News: Myles Garrett Reinstated

RoboQB

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,609
Reaction score
9,676
Whose lying?!


Myles Garrett is lying.
Anyone trained at reading people as they speak can see that he's lying in this interview.

Unfortunately, it is impossible for Mason Rudolph to prove his innocence in the
court of public opinion. That is totally unfair.
 

Ghost12

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,844
Reaction score
1,785
I don’t believe for a single second that Rudolph used the n-word. If he had, Garrett would have been telling us about it from day 1. He would have told his coaches. He would have told his teammates. He would have told the media.

Instead Garrett issued an apology the next day with absolutely no mention of the n-word being used. That accusation was only something he came up with several days later at the appeal.

It’s just not plausible that he was called the n-word and told no one on his team about it. That would’ve been the first thing he said in the locker room after the game.
 

Ghost12

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,844
Reaction score
1,785
There was no flag on the play for a late hit because it wasn't late as YOU said Rudolph "felt" it was. But I showed you the video. It clearly wasn't late by the ref on the field. It's within the guidelines of a rule you probably don't even know. And if that's what you call "slammed" to the ground then maybe you're too used to flag football. That was as gentle a put down as you'll see in the NFL. Shoves are harder landings for QBs than that. The NFL piled on the unnecessary roughness fine, IMO which one could debate but no flag was going to be thrown on that play until Rudolph "objected." Video is powerless against agenda once again. I do try though, lol.
Speaking as someone who knows the rules, it was textbook roughing the QB to throw him to the ground the way he did.

The fact that no flag was thrown is irrelevant given the piss poor level of officiating we have seen lately.
 

joseephuss

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,896
Reaction score
6,803
I don’t believe for a single second that Rudolph used the n-word. If he had, Garrett would have been telling us about it from day 1. He would have told his coaches. He would have told his teammates. He would have told the media.

Instead Garrett issued an apology the next day with absolutely no mention of the n-word being used. That accusation was only something he came up with several days later at the appeal.

It’s just not plausible that he was called the n-word and told no one on his team about it. That would’ve been the first thing he said in the locker room after the game.

And he would have kept telling everyone over and over. Instead he went quiet for months and only now brings it up again.
 

mattjames2010

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,474
Reaction score
20,154
....are we going to actually discuss how even if he used the word, that doesn't exactly justify trying to freakin' murder someone? It doesn't matter what Rudolph said.
 

mattjames2010

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,474
Reaction score
20,154
There was no flag on the play for a late hit because it wasn't late as YOU said Rudolph "felt" it was. But I showed you the video. It clearly wasn't late by the ref on the field. It's within the guidelines of a rule you probably don't even know. And if that's what you call "slammed" to the ground then maybe you're too used to flag football. That was as gentle a put down as you'll see in the NFL. Shoves are harder landings for QBs than that. The NFL piled on the unnecessary roughness fine, IMO which one could debate but no flag was going to be thrown on that play until Rudolph "objected." Video is powerless against agenda once again. I do try though, lol.

It doesn't matter if a flag was thrown. Penalties are missed all the time and then reviewed after.

It was clear cut roughing. He got fined. End of story. You were wrong. Don't turn this into a 3 page debate when the big man reviewed and saw it as roughing.
 

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,843
Reaction score
16,031
Speaking as someone who knows the rules, it was textbook roughing the QB to throw him to the ground the way he did.

The fact that no flag was thrown is irrelevant given the piss poor level of officiating we have seen lately.

Textbook? Cite the rule. Now the fact that officials are wrong on some plays, which has been the case since forever, now means they're wrong all the time when convenient. Same as people claiming the game is wussified but then say a ticky tack foul should have been called when it suits the situation.
 

Reverend Conehead

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,919
Reaction score
11,788
3p5ou0.jpg

That made me super mad about Zeke. He was not convicted of any crime, and we had good reason to believe the girlfriend was just a liar.
 

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,843
Reaction score
16,031
It doesn't matter if a flag was thrown. Penalties are missed all the time and then reviewed after.

It was clear cut roughing. He got fined. End of story. You were wrong. Don't turn this into a 3 page debate when the big man reviewed and saw it as roughing.

Dude, you got busted boldface lying about a video you just watched. Your "feelings" on what took place are disqualified at that point. There was clearly no late hit because Garrett was right there and within the rules for contact and there was no "slamming" to the ground either because Rudolph landed mostly on top of Garrett. When you have to lie to bolster a case, it's because you have a weak case (or none). I proved that. Your response was to lie in the face of it. Textbook weak sauce. And Rudolph was fined himself.
 

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,843
Reaction score
16,031
I don’t believe for a single second that Rudolph used the n-word. If he had, Garrett would have been telling us about it from day 1. He would have told his coaches. He would have told his teammates. He would have told the media.

