Pollux
All-Kirk Gibson
Posts: 3,874 
|
Suh
Dec 30, 2014 11:11:49 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Pollux on Dec 30, 2014 11:11:49 GMT -5
He had to put on a show. Just like when he had to be carted off right before the half grinning at the scoreboard only to return in the third quarter to MVP chants. If he didn't have that locked up going into Sundays game I bet he does now. It seemed like his limp also came and went, selectively. Interesting how that happened. He couldn't let Romo out do him. Romo did it earlier in the year. Jerry Jones in the training room checking on him and then personally delivering the message to Garrett on the sideline during the game that he was good to go. |
|
Pollux
All-Kirk Gibson
Posts: 3,874
|
Suh
Dec 30, 2014 15:01:18 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Pollux on Dec 30, 2014 15:01:18 GMT -5
I'm surprised there hasn't been any word one way or the other yet.
|
|
|
|
Suh
Dec 30, 2014 15:12:04 GMT -5
Post by fastfreddie on Dec 30, 2014 15:12:04 GMT -5
I'm surprised there hasn't been any word one way or the other yet. They said the appeal announcement would be this evening. |
|
|
|
Suh
Dec 30, 2014 17:15:43 GMT -5
Post by eruff on Dec 30, 2014 17:15:43 GMT -5
He should be kept from playing because his own stupidity. The guy just don't get it. The guy is by far the best DT in the NFL just a complete asshole and flat out dirty
|
|
|
|
Suh
Dec 30, 2014 17:23:05 GMT -5
Post by The Hoff on Dec 30, 2014 17:23:05 GMT -5
Adam Schefter tweeting that Suh won his appeal and will play Sunday against the Cowboys.
|
|
|
|
Suh
Dec 30, 2014 17:23:12 GMT -5
Post by thecouncil on Dec 30, 2014 17:23:12 GMT -5
Wins his appeal. Fined 70k.
D2o wrong again.
|
|
|
|
Suh
Dec 30, 2014 17:24:16 GMT -5
Post by eruff on Dec 30, 2014 17:24:16 GMT -5
Wins his appeal. Fined 70k. D2o wrong again.  |
|
|
|
Suh
Dec 30, 2014 17:39:53 GMT -5
Post by mattz1318 on Dec 30, 2014 17:39:53 GMT -5
Ndamukong Suh won the appeal of his one-game suspension, and will be allowed to play in Sunday's Wild Card game against the Cowboys.
Instead of getting banned for Sunday's trip to Dallas, Suh has been fined $70,000. It's game-changing news for the Lions, who desperately need Suh to anchor their league-best run defense against 2014's best rusher DeMarco Murray. For Suh, it should be considered something of a final warning. A playoff ban was always harsh, but defensible given Suh's long history of unacceptable on-the-field behavior. The reversal is certainly good news for the quality of Sunday's game, however. Suh remains an immovable object in the middle of the defense.
Yeah bitch
|
|
|
|
Suh
Dec 30, 2014 17:55:29 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by bogeywon on Dec 30, 2014 17:55:29 GMT -5
Fuck him and Dom! Hope they win so the pack can destroy them at home again
|
|
|
|
Suh
Dec 30, 2014 19:34:48 GMT -5
Post by Deuterium Oxide on Dec 30, 2014 19:34:48 GMT -5
Wins his appeal. Fined 70k. D2o wrong again.  |
|
Pollux
All-Kirk Gibson
Posts: 3,874
|
Suh
Dec 30, 2014 19:51:58 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Pollux on Dec 30, 2014 19:51:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Suh
Dec 31, 2014 9:34:53 GMT -5
Post by flemgoblue on Dec 31, 2014 9:34:53 GMT -5
Fuck him and Dom! Hope they win so the pack can destroy them at home again they'd have to win 2 games to face the crybaby packers again.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2014 9:38:42 GMT -5
Couldn't tell the difference between legs and ground because feet were frozen. Hahaha. What a dickhead.
|
|
|
|
Suh
Dec 31, 2014 9:45:24 GMT -5
Post by Deuterium Oxide on Dec 31, 2014 9:45:24 GMT -5
Couldn't tell the difference between legs and ground because feet were frozen. Hahaha. What a dickhead. Incredible lie. |
|
|
|
Post by joeking1978 on Dec 31, 2014 9:49:22 GMT -5
He's obviously mocking the NFL with shit like that
|
|
Pollux
All-Kirk Gibson
Posts: 3,874
|
Suh
Dec 31, 2014 11:28:59 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Pollux on Dec 31, 2014 11:28:59 GMT -5
He's obviously mocking the NFL with shit like that It's also interesting that under the new rules that if you go 32 games including a maximum of two preseasons without an incident then they wipe the slate. This was game 33. Don't think he didn't know that. |
|
|
|
Suh
Dec 31, 2014 11:31:37 GMT -5
Post by The Hoff on Dec 31, 2014 11:31:37 GMT -5
So here's my question. If this was completely unintentional, why the fine? If this was not some freak accident, why lift the suspension? The decision to fine him seems inconsistent with Suh's position that it was totally inadvertant, and the league's position that it was intentional. Don't see where there is a middle ground here. Either me meant to do it, or he didn't.
|
|
reggie
All-Pavel Datsyuk
Posts: 895
|
Suh
Dec 31, 2014 11:35:54 GMT -5
Post by reggie on Dec 31, 2014 11:35:54 GMT -5
the league probably thought about having to listen to joe buck go on and on about it and asked what it would take for him to stfu.
