Suh gonna pay for that

Sky King

158.3
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
2,817
Reaction score
329
Location
Out of the clear blue western skies...
I disagree on one point. If this had been any other players involved this would still be talked about. The difference would be that if it had been Matthews that stepped on Stafford EVERY SINGLE PACKER FAN would be screaming ACCIDENTAL. If it would have been some no name lineman stepping on a backup QB the ratios of intentional to accidental would probably be reversed.

The high profile of the players is certainly helping keep the story up there but I think its more because of Suh than Rodgers.

You mentioned this I wonder how many people condemning him actually saw the play at real speed with the entire play not just the two seconds of slo mo footage of him actually standing on the leg or several forward backward replays.

I know I am in the very small majority of Packers fans (maybe the only one) and minority of fans everywhere that don't think this was intentional. The way I saw it was he was moving backwards from being blocked and there is this thing called inertia. You can't just stop a 300 pound object instantly. The first step was obvious (to me) a result of the play. As his right foot was coming down Rodgers leg was underneath and the foot sort of rolls off. Backward momentum carried him back and he stepped on it again with his left leg. Since Aarons leg is higher than the ground when Suh comes to a stop his right foot is going to come off the ground. The only way to prevent that would be to bend his left leg and no one who is moving backward putting pressure on his back is going to do that because they will fall. Its instinctive reaction. Its almost impossible to do stepping backwards from a stand still when you know what is going to happen. Now try it at full speed going backwards when you have no idea what is going on behind you.

As far as his reaction. As a player you watch the action. You concentrate on the ball. You don't pay attention to what is going on behind you away from the ball. Your though process is not going to be I'm going backwards, whats that weird feeling under my foot, my foot came down on something that isn't ground, gee I wonder what it is. It can only be one thing it can only be Aaron's leg I'm going to take another step back and really push off.

Maybe, after Rodgers slaps him on the *** and he is walking away, he may realize what happened and at that point he could have turned around and said Oh gee Aaron did I step on your leg? Are you OK? Does it hurt? here, let me help you up I'm really really sorry. I didn't mean it. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me. Or he could have just walked away like most football players do when a play is over.

All that said it could have been intentional but I don't think it was. Bring on the disagree votes
And here I always thought the sky was blue. Not for everybody, it seems.
 

Mklangelo

Feng Shui Debunker
Joined
Sep 29, 2014
Messages
578
Reaction score
33
Location
Florida
The difference would be that if it had been Matthews that stepped on Stafford EVERY SINGLE PACKER FAN would be screaming ACCIDENTAL.
Because it would have been. That's why.

Apples and Oranges. I'm not the Koolaid drinking, rose colored glasses type of fan but you WILL NEVER see that kind of **** from any Packer.

Get your eyes checked.
 
Last edited:

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
I disagree on one point. If this had been any other players involved this would still be talked about. The difference would be that if it had been Matthews that stepped on Stafford EVERY SINGLE PACKER FAN would be screaming ACCIDENTAL. If it would have been some no name lineman stepping on a backup QB the ratios of intentional to accidental would probably be reversed.

The high profile of the players is certainly helping keep the story up there but I think its more because of Suh than Rodgers.

You mentioned this I wonder how many people condemning him actually saw the play at real speed with the entire play not just the two seconds of slo mo footage of him actually standing on the leg or several forward backward replays.

I know I am in the very small majority of Packers fans (maybe the only one) and minority of fans everywhere that don't think this was intentional. The way I saw it was he was moving backwards from being blocked and there is this thing called inertia. You can't just stop a 300 pound object instantly. The first step was obvious (to me) a result of the play. As his right foot was coming down Rodgers leg was underneath and the foot sort of rolls off. Backward momentum carried him back and he stepped on it again with his left leg. Since Aarons leg is higher than the ground when Suh comes to a stop his right foot is going to come off the ground. The only way to prevent that would be to bend his left leg and no one who is moving backward putting pressure on his back is going to do that because they will fall. Its instinctive reaction. Its almost impossible to do stepping backwards from a stand still when you know what is going to happen. Now try it at full speed going backwards when you have no idea what is going on behind you.

