(08-28-2017, 11:24 PM)OrangeLacroix Wrote: He is talented.  Supremely 

You can not compare him to anyone until he has a few real games under his belt. 

He could be Ki Jana, He Could be Bell, He could be average. 

His running style reminds me a lot of Arian Foster.  Love the pick as well....but ill let you know what I think of him, and comps, after a full season. 

Hope he is AP 

Yes of course no one knows anything yet. He could end up like Ryan Matthews who is a similar player that just never put it together. That's why like you said I feel like hoping toward the AP comparison.

Edit: And I wasn't trying to be a richard in my last post. I was just point out that alot of your posts come off like One of those homeless preachers standing in the street screaming doom and gloom while swinging a bible...probably why they aren't well received. Lolol

(08-28-2017, 11:27 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: While I don't think this particular hit warrants a suspension...Burfict is largely responsible for his reputation. While people applaud him for being undrafted...he was undrafted because he was largely uncontrollable on the field in college and he punched a teammate in the lockerroom.

I think he is unfairly targeted by the league...but he did do a lot of things to earn his reputation.

It's just a sucky situation for the Bengals and us fans.

Correct.   I have watched the hit on the skins RB

It's nothing.  Shoulder to chest. Normal hit.    5 games is crazy.  But, Burfict is reaping what he sowed 

(08-28-2017, 11:31 PM)OrangeLacroix Wrote: Correct.   I have watched the hit on the skins RB

It's nothing.  Shoulder to chest. Normal hit.    5 games is crazy.  But, Burfict is reaping what he sowed 

The hit from the KC game is why he is getting suspended

(08-29-2017, 12:20 AM)cincyfan429 Wrote: The hit from the KC game is why he is getting suspended

Correct. Typo. Chiefs not skins

See that's the problem.

The ONLY place where past offenses should matter is punishment, and then it should be past offenses under the same rule. The Bengals, Burflict and indeed a lot of sports people who aren't even Bengal fans are saying no infraction occurred. The league has no business engaging in creative interpretations of a rule to say someone violated it based on their "reputation".

I am guessing the appeal is going to consist of a combination of video and the text of the rule. It will show that the play did not meet any of the stipulations under the rule and was therefore legal. And were I the Bengals once they present the appeal put it up on Bengals.com as well - force the NFL to present CLEAR PROOF the rule was violated.

[quote='OrangeLacroix' pid='416937' dateline='1503976939']



Correct. Typo. Chiefs not skins

Ya got the Indian part right.. close enough. Oh hell im sure this will offend someone.

(08-29-2017, 12:31 AM)Joelist Wrote: See that's the problem.

The ONLY place where past offenses should matter is punishment, and then it should be past offenses under the same rule. The Bengals, Burflict and indeed a lot of sports people who aren't even Bengal fans are saying no infraction occurred. The league has no business engaging in creative interpretations of a rule to say someone violated it based on their "reputation".

I am guessing the appeal is going to consist of a combination of video and the text of the rule. It will show that the play did not meet any of the stipulations under the rule and was therefore legal. And were I the Bengals once they present the appeal put it up on Bengals.com as well - force the NFL to present CLEAR PROOF the rule was violated.

If you stand in front of a judge for something, their not supposed to let past offenses influence their decision. But if it happens to be the same judge every time, it's safe to assume past offenses will play a part in his decision.

(08-28-2017, 11:31 PM)OrangeLacroix Wrote: Correct.   I have watched the hit on the skins RB

It's nothing.  Shoulder to chest. Normal hit.    5 games is crazy.  But, Burfict is reaping what he sowed 

This is where I disagree.

Yes, Burfict has earned his rep with ankle twisting and late hits and all of that crap he deserved to be suspended for but this hit is not an offense that warrants a suspension and that is why a lot of people including myself are calling it targeting of the franchise and a player. 

When James Harrison was getting suspended over and over he cleaned up a little, and then the suspensions stopped. Last year, Burfict was flagged once for and was fined nothing. The league hammering him for a normal football play that is coached into LBer's starting in pop warner is the issue here. 