|
|
|
|
Suh
Dec 31, 2014 11:39:12 GMT -5
Post by The Hoff on Dec 31, 2014 11:39:12 GMT -5
the league probably thought about having to listen to joe buck go on and on about it and asked what it would take for him to stfu. League didn't make the final call. The league's decision was suspenson. The suspension was lifted by Cottrell, who is an independant arbitrator. And Joe Buck is approved by the league, so they're part of the conspiracy to ruin their own broadcasts. It's like having a villain in the wrestling federation. |
|
Pollux
All-Kirk Gibson
Posts: 3,874
|
Suh
Dec 31, 2014 11:40:24 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Pollux on Dec 31, 2014 11:40:24 GMT -5
So here's my question. If this was completely unintentional, why the fine? If this was not some freak accident, why lift the suspension? The decision to fine him seems inconsistent with Suh's position that it was totally inadvertant, and the league's position that it was intentional. Don't see where there is a middle ground here. Either me meant to do it, or he didn't. Because agregious instances of that sort of thing receive a fine unless you have a documented history and then suspensions come into play. Under the new 2014 policy after 32 games of behaving yourself then there is no history anymore. So he got fined because under the rules this was his first offense and first offenses don't merit a suspension. He said it wasn't intentional but it's obvious it was. The arbitrator ruled it was and fined him for his first offense and rescinded the suspension. |
|
Pollux
All-Kirk Gibson
Posts: 3,874
|
Suh
Dec 31, 2014 11:41:53 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Pollux on Dec 31, 2014 11:41:53 GMT -5
the league probably thought about having to listen to joe buck go on and on about it and asked what it would take for him to stfu. League didn't make the final call. The league's decision was suspenson. The suspension was lifted by Cottrell, who is an independant arbitrator. And Joe Buck is approved by the league, so they're part of the conspiracy to ruin their own broadcasts. It's like having a villain in the wrestling federation. Cottrell gets half his salary from the NFL and half from the players association. |
|
|
|
Suh
Dec 31, 2014 11:44:29 GMT -5
Post by The Hoff on Dec 31, 2014 11:44:29 GMT -5
So here's my question. If this was completely unintentional, why the fine? If this was not some freak accident, why lift the suspension? The decision to fine him seems inconsistent with Suh's position that it was totally inadvertant, and the league's position that it was intentional. Don't see where there is a middle ground here. Either me meant to do it, or he didn't. Because agregious instances of that sort of thing receive a fine unless you have a documented history and then suspensions come into play. Under the new 2014 policy after 32 games of behaving yourself then there is no history anymore. So he got fined because under the rules this was his first offense and first offenses don't merit a suspension. He said it wasn't intentional but it's obvious it was. The arbitrator ruled it was and fined him for his first offense and rescinded the suspension. You missed the point entirely. If this was an aggregious instance, why the fine instead of the suspension? What with the league being concerned about conduct that causes injury and whatnot? Even if this was considered a "first offense" how do you justify the fine being this high? |
|
|
|
Post by fastfreddie on Dec 31, 2014 11:48:42 GMT -5
Because agregious instances of that sort of thing receive a fine unless you have a documented history and then suspensions come into play. Under the new 2014 policy after 32 games of behaving yourself then there is no history anymore. So he got fined because under the rules this was his first offense and first offenses don't merit a suspension. He said it wasn't intentional but it's obvious it was. The arbitrator ruled it was and fined him for his first offense and rescinded the suspension. You missed the point entirely. If this was an aggregious instance, why the fine instead of the suspension? What with the league being concerned about conduct that causes injury and whatnot? Even if this was considered a "first offense" how do you justify the fine being this high? This is just a guess, but is it possible that Cottrell said to Suh, would you agree to a higher fine if we overturned your suspension? |
|
Pollux
All-Kirk Gibson
Posts: 3,874
|
Suh
Dec 31, 2014 11:49:15 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Pollux on Dec 31, 2014 11:49:15 GMT -5
Because agregious instances of that sort of thing receive a fine unless you have a documented history and then suspensions come into play. Under the new 2014 policy after 32 games of behaving yourself then there is no history anymore. So he got fined because under the rules this was his first offense and first offenses don't merit a suspension. He said it wasn't intentional but it's obvious it was. The arbitrator ruled it was and fined him for his first offense and rescinded the suspension. You missed the point entirely. If this was an aggregious instance, why the fine instead of the suspension? What with the league being concerned about conduct that causes injury and whatnot? Even if this was considered a "first offense" how do you justify the fine being this high? That I can't answer. I don't know why. It's also interesting that while the suspension was still in effect all of the players like Ihedigbo were giving quotes to the media like "When did we start suspending guys for that?" It happens all the time on running plays and in piles after tackles. Suh just wasn't very discreet about it. I'm guessing it's because he didn't care or he knew the new rule and was giving a giant middle finger to Rodgers and the league. |
|
|
|
Suh
Dec 31, 2014 12:19:44 GMT -5
Post by Deuterium Oxide on Dec 31, 2014 12:19:44 GMT -5
So here's my question. If this was completely unintentional, why the fine? If this was not some freak accident, why lift the suspension? The decision to fine him seems inconsistent with Suh's position that it was totally inadvertant, and the league's position that it was intentional. Don't see where there is a middle ground here. Either me meant to do it, or he didn't. Exactly. This is just them getting him back on the field for a postseason game. |
|