As far as his reaction. As a player you watch the action. You concentrate on the ball. You don't pay attention to what is going on behind you away from the ball. Your though process is not going to be I'm going backwards, whats that weird feeling under my foot, my foot came down on something that isn't ground, gee I wonder what it is. It can only be one thing it can only be Aaron's leg I'm going to take another step back and really push off.

Maybe, after Rodgers slaps him on the *** and he is walking away, he may realize what happened and at that point he could have turned around and said Oh gee Aaron did I step on your leg? Are you OK? Does it hurt? here, let me help you up I'm really really sorry. I didn't mean it. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me. Or he could have just walked away like most football players do when a play is over.

All that said it could have been intentional but I don't think it was. Bring on the disagree votes

Let's forget about the fact for a minute that Suh's excuse of "numb feet couldn't feel the difference between the ground and a leg" was about as believable as OJ's "The police framed me."

Of course he's treated differently than Matthews. He's earned that with his past behavior. None of us besides Suh knows for sure what he intended, so they have to make an educated guess. They do that based on his past pattern of behavior and dirty play, and likewise if Matthews stepped on Stafford, they would look at 6 years of hard, but fair play and if there was doubt they would likely assume it was not intentional.

Guess what, when you establish yourself as a dirty player like Suh has, you forfeit your right to the benefit of the doubt. I don't know why this is shocking to anyone. Works that same way in real life. If you had two sons, one real troublemaker and another that had never done a thing wrong in their life, and 20 bucks was missing from your wallet, which one would you suspect?
 

Croak

Vincit qui patitur
Moderator
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
6,478
Reaction score
1,154
Location
New Cumberland, PA
I disagree on one point. If this had been any other players involved this would still be talked about. The difference would be that if it had been Matthews that stepped on Stafford EVERY SINGLE PACKER FAN would be screaming ACCIDENTAL. If it would have been some no name lineman stepping on a backup QB the ratios of intentional to accidental would probably be reversed.

The high profile of the players is certainly helping keep the story up there but I think its more because of Suh than Rodgers.

You mentioned this I wonder how many people condemning him actually saw the play at real speed with the entire play not just the two seconds of slo mo footage of him actually standing on the leg or several forward backward replays.

I know I am in the very small majority of Packers fans (maybe the only one) and minority of fans everywhere that don't think this was intentional. The way I saw it was he was moving backwards from being blocked and there is this thing called inertia. You can't just stop a 300 pound object instantly. The first step was obvious (to me) a result of the play. As his right foot was coming down Rodgers leg was underneath and the foot sort of rolls off. Backward momentum carried him back and he stepped on it again with his left leg. Since Aarons leg is higher than the ground when Suh comes to a stop his right foot is going to come off the ground. The only way to prevent that would be to bend his left leg and no one who is moving backward putting pressure on his back is going to do that because they will fall. Its instinctive reaction. Its almost impossible to do stepping backwards from a stand still when you know what is going to happen. Now try it at full speed going backwards when you have no idea what is going on behind you.

As far as his reaction. As a player you watch the action. You concentrate on the ball. You don't pay attention to what is going on behind you away from the ball. Your though process is not going to be I'm going backwards, whats that weird feeling under my foot, my foot came down on something that isn't ground, gee I wonder what it is. It can only be one thing it can only be Aaron's leg I'm going to take another step back and really push off.

Maybe, after Rodgers slaps him on the *** and he is walking away, he may realize what happened and at that point he could have turned around and said Oh gee Aaron did I step on your leg? Are you OK? Does it hurt? here, let me help you up I'm really really sorry. I didn't mean it. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me. Or he could have just walked away like most football players do when a play is over.