Instead Garrett issued an apology the next day with absolutely no mention of the n-word being used. That accusation was only something he came up with several days later at the appeal.

It’s just not plausible that he was called the n-word and told no one on his team about it. That would’ve been the first thing he said in the locker room after the game.

Wow, you know EXACTLY how someone would react and EXACTLY what someone would have done if called that slur? Have you had the EXACT experience a few times to know how the numbers shake out regarding reaction? That's a lot of assuming you're doing there. In the video the reporter says that Garrett said after the appeal that he didn't want it to get out. That's certainly one possible reaction. Why would he publicize it only to not want it to get out?

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't there and I do allow for anything to have happened or not happened. I'm just exploring all the possibilities here. There's no question that people sometimes lie to protect their own interests (see mattjames2010 in this very thread) and that goes for both of them. Garrett is looking for something to explain the horrible crap he pulled and Rudolph probably isn't going to admit he said it if he did because then PR swings against him whereas now it's overwhelmingly for him. If only there were audio to ferret out the liar.
 

Ghost12

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,844
Reaction score
1,785
Textbook? Cite the rule.
Sure. Rule 12, Section 2, Article 11 (Roughing the Passer), Subsection (b) states:

A rushing defender is prohibited from committing such intimidating and punishing acts as “stuffing” a passer into the ground or unnecessarily wrestling or driving him down after the passer has thrown the ball, even if the rusher makes his initial contact with the passer within the one-step limitation provided for in (a) above

Any impartial, intelligent viewing of the video of that play (which is available on YouTube) shows that while Garrett was within 1 step of the QB when the ball was thrown, he was clearly and obviously "stuffing" the QB, unnecessarily driving him down well after the ball was thrown.
 

Ghost12

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,844
Reaction score
1,785
Wow, you know EXACTLY how someone would react and EXACTLY what someone would have done if called that slur? Have you had the EXACT experience a few times to know how the numbers shake out regarding reaction? That's a lot of assuming you're doing there.
No, I really am not doing a lot of assuming. It is not remotely plausible that he was called the n-word but didn't tell a single coach or a single teammate after the game.

Join us in the real world. If he really was called the n-word, he would have made damn sure his teammates and coaches knew it.

ALL THE CAPITAL LETTERS IN THE WORLD DON'T MAKE YOU SOUND ANY LESS SILLY DENYING WHAT THOSE OF US LIVING IN THE REAL WORLD KNOW.
 

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,843
Reaction score
16,031
Sure. Rule 12, Section 2, Article 11 (Roughing the Passer), Subsection (b) states:

A rushing defender is prohibited from committing such intimidating and punishing acts as “stuffing” a passer into the ground or unnecessarily wrestling or driving him down after the passer has thrown the ball, even if the rusher makes his initial contact with the passer within the one-step limitation provided for in (a) above

Any impartial, intelligent viewing of the video of that play (which is available on YouTube) shows that while Garrett was within 1 step of the QB when the ball was thrown, he was clearly and obviously "stuffing" the QB, unnecessarily driving him down well after the ball was thrown.

Here's what you leave out from part (a) that what you post referred to and has bearing on everything:

Roughing will be called if, in the Referee’s judgment, a pass rusher clearly should have known that the ball had already left
the passer’s hand before contact was made;

This was literally the first point I made when I posted the video. Garrett was on him so fast it's possible he didn't know the ball was thrown and was trying to get a sack. And "stuffing a passer into the ground" is clearly NOT what happened when Rudolph landed mostly on top of Garrett. Stuffing is when a defender is over a guy and shoves him into the ground with his hands away from his body to try to escape the putting your body weight on the QB foul which is part of the very same part (b) rule. So now you're just adding things just like the other guy did to pad a weak case.

I said the NFL's fine was debatable and the "unnecessarily wrestling" is the only thing they might be able to pin on him. But as I quoted from part (a), wrapping a guy up and taking him to the ground (gently at that) is not a foul if it's not clear the defender should have known the ball was out. The ref wasn't going to call it. Troy Aikman calling the replay didn't say it was unnecessary either, only that Rudolph "didn't like it" which is clear when he started going after Garrett's helmet. With the NFL fining Rudolph too, it's in their interest to say that Garrett's play was roughing otherwise they run the risk of taking the position that Rudolph ignited the whole thing when he ultimately suffered the greater abuse, "blaming the victim" as it were. No one else called Garrett's initial actions objectionable and even post-game commentators mentioned Rudolph's role in escalating things. So how you get "clearly and obviously" is curious at best. At worst? Agenda. That's why I like discussing the rules because they're made up with no slant in mind but reveal when fans have it.
 

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,843
Reaction score
16,031
No, I really am not doing a lot of assuming. It is not remotely plausible that he was called the n-word but didn't tell a single coach or a single teammate after the game.

Join us in the real world. If he really was called the n-word, he would have made damn sure his teammates and coaches knew it.

