Myles Garrett suspended indefinitely

[mav1234]

 

1 minute ago, AggieLean said:

Garrett did not need to be kicked in the head. I know Mason is a little guy, but there were other big guys out there that could’ve subdued him without doing what Pouncey did.

Seems to me you’re letting your dislike of the action Garrett took, completely disregard the protection that Garrett should be granted as well. Pouncey was wrong, and should be gone just as long as Garrett. Two wrongs don’t make a right

I think just about everyone agrees Garrett deserved protection, and he didn't get it, and Pouncey took unacceptable action and deserved a lengthy suspension.  Which he got.  3 weeks for a first offense in player safety IS a long time.

I just don't see the totality of what Pouncey did and Garrett did as equivalent.  Both bad, both worth suspension.  Just different.

[CRA]

10 minutes ago, Snake said:

Your just talking out of your ass now like always. Getting kicked on the ground is just as bad as getting a helmet swung at you. Not to mention when that person is trying to attack you again. The simple fact the zebras were not there was the reason it spilled over allowing the Steelers to jump Garrett. 

Pretty sure taking a shot to the head wearing a helmet vs not wearing a helmet isn’t just a bad. 

You know because of millions and millions of dollars that go into the technologically  advanced helmet of today’s NFL....I mean the literal design of the helmet is to take repeated shots for hours to the head 

I might have some bad takes but I’m going to stick with that one. 

[mav1234]

1 minute ago, aGDevil2k said:

Or you could say they were all wrong, and Garrett was just more wrong?  And maybe that none of them involved deserve defending?

I more or less think this way.  The only thing I will say is that "wrong" versus "dangerous" are different things.  Rudolph was in the wrong, and is getting a fine.  All of 'em were in the wrong.  But what Pouncey and Garrett did deserve significantly more attention (and are not equitable IMO). 

I think it is coming off as if CRA and I are defending these dudes as if they did things right when we both think that Pouncey and Garrett both deserved suspensions as those that took the worst actions in the brawl, and that other participants need to be punished too, just according to what they did.

[CRA]

2 minutes ago, aGDevil2k said:

Or you could say they were all wrong, and Garrett was just more wrong?  And maybe that none of them involved deserve defending?

Garrett was the wrongest by far 

Then Pouncey by a far margin over the next guy 

Then Mason

I can get on board with your last sentence though 

[Harbingers]

4 minutes ago, AggieLean said:

Garrett did not need to be kicked in the head. I know Mason is a little guy, but there were other big guys out there that could’ve subdued him without doing what Pouncey did.

Seems to me you’re letting your dislike of the action Garrett took, completely disregard the protection that Garrett should be granted as well. Pouncey was wrong, and should be gone just as long as Garrett. Two wrongs don’t make a right

If someone took a helmet to your best friends head. What would you do? 

[Cookie Lyon]

31 minutes ago, Snake said:

I don't think any of us disagree as much as think others got off the hook for just as bad actions. 

I agree that Mason Rudolph got off the hook since he started everything.

[Bronn]

stfu about hockey btw

nobody cares about that

 

Pouncey should be suspended an equitable amount of time as Garrett.

Rudolph should be suspended at least one game like Ogunjobi.

That would be justice.

[Harbingers]

1 minute ago, CRA said:

Garrett was the wrongest by far 

Then Pouncey by a far margin over the next guy 

Then Mason

I can get on board with your last sentence though 

None involved do. Why so many people are defending Garrett is worrisome at best.

Who the fug knows what they would be saying if was let’s say Reid instead of Garrett.  

[Snake]

8 minutes ago, AggieLean said:

Garrett did not need to be kicked in the head. I know Mason is a little guy, but there were other big guys out there that could’ve subdued him without doing what Pouncey did.

Seems to me you’re letting your dislike of the action Garrett took, completely disregard the protection that Garrett should be granted as well. Pouncey was wrong, and should be gone just as long as Garrett. Two wrongs don’t make a right

I will just leave this little nugget here

 

Notice who is moving forward and who is getting pushed back. 

[CRA]

2 minutes ago, mav1234 said:

I more or less think this way.  The only thing I will say is that "wrong" versus "dangerous" are different things.  Rudolph was in the wrong, and is getting a fine.  All of 'em were in the wrong.  But what Pouncey and Garrett did deserve significantly more attention (and are not equitable IMO). 

I think it is coming off as if CRA and I are defending these dudes as if they did things right when we both think that Pouncey and Garrett both deserved suspensions as those that took the worst actions in the brawl, and that other participants need to be punished too, just according to what they did.

I’ll add

and saying I don’t think you can suspend Mason because of NFL precedence on these things....isn’t saying he is an innocent party. 

There is presence on all the suspensions.  Even the 3rd guy.  There isn’t a case where the NFL has suspended a dude for what Mason did. 

[PanthersBigD]

2 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

If someone took a helmet to your best friends head. What would you do? 

It's not his best friend, and if I kicked a guy in the head regardless of what he did to my 'friend', I'd be guilty of assault and battery. 

[Harbingers]

Just now, Bronn said:

stfu about hockey btw

nobody cares about that

I know you poor Milly’s don’t watch hockey but there’s a lot more fights and physical contact. That doesn’t involve ripping a players helmet off, beating them over the head with it and not expecting retaliation. They have the decency to take the gloves off and fight like humans. 

Pouncey deserves a game at most. 

Lets say someone picked up a brick and beat your friend in the head. What would you do then?

[Snake]

1 minute ago, CRA said:

I’ll add

and saying I don’t think you can suspend Mason because of NFL precedence on these things....isn’t saying he is an innocent party. 

There is presence on all the suspensions.  Even the 3rd guy.  There isn’t a case where the NFL has suspended a dude for what Mason did. 

Innocent party 

 

[Bronn]

1 minute ago, Harbingers said:

I know you poor Milly’s don’t watch hockey but there’s a lot more fights and physical contact. That doesn’t involve ripping a players helmet off, beating them over the head with it and not expecting retaliation. They have the decency to take the gloves off and fight like humans. 

Pouncey deserves a game at most. 

Lets say someone picked up a brick and beat your friend in the head. What would you do then?

I'm not gonna buy into your terrible analogies.