All that said it could have been intentional but I don't think it was. Bring on the disagree votes

It's not normal Packer culture to tolerate such behavior. There have been the occasional troubled players, but usually they were dealt with and sent packing. The great Dave Robinson commented that Vince Lombardi would NEVER tolerate dirty play from his players. I know Bengston, Starr, Holmgren and McCarthy all hate dirty play. I don't remember how Sherman reacted to it, but he was kind of a milk toast toward most things. Dave said Lombardi was very strict about that. I believe that attitude continues in the Green Bay organization today. I also believe coach McCarthy would voluntarily bench a player with such outlandish behavior before the NFL has to intervene.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,969
Reaction score
1,244
It's not normal Packer culture to tolerate such behavior. There have been the occasional troubled players, but usually they were dealt with and sent packing. The great Dave Robinson commented that Vince Lombardi would NEVER tolerate dirty play from his players. I know Bengston, Starr, Holmgren and McCarthy all hate dirty play. I don't remember how Sherman reacted to it, but he was kind of a milk toast toward most things. Dave said Lombardi was very strict about that. I believe that attitude continues in the Green Bay organization today. I also believe coach McCarthy would voluntarily bench a player with such outlandish behavior before the NFL has to intervene.

If Mike McCarthy saw one of his players do that and he thought it was intentional he may very well bench him and TT might even cut him (if he was a scrub) but my point is would they see it as intentional if it were their player? Or would there be some gray area that left something open to interpretation that would afford the player the benefit of the doubt that would make it difficult to prove intent that would keep him on the field?

I know the fans wouldn't and responses like the one mklangelo made prove it. Put Matthews in Suh's spot and people would say it was an accident and he replied "because it would have been , that's why." What he is saying is Matthews can step on anyone or do anything he wants and he (mklangelo) will think it is an accident. That's the behavior I was talking about.
 

Mklangelo

Feng Shui Debunker
Joined
Sep 29, 2014
Messages
578
Reaction score
33
Location
Florida
I know the fans wouldn't and responses like the one mklangelo made prove it.

My post proves nothing other than Matthews is NOT the kind of player Suh is. If you don't know that, you know nothing.

There are NO sacred cows in my world. Trust me.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,969
Reaction score
1,244
My post proves nothing other than Matthews is NOT the kind of player Suh is. If you don't know that, you know nothing.

There are NO sacred cows in my world. Trust me.


I never said he was. All I said was that if Matthews stepped on a player you are already saying it would be an accident. Its kind of hard to consider yourself objective if that is the case.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
I never said he was. All I said was that if Matthews stepped on a player you are already saying it would be an accident. Its kind of hard to consider yourself objective if that is the case.

It has already been explained several times what the difference is. Yes, Matthews is more likely to be considered accidental if there is any doubt. Suh is not. Suh has a history of similar dirty behavior and has lost his right to have the benefit of the doubt. Matthews has not. That is the difference.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,969
Reaction score
1,244
are you saying it was an accident?

As far as Suh is concerned what I should have said was I am not convinced it was on purpose not I don't think it was on purpose (although if I had to pick one I would say accident)
 

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
As far as Suh is concerned what I should have said was I am not convinced it was on purpose not I don't think it was on purpose (although if I had to pick one I would say accident)
The fact that he has been fined seven times before this incident and suspended for two games in just a five-year career is evidence against your opinion. As is the fact that just two and half seasons into his NFL career he was voted the dirtiest player in the league. Thinking he stepped on Rodgers and then stepped back and put all his weight on him accidentally is naive IMO. And his excuse for doing so just confirms it.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,969
Reaction score
1,244
It has already been explained several times what the difference is. Yes, Matthews is more likely to be considered accidental if there is any doubt. Suh is not. Suh has a history of similar dirty behavior and has lost his right to have the benefit of the doubt. Matthews has not. That is the difference.

I know what the difference is. I realize that people would tend to give Matthews the benefit of the doubt that Suh does not have and I agree. Benefit of the doubt is something that needs to be earned (or lost) The thing is most objective people would wait for future instances to occur before passing judgement. Anytime Suh does something like this a certain group of people will automatically say it was intentional. That has nothing to do with the benefit of the doubt that has to do with one time guilty (or in this case several time guilty) every time guilty. If Matthews were to do it a certain group of people will automatically think its an accident. That is not the benefit of the doubt they have already judged him innocent of any future miss steps. Some of those people have already stated as much.

