Re: Suh getting reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ZiaRam
I dont see how he is bringing on himself? Football is a contact sport and you dont see him stepping on players faces with his cleats! Roger Godell is a lil to full of himself me thinks when it comes to this dirty hits bs. I can understand the helmet leading thing but anything else? Come on!
He brought the situation on himself by brazenly defying the NLF. He was fined for a vicious hit on Jake Delhomme, then dismissed the fine and emphatically said that this was his style of play, and that he wasn't going to change it. He followed that up with a hit on Jay Cutler in which he was fined, and now the Dalton tackle, along with a public jab at the NFL. He's now a marked man, and has no one to blame but himself. Challenging Roger Goodell has been a tactical misjudgement IMO, and he'll eventually pay a heavy price if he continues to thumb his nose at an NFL policy that is not going to change.
For the record, I don't think he should be on a watch list, but the fact is he's going to face unfair scrutiny and he needs to adjust accordingly.
Re: Suh getting reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HUbison
Of course there's a difference. In this case......the whistle. One was a play intended to injure a player before the whistle, the other one after the whistle.
I'll come back to this in a moment...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HUbison
But that's not the question at hand. This conversation is about how Suh will have to find some balance.
Which he likely will as he gains more experience in the league, but in the meantime, he's not going to tone back his aggression and his head coach doesn't want him to.
But distinguishing between what is and isn't dirty is a big part of the question at hand, because the topic was started to discuss Suh developing a reputation as a dirty player. So what exactly is dirty? You seem to think any action that is not legal is inherently dirty. I think there's quite a bit more gray area than that.
Someone alert CNN that a discussion on a message board has produced differing opinions! :D
I think if we're all being honest with ourselves though, some part of it depends on what team a guy is playing for. If you're on the opposition, such a reputation is a negative. But if you're on the home sideline, it's viewed as a positive. Look no further to how excited Rams fans, coaches, and players were over the acquisition of offensive lineman Harvey Dahl, who has a reputation of being a dirty player and has been fined multiple times in the past. Steven Jackson summed it up well:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Jackson
"I've had a chance to see him live and in person when we played Atlanta. He's a guy you hate to go against but when he's on your team, you feel really good about it. He's going to bring that edge to the offensive line that each and every team wants."
This gets me back to your initial comment, the assumption that Suh intended to injure the QB before the whistle. My impression is that players and coaches don't stand behind guys who are out there on the field maliciously trying to injure other players. They will stand behind players who bring an aggression, a tenacity, and as Jackson put it, an edge to their team.
Dahl does that for the Rams, just as Suh does it for the Lions. Which is why Detroit's coaches and players have all stood behind him and contradicted this idea that Suh's intention was to injure. And as I see it, "dirty" is all about intention.
Re: Suh getting reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nick
I'll come back to this in a moment...
Which he likely will as he gains more experience in the league, but in the meantime, he's not going to tone back his aggression and his head coach doesn't want him to.
But distinguishing between what is and isn't dirty is a big part of the question at hand, because the topic was started to discuss Suh developing a reputation as a dirty player. So what exactly is dirty? You seem to think any action that is not legal is inherently dirty. I think there's quite a bit more gray area than that.
Someone alert CNN that a discussion on a message board has produced differing opinions! :D
I think if we're all being honest with ourselves though, some part of it depends on what team a guy is playing for. If you're on the opposition, such a reputation is a negative. But if you're on the home sideline, it's viewed as a positive. Look no further to how excited Rams fans, coaches, and players were over the acquisition of offensive lineman Harvey Dahl, who has a reputation of being a dirty player and has been fined multiple times in the past. Steven Jackson summed it up well:
This gets me back to your initial comment, the assumption that Suh intended to injure the QB before the whistle. My impression is that players and coaches don't stand behind guys who are out there on the field maliciously trying to injure other players. They will stand behind players who bring an aggression, a tenacity, and as Jackson put it, an edge to their team.
Dahl does that for the Rams, just as Suh does it for the Lions. Which is why Detroit's coaches and players have all stood behind him and contradicted this idea that Suh's intention was to injure. And as I see it, "dirty" is all about intention.
And hopefully Suh will be comforted knowing that his team and fans are behind him while he's serving a suspension due to his illegal hits.
Unless he finds a balance, that's exactly what is going to happen.
Re: Suh getting reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nick
And as I see it, "dirty" is all about intention.
Soooo that explains why females always tell me "I have a dirty mind" Intentions, intentions, Intentions.....
Re: Suh getting reputation
I've ripped off a guys helmet in a game this season. I'm not a dirty player though and the play wasn't flagged.
If you don't want your helmet ripped off, it's simple:
1) Don't duck down when i'm wrapping you up around the chest or trying to rip the ball out
2) Do your chin straps up properly!
