Tank Johnson To Ask For Reinstatement...

Crown Royal;1681472 said:
I thought he was suspended AFTER the arizona arrest. Is that incorrect?
No, before the arrest. Then Chicago dropped him.

BTW, I figure the Commish will figure he has already given Tank a break by making his suspension a "rolling suspension."
 
Hostile;1681507 said:
I so want to watch that movie now.

i second that LOL...as matter of fact i watched it the other day...but now i need to watch it again LOL :laugh2:
 
Hostile;1681512 said:
No, before the arrest. Then Chicago dropped him.

BTW, I figure the Commish will figure he has already given Tank a break by making his suspension a "rolling suspension."

thats league policy not Goodell policy.
 
Hostile;1681512 said:
No, before the arrest. Then Chicago dropped him.

BTW, I figure the Commish will figure he has already given Tank a break by making his suspension a "rolling suspension."

All suspensions are "rolling" suspensions.

I am not saying that he WILL reduce it to six games. But Roger Goddell has made it a point to point out that Tank Johnson is a perfect example of what he is attempting to do with the suspensions and is a perfect example of how to serve your suspension and get your life back on track.
 
Big Dakota;1681531 said:
I'll go out on a limb and say it gets reduced.


That is some limb you are climbing out on.


I think he's back in 6 as well. Scoot over!! :D
 
Dallas;1681567 said:
That is some limb you are climbing out on.


I think he's back in 6 as well. Scoot over!! :D

I hope this limb is strong enough for one more:D , but i also think he will be given a shot at coming back in 6 weeks.

The Commish needs to make a statement, agreed. But he also needs to make the statement that those who do stay out of trouble will have a place in the league....ok, he doesn't have to but it sure would be nice if he did. i think he will be disruptive in this defense.
 
wastedfluid;1681682 said:
Buncha homers. :rolleyes:

They're homers because they don't agree with you? Please. The guy isn't even playing for us yet...how does this make them homers for guessing he'll be back two weeks early?

Get over yourself.

For the record, I think he serves all eight.
 
wastedfluid;1681682 said:
Buncha homers. :rolleyes:

I bow to your non-homerish tendencies. When it isn't reduced I'm sure we'll hear how you were right and the "homers" were wrong. You are soooo neat.
 
tomson75;1681693 said:
They're homers because they don't agree with you? Please. The guy isn't even playing for us yet...how does this make them homers for guessing he'll be back two weeks early?

Get over yourself.

For the record, I think he serves all eight.

Wow.

Get over YOURSELF.

I was JOKING.

But hey, apparently, your panties are riding a little too high tonight, huh horse pistol?

Skin;1681741 said:
I bow to your non-homerish tendencies. When it isn't reduced I'm sure we'll hear how you were right and the "homers" were wrong. You are soooo neat.


Actually, no. If you read my previous post - I said I don't know what would happen - but what I think would happen. I said other people think otherwise - and that's fine, we'll see what happens. But hey, thanks for your two cents.

zrinkill;1681759 said:
Silly Hater :rolleyes:

That's the response I was actually looking for.. considering I was joking
 
wastedfluid;1681835 said:
Wow.

Get over YOURSELF.

I was JOKING.

But hey, apparently, your panties are riding a little too high tonight, huh horse pistol?




Actually, no. If you read my previous post - I said I don't know what would happen - but what I think would happen. I said other people think otherwise - and that's fine, we'll see what happens. But hey, thanks for your two cents.



That's the response I was actually looking for.. considering I was joking


Horse pistol? Whatever the hell that means. :rolleyes: I'm not even sure that qualifies as being against the rule of insulting other posters it's so incredibly lame.

...for future reference, this ":rolleyes: " icon doesn't suggest a joke under those circumstances. My "panties" are fine, but thanks for using the most incredibly over-used lame-*** comment on the internet. Judging from the responses of a few other posters, I'm apparently not alone in thinking you were just being a *******. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

see how that works. :cool:

Try and be clearer next time OK? Thanks, cow snorkel.
 
tomson75;1681888 said:
Horse pistol? Whatever the hell that means. :rolleyes: I'm not even sure that qualifies as being against the rule of insulting other posters it's so incredibly lame.