ALL THE CAPITAL LETTERS IN THE WORLD DON'T MAKE YOU SOUND ANY LESS SILLY DENYING WHAT THOSE OF US LIVING IN THE REAL WORLD KNOW.

So the answer to my question you didn't address is "no," right? Thanks for confirming you don't know.

What if he did mention it to other players and/or coaches and they just didn't want to get dragged into something with those overtones? What "most of us in the real world" know is that people don't want to touch certain topics. Whether to speak up about it or others downplaying that it ever happens or has happened. Hell, it's a rule on this board for those very reasons. So isn't what I introduce here plausible? History lesson: Look up the hate mail Hank Aaron got when chasing Babe Ruth's record. All athletes get that kind of hate and threats. I'm absolutely sure Garrett got that kind of treatment after this. How many athletes do you hear talk about it? Exactly. So is it plausible that he wouldn't want things like that to get out knowing how it might be met? Look at this very thread.
 

Ghost12

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,844
Reaction score
1,785
So the answer to my question you didn't address is "no," right? Thanks for confirming you don't know.
I am saying what is not plausible. I know beyond any reasonable doubt (to intelligent people) it didn’t happen. Garrett’s story is not remotely plausible to any intelligent, thinking individual.
What if he did mention it to other players and/or coaches and they just didn't want to get dragged into something with those overtones? What "most of us in the real world" know is that people don't want to touch certain topics. Whether to speak up about it or others downplaying that it ever happens or has happened. Hell, it's a rule on this board for those very reasons. So isn't what I introduce here plausible? History lesson: Look up the hate mail Hank Aaron got when chasing Babe Ruth's record. All athletes get that kind of hate and threats. I'm absolutely sure Garrett got that kind of treatment after this. How many athletes do you hear talk about it? Exactly. So is it plausible that he wouldn't want things like that to get out knowing how it might be met? Look at this very thread.
If you have to go back 50 years to prove your point, then you have a very weak point.

You look real silly suggesting Myles Garrett didn’t tell his own coaches he was called the n-word because he was thinking about what happened to Hank Aaron almost 50 years ago. The fact you have to stretch and reach so far to something so ridiculous shows how lame your contention is.

Not a single soul heard that slur. Not a single microphone picked it up. Even Garrett himself didn’t mention it to any of his teammates or coaches. Anyone with half a brain knows what’s going on here.
 

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,843
Reaction score
16,031
I am saying what is not plausible. I know beyond any reasonable doubt (to intelligent people) it didn’t happen. Garrett’s story is not remotely plausible to any intelligent, thinking individual.
If you have to go back 50 years to prove your point, then you have a very weak point.

You look real silly suggesting Myles Garrett didn’t tell his own coaches he was called the n-word because he was thinking about what happened to Hank Aaron almost 50 years ago. The fact you have to stretch and reach so far to something so ridiculous shows how lame your contention is.

Not a single soul heard that slur. Not a single microphone picked it up. Even Garrett himself didn’t mention it to any of his teammates or coaches. Anyone with half a brain knows what’s going on here.

So you weren't there but know beyond a reasonable doubt what did actually happen or not and what a person would have done if it did happen? These are the extents that people go to to deny, deny, deny so as to not have to address the topic. Then you wonder why anyone would want to keep quiet about it because of the hassle it could be for them notwithstanding not being believed for it. So you in your emotion here is EXACTLY why some wouldn't bring it up and just brush it off instead.

And now you're trying to twist my argument to boot which is another sign of weakness while trying to project that on to me. This after being busted trying to deceive with the rules to pad a weak case so of course it's not beyond you when you're getting it put to you. I mentioned Hank Aaron asking how many have done what he did since then and how it supports one just not mentioning it. The NFL has been asked about audio and said there is none that picked up audio so they never released anything. But if audio of it did exist proving it happened, someone like you would go through acrobatics like you exhibit here to race right past it to claim it's not really a big deal so you don't have to admit an ugly reality you've trained yourself to deny. Convenient. It's human nature just like conspiracy theories around here when things don't go the Cowboys way. They just can't accept that it didn't.
 

RoboQB

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,609
Reaction score
9,676
Sure. Rule 12, Section 2, Article 11 (Roughing the Passer), Subsection (b) states:

A rushing defender is prohibited from committing such intimidating and punishing acts as “stuffing” a passer into the ground or unnecessarily wrestling or driving him down after the passer has thrown the ball, even if the rusher makes his initial contact with the passer within the one-step limitation provided for in (a) above

Any impartial, intelligent viewing of the video of that play (which is available on YouTube) shows that while Garrett was within 1 step of the QB when the ball was thrown, he was clearly and obviously "stuffing" the QB, unnecessarily driving him down well after the ball was thrown.

"For the win!... Boomshockalocka!"

Great post, Ghost!
 
Top