified.

 

As for getting in the heads, not sure I agree. The Mike Evans thing was an extreme overreaction to a CB smacking the QB's arm out of the way or something, really, it all happened because Winston was being a jackass.

 

With Gronk, I think it was slow simmering build up to where he finally blew a gasket for people not getting called mugging the crap out of him every game and he reacted in a dangerous and idiotic way. He had an awesome game against Buffalo other than that play tbh.

You may be right about Gronk, but Lattimore was shutting Mike Evans down all game.  

Regardless, he made Gronk mad and Gronk retaliated in a way that was completely uncalled for.  He'll sit out a game for it, and I don't expect he'll do it again.

[Pats#1]

Just now, Jlowe22 said:

You may be right about Gronk, but Lattimore was shutting Mike Evans down all game.  

Regardless, he made Gronk mad and Gronk retaliated in a way that was completely uncalled for.  He'll sit out a game for it, and I don't expect he'll do it again.

Yea, I honestly didn't see the TB game so I'll take your word for it on that end.

 

As for Gronk, I agree. I don't think he's a dirty player, I just think he finally blew a gasket and retaliated in the extreme. Not an excuse in any way though, I would have been fine if he got 2 games.

 

[AlexGreen#20]

1 hour ago, Pats#1 said:

Yea, I honestly didn't see the TB game so I'll take your word for it on that end.

 

As for Gronk, I agree. I don't think he's a dirty player, I just think he finally blew a gasket and retaliated in the extreme. Not an excuse in any way though, I would have been fine if he got 2 games.

 

Actions define a player. Gronk's a dirty POS in the same vein as Suh. Both now have two egregious after the whistle incidents.

I'll also go a step farther and say that if Gronk wants to be a hard ***, he needs to stop picking on 200lb CBs and strutting around like he's hot ****. Not only is it bull**** behavior it's ***** behavior. 

It's especially nonsense when he's celebrating his dirty plays for minutes afterwards and then gives a fake *** apology in the postgame to save himself another game of suspension. 

[Pats#1]

14 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Actions define a player. Gronk's a dirty POS in the same vein as Suh. Both now have two egregious after the whistle incidents.

I'll also go a step farther and say that if Gronk wants to be a hard ***, he needs to stop picking on 200lb CBs and strutting around like he's hot ****. Not only is it bull**** behavior it's ***** behavior. 

It's especially nonsense when he's celebrating his dirty plays for minutes afterwards and then gives a fake *** apology in the postgame to save himself another game of suspension. 

Deep breathes....inhale, exhale....its gonna be okay.

[Deadpulse]

2 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Actions define a player. Gronk's a dirty POS in the same vein as Suh. Both now have two egregious after the whistle incidents.

I'll also go a step farther and say that if Gronk wants to be a hard ***, he needs to stop picking on 200lb CBs and strutting around like he's hot ****. Not only is it bull**** behavior it's ***** behavior. 

It's especially nonsense when he's celebrating his dirty plays for minutes afterwards and then gives a fake *** apology in the postgame to save himself another game of suspension. 

Hey man, there is a filter but you are over working it. Clean it up please. 

[jrry32]

18 hours ago, Pats#1 said:

Deep breathes....inhale, exhale....its gonna be okay.

He's right, and this is a B.S. response.

[lancerman]

1 hour ago, jrry32 said:

He's right, and this is a B.S. response.

How many incidents does Suh have? How many incidents has Gronk had. Aside from this Gronk has 

-retaliated against players on the Seahawks who started taking swings at him. 

- pushed a guy well out of bounds who was taking cheap shots on him all game. 

The idea that you can look at Gronk and look and Suh and in anyway say they are equal is a misleading at best. The idea that Gronk is some consistently dirty player like Suh or Burfict is again a reach if not outright intellectually dishonest. He's a player who made a dirty play. Big difference. And I don't know where the board got mind readers to determine how sincere his apology was. 

[jrry32]

44 minutes ago, lancerman said:

How many incidents does Suh have? How many incidents has Gronk had. Aside from this Gronk has 

-retaliated against players on the Seahawks who started taking swings at him. 

- pushed a guy well out of bounds who was taking cheap shots on him all game. 

The idea that you can look at Gronk and look and Suh and in anyway say they are equal is a misleading at best. The idea that Gronk is some consistently dirty player like Suh or Burfict is again a reach if not outright intellectually dishonest. He's a player who made a dirty play. Big difference. And I don't know where the board got mind readers to determine how sincere his apology was. 

Lancerman, if you go rob a liquor store, it doesn't matter what your criminal history is before that (for the purposes of determining whether you're a criminal or not). You're still a criminal. Gronk is a dirty player.

[jrry32]

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/21702127/tredavious-white-buffalo-bills-dirty-rob-gronkowski-1-game-ban-joke

Quote

 

"I'm laying there," White said in his first public comments since the incident. "He snuck me with my back turned. He could have broke my neck. I mean, I got a son to raise [and] all that. People don't think about that when they just react."

. . . 

"I'm glad I had my mouthpiece in," White said. "I probably could've bit my tongue off. I bit my lip pretty bad. Terrible headache. It is what it is. He did what he wanted to do. ... He is what he did. Dirty shot, so what does that make him? Dirty player. Simple."

. . .

When asked Thursday if Gronkowski's apology means anything to him, White responded, "No."

"His intentions were to hurt me," White said. "It is what it is. But that's [what happens] when you ball and they don't like that."

 

 

[Pats#1]

2 hours ago, jrry32 said:

He's right, and this is a B.S. response.

Gronk is the same as a player in Suh who has had a ridiculous amount of dirty plays during and after live plays?

Gronk picks on small CBs  (other than catching football's and running them over in game)?

 

No, he's not right. He's upset and emotionally invested for some reason, and is letting it get the best of him.

 

The fact that people weren't screaming and crying about Evans like they are with Gronk is hilarious and telling.

 

So like I said....deep breathes...inhale/exhale...its all going to be okay.