Official Week 11 Thread

[Ken]

Why wait a week to say this?

I can think of lots of reasons. Since I've followed him, from what I've seen he's never been the type to want attention. Quite the opposite. Very quiet guy. Doesn't care much about what people think of him. Not a flashy attention seeker. Team first guy. Aced all the combine interviews. He likely wanted this to just go away, but when faced with unprecedented suspension he's going to defend himself.

It's sad that when people immediately bring up race, they are accused of "playing the race card", and then when they don't they are accused of not doing so quickly enough. To me that's pathetic.

[Ken]

Freddie Kitchens said in his press conference immediately following the game that Garrett told him the reason he reacted the way he did. When asked to repeat what Garrett told him, Kitchens said he wanted to keep that to himself for the time being. I actually wondered if this was going to be the case.

[Mithrandir]

Freddie Kitchens said in his press conference immediately following the game that Garrett told him the reason he reacted the way he did. When asked to repeat what Garrett told him, Kitchens said he wanted to keep that to himself for the time being. I actually wondered if this was going to be the case.

For the sake of discussion. Say Rudolph drop the N-Bomb. Does that lessen what Garrett did? Does calling someone THAT name give one the right to try and maim another?

Again I am not defending Rudolph if he said that. But what is an acceptable response to being called that name?

[Ken]

For the sake of discussion. Say Rudolph drop the N-Bomb. Does that lessen what Garrett did? Does calling someone THAT name give one the right to try and maim another?

Again I am not defending Rudolph if he said that. But what is an acceptable response to being called that name?

For the sake of discussion put yourself in Myles Garrett's shoes.

You take a quarterback down, your job. And no, unlike what has been posted various places, it was not a late hit. The ball had just been released and it was ~5 yards away in the screenshots I've seen. Regular NFL hit (outside of being the last play of the game and the Steelers expecting the Browns to just not try I guess?)

Laying beside the QB, he then grabs your helmet and tries to twist it off your head.

He then uses a racial slur (apparently I have to add "alledgedly" since we are going to gaslight him) .

He then kicks you in the balls.

As you get up, you grab *his* helmet, to do the same thing to him that he's tried to do to you and you pull it off.

An OL from the other team now grabs you.

The, now helmetless QB then charges back at you, reaches over from the other side of the OL and grabs your balls.

You tell me what the appropriate response would be. We know the response from someone who has never been in any kind of trouble on or off the field - he went nuts and swung his helmet ( a choice that he should rightly be suspended for - lets go with 3 games since we've literally had a player take off another players' helmet and swing it at him before... ), but what would you do?



**And by the way, "try and maim" is beyond ridiculous. He swung a helmet at the moron charging him with no helmet on. These guys play a violent game. Suggesting that this violence was somehow an "attack" is pathetic. These guys get in fights regularly. 99% of the time, no one tries to rip a helmet off. This time Rudolph did. So he got his own ripped off. Then he charged in with no helmet and got his due. The fact that you think Garrett tried to "maim" him is dumb.

[Mithrandir]

For the sake of discussion put yourself in Myles Garrett's shoes.

You take a quarterback down, your job. And no, unlike what has been posted various places, it was not a late hit. The ball had just been released and it was ~5 yards away in the screenshots I've seen. Regular NFL hit (outside of being the last play of the game and the Steelers expecting the Browns to just not try I guess?)

Laying beside the QB, he then grabs your helmet and tries to twist it off your head.

He then uses a racial slur (apparently I have to add "alledgedly" since we are going to gaslight him) .

He then kicks you in the balls.

As you get up, you grab *his* helmet, to do the same thing to him that he's tried to do to you and you pull it off.

An OL from the other team now grabs you.

The, now helmetless QB then charges back at you, reaches over from the other side of the OL and grabs your balls.

You tell me what the appropriate response would be. We know the response from someone who has never been in any kind of trouble on or off the field - he went nuts and swung his helmet ( a choice that he should rightly be suspended for - lets go with 3 games since we've literally had a player take off another players' helmet and swing it at him before... ), but what would you do?



**And by the way, "try and maim" is beyond ridiculous. He swung a helmet at the moron charging him with no helmet on. These guys play a violent game. Suggesting that this violence was somehow an "attack" is pathetic. These guys get in fights regularly. 99% of the time, no one tries to rip a helmet off. This time Rudolph did. So he got his own ripped off. Then he charged in with no helmet and got his due. The fact that you think Garrett tried to "maim" him is dumb.

You sound like a Brownie homer. As nearly every ex-Nfl player has come down hard on Garrett. If Garrett simply dropped Rudolph's helmet then nothing else happens. But Garrett didn't . He screwed up.

I'm not a Steeler homer at all. In fact I like it when they lose as it makes talk shows more interesting.

[Ken]

You sound like a Brownie homer.

Negative, I've never watched a Browns game in my life actually. My rooting interest in the NFL these days is primarily fantasy based. And I have no Browns on any of my teams.

But you didn't really answer my question. What would you do if all of that was done to you?

As nearly every ex-Nfl player has come down hard on Garrett.

