Guess we weren't the only ones talking about it.

 

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/08296/921898-100.stm

If true I think Suggs should be suspended for the rest of the year. I would also look hard at other involved Ravens and suspend them too and if any of them lie about it I would be tempted to suspended them indefinitely.

I agree, I dislike both teams but a bounty is over the top. It's just a game.

If true I think Suggs should be suspended for the rest of the year. I would also look hard at other involved Ravens and suspend them too and if any of them lie about it I would be tempted to suspended them indefinitely.

 

A little over the top, isn't it? I agree that there is no place for that in professional football (or any sport for that matter), but I don't think there was a true "bounty". Just a poor choice of words, hopefully.

 

How would you go about proving that they lied?

Anybody see the old Giants teams talk about the bounty's they had? It was back in the LT days. Pretty eye opening!

A little over the top, isn't it? I agree that there is no place for that in professional football (or any sport for that matter), but I don't think there was a true "bounty". Just a poor choice of words, hopefully.

 

How would you go about proving that they lied?

 

So you think suspending players that are trying to intentionally hurt other players (probably criminal by the way) is over the top? If so, you and I live in different worlds.

 

As far as what you can or can't prove, the NFL will have to do a thorough investigation and the truth will come out.

 

If you take Suggs at his word then he is most likely toast if the NFL wants him to be. Therefore the NFL has a lot of leverage with Suggs to get the whole truth which will in turn reveal if other players on the Ravens lie during the investigation.

A little over the top, isn't it? I agree that there is no place for that in professional football (or any sport for that matter), but I don't think there was a true "bounty". Just a poor choice of words, hopefully.

 

How would you go about proving that they lied?

 

I think there are absolutely lockerroom bounties. I don't think its wise to tell people about it outside the team, but I believe there is definately stuff like this going on. He plainly stated that they had a bounty on Mendenhall and he is out for the season. I guess somebody made a nice "bonus" that game.

Suggs and Nobiz must have been chatting :lol:

 

In all seriousness, this is crossing the line bigtime. I hope, like CC said, that it was just a poor choice of words.

If true I think Suggs should be suspended for the rest of the year. I would also look hard at other involved Ravens and suspend them too and if any of them lie about it I would be tempted to suspended them indefinitely.

 

These types of comments have come out of NFL locker rooms in the past with little more than a slap on the wrist from the coach. I don't think the league steps and suspends anyone for the words spoken in the locker room. Fines for poor judgement yes, but suspension is a little harsh. However, what the Ravens have just done have just scrutinized every play that the Defense makes.

 

Dumb comment by Suggs, but suspension shouldn't come until something happens on the field. If every player got suspended for the dumb things they say, there wouldn't be many teams with enough players to play.

These types of comments have come out of NFL locker rooms in the past with little more than a slap on the wrist from the coach. I don't think the league steps and suspends anyone for the words spoken in the locker room. Fines for poor judgement yes, but suspension is a little harsh. However, what the Ravens have just done have just scrutinized every play that the Defense makes.

 

Dumb comment by Suggs, but suspension shouldn't come until something happens on the field. If every player got suspended for the dumb things they say, there wouldn't be many teams with enough players to play.

^Synonyms

Suggs and Nobiz must have been chatting :lol:

 

In all seriousness, this is crossing the line bigtime. I hope, like CC said, that it was just a poor choice of words.

 

:dancingpa

 

Hey, I was sticking up for your beloved Bengals.

So you think suspending players that are trying to intentionally hurt other players (probably criminal by the way) is over the top? If so, you and I live in different worlds.

 

As far as what you can or can't prove, the NFL will have to do a thorough investigation and the truth will come out.

 

If you take Suggs at his word then he is most likely toast if the NFL wants him to be. Therefore the NFL has a lot of leverage with Suggs to get the whole truth which will in turn reveal if other players on the Ravens lie during the investigation.

 

I don't think suspending players for hurting people is over the top. That's not what I said. I think it's a little over the top to go back and make suspensions based off what one of the players said. If the NFL investigates and determines that there was indeed a "bounty", then maybe. There's no place for that in any sport, and I already said that in my original post.

 

Suggs may not have even been involved in the play when Mendenhall was injured. I don't know, as I didn't see the play.

 

I have no problem with the league suspending players who are intentionally hurting others and admit to it; however, Suggs' is a professional football player, not a politician or somebody who gives speeches on a regular basis. I'm hoping that it was just a poor choice of words by a guy who has gotten by with his physical attributes more so than his mental capacity & eloquence.

 

And injuring someone in an NFL football game would probably NOT be a criminal act.

I don't think suspending players for hurting people is over the top. That's not what I said. I think it's a little over the top to go back and make suspensions based off what one of the players said. If the NFL investigates and determines that there was indeed a "bounty", then maybe. There's no place for that in any sport, and I already said that in my original post.

 

Suggs may not have even been involved in the play when Mendenhall was injured. I don't know, as I didn't see the play.

 

I have no problem with the league suspending players who are intentionally hurting others and admit to it; however, Suggs' is a professional football player, not a politician or somebody who gives speeches on a regular basis. I'm hoping that it was just a poor choice of words by a guy who has gotten by with his physical attributes more so than his mental capacity & eloquence.

 

And injuring someone in an NFL football game would probably NOT be a criminal act.

An illegal, after-the-play, premeditated malicious hit that injured a player? I wholeheartedly disagree with you.

An illegal, after-the-play, premeditated malicious hit that injured a player? I wholeheartedly disagree with you.

 

Premeditated may change the scenario, but that would also be difficult to prove.

 

Otherwise, there was a similar case involving a Cincinnati Bengal, Charles "Booby" Clark, that went to trial in the late 70's.

Premeditated may change the scenario, but that would also be difficult to prove.

 

Otherwise, the Supreme Court has already ruled on the subject (in 1979) so you can disagree with them, not me. The case actually involved a Cincinnati Bengal, Charles "Booby" Clark.

Is that not what the NFL is looking into in Baltimore and trying to put the hiatus on? That would be the premeditated part. Chipping into the kitty(bounty) for a season ending blow I would think would be "premeditated".

As far as difficult to prove, Suggs opened his big mouth on a public radio show and removed all doubt about premeditation.