Myles Garrett suspension

So a guy can swing a helmet at a guys head and hit him causing potential life threatening injuries. He was suspended, but already reinstated just now.

Yet Josh Gordon is still suspended. How does that make any sense at all? The NFL powers that be are just really screwed up in the head.

kf3339":11x5pupb said:

So a guy can swing a helmet at a guys head and hit him causing potential life threatening injuries. He was suspended, but already reinstated just now.

Yet Josh Brown is still suspended. How does that make any sense at all? The NFL powers that be are just really screwed up in the head.

Click to expand...

Garrett has served his time.

Ridiculous comparison to Josh Brown, who allegedly beat his wife on a regular basis. Brown initially only got a 1 game suspension in the 2016 season before the King Co Sheriff's office released more documents.

Brown is gone and should never come back.

Rethink your stance.

Not even close to being the same. Agreed he served his time. Hes not a shitrat that has done anything before.

Myles didn't hit Rudolph that hard. Besides, Mason Rudolph is a punk and started the whole thing because he didn't like getting tackled. I'm going to enjoy watching him lose games for the Stealers.

[youtube]swSkNYzqi8Q[/youtube]



Mason Rudolph should've been suspended for the Myles Garrett fight - Stephen A. | First Take

[youtube]4_mQXHCMOrs[/youtube]



Mason Rudolph initiated the fight vs. Myles Garrett – Max Kellerman | First Take

[youtube]21NlMgar1sc[/youtube]

Whoops , my mistake. Meant Josh Gordon our suspended WR from this last season.

kf3339":3d9nrdqf said:

Whoops , my mistake. Meant Josh Gordon our suspended WR from this last season.

Click to expand...

Ahh, that makes more sense. Sorry, didn't mean to jump on that so hard.

To your point, yes, I think Gordon definitely should be free to play in the league. But I don't see any issue with reinstating Garrett.

Garrett didn't start the fight..Time served.

6 games (and pay checks) is a sizable punishment. Seems to fit the crime.

kf3339":29e3lbca said:

Whoops , my mistake. Meant Josh Gordon our suspended WR from this last season.

Click to expand...

That makies much more sense. :180670:

Garrett was reinstated by Roger Goodell on Wednesday. He gave an interview to ESPN saying that a racial slur had been said but it didn't excuse his behavior.

Stephen A thinks Garrett should have been suspended through at least the opener.

The videod and story can be viewed here: https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/286 ... king-brawl

SantaClaraHawk":2v12yq3u said:

Garrett was reinstated by Roger Goodell on Wednesday. He gave an interview to ESPN saying that a racial slur had been said but it didn't excuse his behavior.

Stephen A thinks Garrett should have been suspended through at least the opener.

The videod and story can be viewed here: https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/286 ... king-brawl

Click to expand...

Garret's excuse of Rudolph using a racial slur that no one else has reported hearing tells me he likely learned nothing and will eventually go all "Burfict" and offend again at some point.

Milehighhawk":294jjboo said:

SantaClaraHawk":294jjboo said:

Garrett was reinstated by Roger Goodell on Wednesday. He gave an interview to ESPN saying that a racial slur had been said but it didn't excuse his behavior.

Stephen A thinks Garrett should have been suspended through at least the opener.

The videod and story can be viewed here: https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/286 ... king-brawl

Click to expand...

Garret's excuse of Rudolph using a racial slur that no one else has reported hearing tells me he likely learned nothing and will eventually go all "Burfict" and offend again at some point.

Click to expand...

I think with guys like Burfict, Incognito, and Rodney Harrison it is about a general lack of respect for the game and opponents.

Garrett saw red and lost it, I've been there before, but he's a minimal risk to do that again.

Garrett told ESPN this:

“Most quarterbacks wear mics in their helmets. He somehow lost his helmet and had to get another one without a mic. There were guys who were mic’d up near me — near us — during that time who didn’t hear anything, and from what I’ve heard, there [may] have been audio during that game that could’ve heard something or could not have heard something, but they don’t want to say."

I don't understand this statement. QB helmet mics are traditionally inbound-only. And did Rudolph lose another helmet before the incident, or is he talking about the helmet that got lost from Rudolph's head during the incident?