The tide is turning. I've heard more anti-Rudolph on the national radio/TV shows than Garrett the last few days

If Garrett simply dropped Rudolph's helmet then nothing else happens. But Garrett didn't .

This is silly. If Rudolph didn't start the brawl none of it happens, right? There's no question that Rudolph started this. Or are you disputing that?

He screwed up.

No one is disputing that. Any reason you think he should get more than the 3 game precedent set for Smith?

I'm not a Steeler homer at all. In fact I like it when they lose as it makes talk shows more interesting.

I agree.

Here I'll leave you with this:

[Judge Jude]

" unlike what has been posted various places, it was not a late hit. The ball had just been released and it was ~5 yards away in the screenshots I've seen. Regular NFL hit"

aside from it being late (you're the first I've seen argue otherwise), you can't bring the QB to the ground and land the force of your body on him (you can tackle him and shift away as he is hitting the ground).

[Ken]

aside from it being late (you're the first I've seen argue otherwise)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WApAX7VDfkw

I'm not sure how your post could be *more* wrong. Watch the video.

The hit was not late. That garbage came out as an assumption of why Rudolph would act like a crazy maniac. In reality. It was not late.

"rushing defender may make direct contact with the passer only up through the rusher’s first step after such release (prior to second step hitting the ground)"

Here's Garrett's last step before he makes contact. Rudolph has not even pulled his arm back to throw.



Here's where Garrett makes contact, the ball has just left Rudolph's hand. You can't even see most of Garrett because he's immediately behind Rudolph. If he was still running up to make a hit you'd see him clearly from this angle.

you can't bring the QB to the ground and land the force of your body on him

Ummmm, what? Garrett brought Rudolph down to the ground from below... He used his weight to pull him down on top of himself. Rudolph landed on top. Where did you get the idea that Garrett landed with the force of his body on him? That couldn't possibly be further from the truth. It's exactly the opposite.





Did we even watch the same game? Or did you let the fact that a fight broke out provide assumptions that Rudolph had a reason to act like a maniac, and that Garrett was just a monster so he must have been in the wrong from the start??

[TS Garp]

Ken, I agree with a lot of the points you're making and the questions you're asking. I think it's always important to look at these things from all sides. None of us will ever know what truly happened but in looking at this and evaluating it is important to acknowledge that this isn't Garrett's first issue this year. He punched Delanie Walker after a whistle. He hit Trevor Siemian late and ended his season. This all has to be part of the discussion.

[Ken]

it is important to acknowledge that this isn't Garrett's first issue this year.

Fair point, I haven't followed him as closely this year as the past.

He punched Delanie Walker after a whistle.

I just checked the video on this. Deserved to be tossed, but it wasn't a punch. Open handed shove to the helmet. Close enough to be worth looking at though, and I agree with you that this takes some of the "clean" record away from Garrett. Thanks for bringing it up, it's worth including.

He hit Trevor Siemian late and ended his season.

I just watched that video again and after Semian released the ball Garrett took one step and hit him in the chest picking him up off the ground, in what to me looks like a form tackle.

Semien's ankle was trapped under him unfortunately and it broke.

I'm not seeing blame on Garrett here, though. It was not a late hit and the Garrett didn't forcibly break the guys ankle, it got trapped under him awkwardly. Am I wrong?

It's my opinion that this idea that Garrett "ended Semien's season" is results oriented. Garrett did his job and tackled a QB, as he's trained to do. He did it in a completely normal, safe way, IMO. But because Semien trapped his ankle under himself on the way down Garrett is a villain? I don't see it.

This all has to be part of the discussion.

I agree with you.

[TS Garp]

I just watched that video again and after Semian released the ball Garrett took one step and hit him in the chest picking him up off the ground, in what to me looks like a form tackle.

Semien's ankle was trapped under him unfortunately and it broke.

I'm not seeing blame on Garrett here, though. It was not a late hit and the Garrett didn't forcibly break the guys ankle, it got trapped under him awkwardly. Am I wrong?

It's my opinion that this idea that Garrett "ended Semien's season" is results oriented. Garrett did his job and tackled a QB, as he's trained to do. He did it in a completely normal, safe way, IMO. But because Semien trapped his ankle under himself on the way down Garrett is a villain? I don't see it.

With the disclaimer that it's always tough to dissect these things given the speed of the game, not to mention the adrenaline at play, I don't think Garrett needed to fall on Siemian with his full body weight the way he did. That's what caused the injury to be so severe. I understand the "chicken and egg" nature of a play/injury like this, but given all of the rule changes, defensive players have become increasingly adept (and aware) at adjusting their bodies and angles to prevent injury on the tackled player (and to avoid fines) and I think this could have played out differently. FWIW, Garrett was fined $42,000 for it.

[Ken]

With the disclaimer that it's always tough to dissect these things given the speed of the game, not to mention the adrenaline at play, I don't think Garrett needed to fall on Siemian with his full body weight the way he did. That's what caused the injury to be so severe. I understand the "chicken and egg" nature of a play/injury like this, but given all of the rule changes, defensive players have become increasingly adept (and aware) at adjusting their bodies and angles to prevent injury on the tackled player (and to avoid fines) and I think this could have played out differently. FWIW, Garrett was fined $42,000 for it.