I don't have a problem with people who watched this happen and say he did it on purpose. People see things differently. What I have a problem with is the people who watched this and say "well it's Suh and he has done this sort of thing before so obviously he did it on purpose" Taking past actions into account is one thing but basing your judgement on them is something else all together.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,969
Reaction score
1,244
The fact that he has been fined seven times before this incident and suspended for two games in just a five-year career is evidence against your opinion. As is the fact that just two and half seasons into his NFL career he was voted the dirtiest player in the league. Thinking he stepped on Rodgers and then stepped back and put all his weight on him accidentally is naive IMO. And his excuse for doing so just confirms it.


So you do not think that is is possible, given his past behavior, that this could have been an accident? Just because he has been fined seven times before this incident and suspended for two games in just a five-year career is evidence against your opinion. As is the fact that just two and half seasons into his NFL career he was voted the dirtiest player in the league this had to be intentional

I feel sorry for anyone on trial if you guys are on the jury. You have already made up your minds based on past actions.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
So you do not think that is is possible, given his past behavior, that this could have been an accident? Just because he has been fined seven times before this incident and suspended for two games in just a five-year career is evidence against your opinion. As is the fact that just two and half seasons into his NFL career he was voted the dirtiest player in the league this had to be intentional

I feel sorry for anyone on trial if you guys are on the jury. You have already made up your minds based on past actions.

Take a look at it once again. There's no way I would believe any player (and especially a guy with Suh's history) in the league that it happened accidentally. His ridiculous explanation was just the icing on the cake.
 

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
So you do not think that is is possible, given his past behavior, that this could have been an accident? ... I feel sorry for anyone on trial if you guys are on the jury. You have already made up your minds based on past actions.
I didn't base my opinion solely on past actions, I watched the incident several times - and not in slow motion. That was no accident. It's funny you bring up a jury. God as my witness I almost typed I'd love to have someone like you on the jury if I was ever on trial. ;)
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
So you do not think that is is possible, given his past behavior, that this could have been an accident? Just because he has been fined seven times before this incident and suspended for two games in just a five-year career is evidence against your opinion. As is the fact that just two and half seasons into his NFL career he was voted the dirtiest player in the league this had to be intentional

I feel sorry for anyone on trial if you guys are on the jury. You have already made up your minds based on past actions.

Based on his past behavior, video evidence, and insane explanation, I believe he did it on purpose. I don't know what else to tell you. I can't give him a lie detector test. I'm shocked anyone would just take his word for it anymore, but to each their own.
 

PackerDNA

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
6,428
Reaction score
1,499
No way I buy it was an accident. "My feet were numb"??? No dude, you're numb between the ears.
The league didn't want a key player suspended for a playoff game, and was looking for any excuse to avoid it. Not having a good excuse, they simply said screw you to integrity.
 

NorthWestCheeseHead

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Messages
1,127
Reaction score
103
So you do not think that is is possible, given his past behavior, that this could have been an accident? Just because he has been fined seven times before this incident and suspended for two games in just a five-year career is evidence against your opinion. As is the fact that just two and half seasons into his NFL career he was voted the dirtiest player in the league this had to be intentional

I feel sorry for anyone on trial if you guys are on the jury. You have already made up your minds based on past actions.
Character references count for a lot when validating the truthfulness of personal accounts, especially in criminal trials. Quite frankly his reeks of :poop:. I really don't see any cause for excuse, it was his most blatantly purposeful act of dirty play I've personally watch from him. He literally just came off the newly revamped "naughty list" and that's very likely the reason the arbiter decided to reverse the suspension as he did deny his defence. And as essentially a 1st offence, under the new program, the arbiter felt it still warranted a $70K fine, which is sizable. That being said the initially parties that reviewed the incident felt, as a 1st offence, it was egregious enough to warrant a suspension.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Top