...for future reference, this ":rolleyes: " icon doesn't suggest a joke under those circumstances. My "panties" are fine, but thanks for using the most incredibly over-used lame-*** comment on the internet. Judging from the responses of a few other posters, I'm apparently not alone in thinking you were just being a *******. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

see how that works. :cool:

Try and be clearer next time OK? Thanks, cow snorkel.

You know, buddy..

How can it be incredibly lame, if you have no idea what it means? That in itself, makes no sense.. but I guess to you, it does - right? I suppose that's what counts.

Call it what you want. Call it harassment, if you want. I don't care.. it doesn't matter. It's a "saying" - and if you don't know what it means .. I guess it really doesn't matter what you classify it as, because until you know.. you're honestly just guessing.

As for the rules.. I don't particularly care. But, I assure you - I wasn't "harassing" you.

Thanks once again, for your opinion.. for I do not care what you consider the most incredibly over-used lame (Some stars) comment on the internet... it doesn't matter. But, thanks again for your input!

I apologize for the misunderstanding, as well..

(Please, do not take me seriously.. I'm almost never serious, and always joking.. and if I ever call someone a homer again.. in a sarcastic demeanor - I'm <probably> joking.. as I am 99.99% of the time.)

;)
 
Hostile;1681431 said:
You mean the one where all charges were dropped because he broke no laws?

Even though charges were dropped, he was out at 3am, or so, and had been drinking. Does this mean he's done everything, no, but he has been pretty good, and if Jason Allen gets his suspension reduced, it's possible tank does.
 
dallasfan;1681954 said:
Even though charges were dropped, he was out at 3am, or so, and had been drinking. Does this mean he's done everything, no, but he has been pretty good, and if Jason Allen gets his suspension reduced, it's possible tank does.

For all we know he was over at a friends house watching the NBA playoffs and had a few beers. Rather than head straight home he chilled out for a bit to sober up and then went home which is exactly the responsible thing to do.

Fact is he was under the legal limit and I dont know about Tank but i personally barely have a buzz at .08 much less under that.

Goodell knows the particulars of the situation and he is on record stating that Johnson has done everything they have asked of him and more.

The problem is that there is no telling with Goodell because he seems to make up what he is going to do as he goes along with little rhyme or reason.
 
FuzzyLumpkins;1682018 said:
For all we know he was over at a friends house watching the NBA playoffs and had a few beers. Rather than head straight home he chilled out for a bit to sober up and then went home which is exactly the responsible thing to do.

This is actually what I believe happened, but given the thin ice he was on, it would've been smarter to not drink at all. If he was at his house, drink as much as you want.

FuzzyLumpkins;1682018 said:
Fact is he was under the legal limit and I dont know about Tank but i personally barely have a buzz at .08 much less under that.

He was definately under the legal limit, but it's not the law he has to impress.

FuzzyLumpkins;1682018 said:
Goodell knows the particulars of the situation and he is on record stating that Johnson has done everything they have asked of him and more.

Well if this is the case, then it should be a 6 game suspension. I was unaware that he said this, do you have a link.
 
dallasfan;1681954 said:
Even though charges were dropped, he was out at 3am, or so, and had been drinking.

Wow a 24 year old guy was out at 3am and drank a beer 3 hours earlier.

Never heard of that before.
 
Like most on here, I think he has to wait the whole 8 games.

I also think it'll be because of the "brush" with the law he had right before the Bears cut him. Even thought he charges were dropped and basically all he was doing wrong was driving 40 mph in a 25 mph zone (or something like that).

Who knows though? Perhaps he's done enough positive things to override that and get the 2 games taken off.

Sure would be nice. He's a heck of a player and he'll help.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
464,647
Messages
13,824,235
Members
23,781
Latest member
Vloh10
Back
Top