Fair, I can see it either way. I think Semien broke his leg because his cleat got caught beneath him, pinning his leg in at awkward angle as he fell backwards, but you are right that Garrett landed on top which is something they are penalizing. In my opinion a) it's annoying that they call this a "late" hit when it's not according to the rules (referencing all the accounts of the play, not your description). And b) this was an unfortunate play but to me it's not an act that would label a guy as a dirty player. If Semien's cleat didn't get caught we wouldn't even be talking about it, and that's not something Garrett had control over.

But you are right, it is worth considering.

I'll take back my statement of Garrett being completely clean to this point. Thanks TS, you are right.

Now on the merits of the actual play anyone have any thoughts?

JJ you said it was a late hit and that Garrett fell on him. The video shows the opposite in both cases - any retorts?

MITH, you seemed to think Garrett was completely at fault here trying to "maim" Rudolph - and under your scenario I never heard you answer what you would have done. I guess "walk away" is the easy answer, but I'm not sure it's quite that easy if you are having your helmet ripped off / etc, called inflamatory names. Obviously there are consequences to the one who retaliates, and in this case multi-game suspensions are warranted, but I think everyone has limits, and in reality we'd all cross the line at some point. If you were standing on the field and Rudolph did all the things he did to Garrett to your own kid would you just tell your kid to beg "please sir may I have another"? Or is he allowed to stand up for himself?

[Judge Jude]

"JJ you said it was a late hit and that Garrett fell on him. The video shows the opposite in both cases - any retorts?"

I watched it live and did not break it down like the Zapruder film. I'll accept your version of the details, though I see plenty of commentary out there debating whether the tackle was legit.

meanwhile, "Did we even watch the same game? Or did you let the fact that a fight broke out provide assumptions that Rudolph had a reason to act like a maniac, and that Garrett was just a monster so he must have been in the wrong from the start??"

I don't give a rat's behind about either player. I just made a passing comment on the tackle itself. from that, your powers of extrapolation have gotten the better of you, alas. I look forward to your retort.

[The Feral Slasher]

Fair, I can see it either way. I think Semien broke his leg because his cleat got caught beneath him, pinning his leg in at awkward angle as he fell backwards, but you are right that Garrett landed on top which is something they are penalizing. In my opinion a) it's annoying that they call this a "late" hit when it's not according to the rules (referencing all the accounts of the play, not your description). And b) this was an unfortunate play but to me it's not an act that would label a guy as a dirty player. If Semien's cleat didn't get caught we wouldn't even be talking about it, and that's not something Garrett had control over.

But you are right, it is worth considering.

I'll take back my statement of Garrett being completely clean to this point. Thanks TS, you are right.

Now on the merits of the actual play anyone have any thoughts?

JJ you said it was a late hit and that Garrett fell on him. The video shows the opposite in both cases - any retorts?

MITH, you seemed to think Garrett was completely at fault here trying to "maim" Rudolph - and under your scenario I never heard you answer what you would have done. I guess "walk away" is the easy answer, but I'm not sure it's quite that easy if you are having your helmet ripped off / etc, called inflamatory names. Obviously there are consequences to the one who retaliates, and in this case multi-game suspensions are warranted, but I think everyone has limits, and in reality we'd all cross the line at some point. If you were standing on the field and Rudolph did all the things he did to Garrett to your own kid would you just tell your kid to beg "please sir may I have another"? Or is he allowed to stand up for himself?

I am somewhere in the middle. It appeared he could have let Rudolph go after initial contact/grab, but perhaps he was not aware the ball was already released. And then Rudolph could have got mad because he felt the tackle went on long after he threw the ball. But Rudolph clearly escalated the situation.

[Ken]

I watched it live and did not break it down like the Zapruder film. I'll accept your version of the details, though I see plenty of commentary out there debating whether the tackle was legit.

I think that says a lot more about the people commenting than it does about the actual hit doesn't it? Because we can play back the hit itself and see pretty clearly that it wasn't egregious in any way. But the fact that there are a bunch of pundits whining about a "late hit" that started it suggests we as a group of football "fans" would rather be lazy and go with the stereotypical old "big dumb brute with no brain broke our rules and dared to touch my intelligent quarterback", than to actually consider the opposite - that the QB could be the idiot aggressor here, and maybe that lineman isn't as slow as we think.

I just made a passing comment on the tackle itself. from that, your powers of extrapolation have gotten the better of you, alas. I look forward to your retort.

You made a comment that made no sense about a defender bringing the QB to the ground and landing the force of their body on them. I included a link to the video, and screenshots that showed exactly the opposite. Relying on memory in this case I believe brings our biases into play. We saw the guy swing his helmet, so we fill in the details in retrospect to make them fit. He must have hit the QB early. He must have landed on him. Neither are true.

Apparently showing details and backing up your ideas is passe, I apologize.

An appropriate response when faced with obvious evidence that your previous post was just wrong might have been "dang, I did not notice that when I watched, you are right", or "oops, my bad". But regardless I hope the retort played out like you expected since you were so anxious for it