Garrett then says "other guys were mic'd up but didn't hear anything." Would being mic'd up make it more, less or equally probable that they wouldn't hear anything?

"From what I hear, there may have been audio or may not have been audio..."

But the NFL says there isn't. Garrett has brought no evidence to refute this, and he backs it up in his most recent statement.

SantaClaraHawk":1puif8x7 said:

Garrett told ESPN this:

“Most quarterbacks wear mics in their helmets. He somehow lost his helmet and had to get another one without a mic. There were guys who were mic’d up near me — near us — during that time who didn’t hear anything, and from what I’ve heard, there [may] have been audio during that game that could’ve heard something or could not have heard something, but they don’t want to say."

I don't understand this statement. QB helmet mics are traditionally inbound-only. And did Rudolph lose another helmet before the incident, or is he talking about the helmet that got lost from Rudolph's head during the incident?

Garrett then says "other guys were mic'd up but didn't hear anything." Would being mic'd up make it more, less or equally probable that they wouldn't hear anything?

"From what I hear, there may have been audio or may not have been audio..."

But the NFL says there isn't. Garrett has brought no evidence to refute this, and he backs it up in his most recent statement.

Click to expand...

Ultimately this sounds like a "he said/he said" situation, one's word against the other's. The reinstatement hopefully puts this all to bed barring any forthcoming discoveries.

Rudolph's agent/lawyer reacts.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/YoungerAssoc/status/1228692699345121280[/tweet]

https://twitter.com/YoungerAssoc/status ... 9345121280

:roll: Of course there's lawyers involved now. We live in such an over-litigious society.

I'd say settle it on the field like men; but Rudolph's sorry ass is gonna be stuck to the bench.

KinesProf":35fi747k said:

:roll: Of course there's lawyers involved now. We live in such an over-litigious society.

I'd say settle it on the field like men; but Rudolph's sorry ass is gonna be stuck to the bench.

Click to expand...

Both players basically need to be men about this at this point.

Garrett got six games suspended of an INDEFINITE suspension. That's not the NFL dissing him, it's the NFL giving him a break. He then responds to that with a ESPN interview that doesn't focus on what he's done to stay ready during his suspension, or the humanitarian work he has done, or what he's working on to be a better DE in 2020. Nope, he responds by intimating that the NFL might be hiding things and that Rudolph was lying about something neither can prove.

At this point, Rudolph needed to respond, and that response should have been something like "I regret and took responsibility for this situation. Saying a racial slur was not part of it" and left it at that. Instead, his lawyer/agent escalates this AGAIN by saying it's civil defamation that could be sued over.

Rudolph is a public figure, and as such needs to prove 1) unequivocally that what was said was untrue; and additionally 2) saying so was primarily to try to hurt Rudolph (as opposed to saving Garrett's own butt). Unlikely to happen, and if it did would probably cost most of Rudolph's dead-cap hit to depo and put investigators on other players, on teams and on the league itself. Not only the cost, but it's a terrible career move.

Both men need to be men, say that there's differences in their understanding of what happened, and that they both welcome being focused on football in 2020. That's it.

SantaClaraHawk":2pw0gjkg said:

KinesProf":2pw0gjkg said:

:roll: Of course there's lawyers involved now. We live in such an over-litigious society.

I'd say settle it on the field like men; but Rudolph's sorry ass is gonna be stuck to the bench.

Click to expand...

Both men need to be men, say that there's differences in their understanding of what happened, and that they both welcome being focused on football in 2020. That's it.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm a 90's baby like both of these guys, and am finding this back and forth to be very childish. Heck, by age 27 Roger Staubach had already been to Vietnam and back to join the Cowboys.

KinesProf":347movch said:

Garrett saw red and lost it, I've been there before, but he's a minimal risk to do that again.

Click to expand...

Florio argues that if Garrett is telling the truth about being provoked by an N-word slur, that doesn't minimize the risk but incentivizes opponents to yell more slurs to provoke him to go off. Especially since he included black players themselves by stating it was a trigger for him even with the "a" at the end. A 15-yard penalty, or potential DQ of their best DE, can be game-changers after all.