Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:You are making absolutely no sense. Don't talk to me about this if you can't be 100% serious.

 

Okay, coltsWoman.

Quote:Okay, coltsWoman.

 

Why do you call me ColtsWoman if you know I am not a Colts fan?

Quote:Okay, coltsWoman.

 

you meant, MissColtsFanatic

Quote:Then you must have not read this letter from the NFL, which clearly implies being a repeat offender has nothing to do with his suspension:

 

The NFL letter isn't worth wasting the paper it was written on w/o mentioning the past league violations by Ndamukong Suh.

Quote:you meant, MissColtsFanatic

 

I appreciate the correction.

Quote:I appreciate the correction.

 

Achilles did not correct you. He lied. I am still JaguarsWoman.

Quote:The NFL letter isn't worth wasting the paper it was written on w/o mentioning the past league violations by Ndamukong Suh.

 

But it was completely accurate. Even if the dirtbag was not a repeat offender, it would have been worth a suspension because there was a clear malicious intent, as the letter stated.

 

I agree it should have mentioned the fact he had done something similar before which got him a two-game suspension. But that was not as bad as the suspension being only for one game, not throughout the playoffs.

Quote:But it was completely accurate. Even if the dirtbag was not a repeat offender, it would have been worth a suspension because there was a clear malicious intent, as the letter stated.

 

I agree it should have mentioned the fact he had done something similar before which got him a two-game suspension. But that was not as bad as the suspension being only for one game, not throughout the playoffs.

 

 Intent is difficult to prove.   That much more with malicious intent. 

 

 My point was Ndamukong Suh wouldn't have been suspended if he didn't have a past record with the NFL.  

 

 Actually,  the one game suspension in the playoffs is worse than the two game regular season suspension in 2011.   Think about it. 

Quote: Intent is difficult to prove. That much more with malicious intent. 

 

 My point was Ndamukong Suh wouldn't have been suspended if he didn't have a past record with the NFL.  

 

 Actually,  the one game suspension in the playoffs is worse than the two game regular season suspension in 2011. Think about it. 

 

True, but I think because he was suspended two games the first time, he should be suspended three games the second time.

 

Did Dominic Raiola step or stomp on someone before last week? I don't remember him being a dirty player.

Quote:True, but I think because he was suspended two games the first time, he should be suspended three games the second time.

 

Did Dominic Raiola step or stomp on someone before last week? I don't remember him being a dirty player.

 

  The play from yesterday's game is much more subjective than the one against the Packers in 2011,  that resulted in Ndamukong Suh's 2 game regular season suspension.   If Suh would have committed another infraction like he did in the 2011 Thanksgiving Day game,  at least a 3 game suspension would have resulted.  Probably an even longer suspension.    

 

  According to the NFL,  Dominic Raiola had 6 incidents since 2009 that factored in the 1 game suspension that took place for yesterday's game in Green Bay.   I don't recall any play with Raiola like the one in Chicago against Ego Ferguson.   However,  Raiola crossed the line in New England earlier this season.   Including defending his actions from that game.    IMO,   that opened the door for Raiola to be suspended last week.

 

 

  One thing to keep in mind about Raiola is he likely has been affected over the years by concussions.   I truly believe this has contributed to his erratic behavior.   I think Raiola should retire after this season.    The 14 seasons in the NFL could cause him considerable damage down the road.    I doubt Raiola will be re-signed by the Lions but stranger things have happened.

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/782535...sue-league

 

  The Lions drafted Travis Swanson in the 3rd Round in 2014,  to be Raiola's long term replacement.   Swanson started at C for Raiola yesterday and could start at RG in the road playoff game against the Cowboys if Larry Warford's knee injury that he suffered in the 2nd QTR of yesterday's game keeps him out.    Swanson started 3 full games and played close to 4 full games at RG in November,  after Warford suffered an injury to his other knee very early in the game vs. the Dolphins   But Swanson's future is likely at Center.   One of the few positives from yesterday for the Lions was Swanson had a good  ( not great ) performance in his first NFL start at Center.   However,  one thing that stands out about Swanson,  that relates to Jaguars LT Luke Joeckel,  is both need to improve their functional football strength to reach their potential.  

This is exactly why I've been saying i'd rather Fairley over Suh and been completely mocked for it.


Suh is a liability and is likely playing for his last big contract, expect him to sign a 7year deal and then dissapear.

first step is definitely incidental.

 

It's the second step and the way he presses down that makes me think malice. Only suh will ever know.

 

I agree with the suspension but I don't think this would have gone anywhere  or even been looked at if it wasn't rodgers and suh.

If the suspension is upheld this will make 8 games he's been suspended in 4 years. He's averaging 2 games a year being suspended for disciplinary reasons. Any GM who signs this guy better have that contract loaded with character clauses or they will be very sorry.

Of course his history is being considered even if it's not being stated.  Is is a judgement call about being intentional?  Sure.  But only someone with bad judgement could say that was not intentional.

Quote:But it was completely accurate. Even if the dirtbag was not a repeat offender, it would have been worth a suspension because there was a clear malicious intent, as the letter stated.

 

I agree it should have mentioned the fact he had done something similar before which got him a two-game suspension. But that was not as bad as the suspension being only for one game, not throughout the playoffs.

 

You're wrong.  If a player hadn't done similar things in the past, it could be entirely pulled off as an accident.  With Suh, its much harder to explain.  

 

Again, just because its not said or someone said it...does not always mean its true.  At times, things are taken too literally without reading between the lines.

Quote: Intent is difficult to prove.   That much more with malicious intent. 

 

 My point was Ndamukong Suh wouldn't have been suspended if he didn't have a past record with the NFL.  

 

 Actually,  the one game suspension in the playoffs is worse than the two game regular season suspension in 2011.   Think about it. 

 

It honestly seems really fishy to me.

 

If this offense was so bad, why not suspend him for longer?  Why not slap him with a hefty fine instead and leave it at that?

 

His past is 100% factored in, and it's quite coincidental that the Lions play the Cowboys.

Suh is a dirty player, but you'd have trouble finding one team in the NFL that wouldn't love to have him on their team.

<a class="" href='https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter'>Adam Schefter ‏@<b>AdamSchefter</b> </a> <a class="" href='https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/550053406485016576' title="2:18 PM - 30 Dec 2014">4m4 minutes ago</a>

<p class="">Ndamukong Suh won his appeal; now allowed to play vs. Dallas

Quote:Adam Schefter ‏@<b>AdamSchefter</b> 4m4 minutes ago

Ndamukong Suh won his appeal; now allowed to play vs. Dallas

 

That didn't last long.  The fine was $70k.  I don't know his contract details or what that works out to in terms of game checks.

Quote:<a class="bbc_url" href='https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter'>Adam Schefter ‏@AdamSchefter </a> <a class="bbc_url" href='https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/550053406485016576'>4m4 minutes ago</a>

Ndamukong Suh won his appeal; now allowed to play vs. Dallas

Yay. Now the playoff game might actually be worth watching