This isn't reaping what he sowed, this is targeting. If it was reaping what someone sowed, Harrison would still get suspended, Shazier would have been suspended. Everything he does gets blown way the hell up by the media and the league, and that is completely biased and unfair.

He was a nutjob, but if people don't see the trend in the right direction they are just blind haters.

Fans across the country will probably side with the league without watching the play and even many who do will see it with their hate glasses on and deem him the dirtiest player in the league and blah blah blah..
I watched it several times and just don't see it as anything other than a normal block, but the other player fell down as if hit by a truck and reputation jumps up and small market team player with bad reputation pays the extraordinary price few ever will..

Surprised the NFL didn't suspend him after the tackle on Bernard in practice, after all that's all this game was.

innocent until proven guilty! There is NO PROOF OF FOUL PLAY!! NONE!!! I bet goodell has a team of idiots that scour every play of Burfict and are looking for anything that the stoolers would ***** about!

Best of luck, Tez.

(08-29-2017, 03:38 AM)RASCAL Wrote: innocent until proven guilty! There is NO PROOF OF FOUL PLAY!! NONE!!! I bet goodell has a team of idiots that scour every play of Burfict and are looking for anything that the stoolers would ***** about!

It almost seems like they have to.  If no flag is thrown, it seems really ridiculous for the league to go back later and call it a foul.

(08-29-2017, 03:26 AM)grampahol Wrote: Fans across the country will probably side with the league without watching the play and even many who do will see it with their hate glasses on and deem him the dirtiest player in the league and blah blah blah..
I watched it several times and just don't see it as anything other than a normal block, but the other player fell down as if hit by a truck and reputation jumps up and small market team player with bad reputation pays the extraordinary price few ever will..

Actually, there was a lot of people also claiming this wasn't illegal. I was pretty suprised. The thing that I think saves Tez's ass is that the QB was throwing in that WR direction. The shitty thing is that they went with an ungodly number, so chances of it being reduced to nothing is pretty remote. 

(08-28-2017, 09:47 PM)OrangeLacroix Wrote: Im not a homer. I blame our coaches, mgmt, owner and players for 26 years of accomplishing zero 

if that is not welcome here, please just ban me now. 

then you can all have the same opinions and talk about how great the Bengals could be without the NFL keeping us down 

Marv has won the division four times since he's been here. There was a 15 year period before that we didn't do that. I know it's not a SB, but it's certainly not "zero". 

(08-29-2017, 01:10 AM)Murdock2420 Wrote: This is where I disagree.

Yes, Burfict has earned his rep with ankle twisting and late hits and all of that crap he deserved to be suspended for but this hit is not an offense that warrants a suspension and that is why a lot of people including myself are calling it targeting of the franchise and a player. 

When James Harrison was getting suspended over and over he cleaned up a little, and then the suspensions stopped. Last year, Burfict was flagged once for and was fined nothing. The league hammering him for a normal football play that is coached into LBer's starting in pop warner is the issue here. 

This isn't reaping what he sowed, this is targeting. If it was reaping what someone sowed, Harrison would still get suspended, Shazier would have been suspended. Everything he does gets blown way the hell up by the media and the league, and that is completely biased and unfair.

He was a nutjob, but if people don't see the trend in the right direction they are just blind haters.

Thing is Murdock.....92 was only suspended ONCE for ONE game.  Let that sink in.  Fines were his punishment, and in 2010, the league actually returned some of the money.

https://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/nfl-pittsburgh-steelers-news/2015/2/7/7995405/james-harrison-has-racked-up-150000-in-fines-since-2002

(08-28-2017, 11:08 PM)McC Wrote: The evidence is in black and white and speaks for itself.

I think the evidence is actually black and piss yellow.

(08-29-2017, 01:10 AM)Murdock2420 Wrote: This is where I disagree.

Yes, Burfict has earned his rep with ankle twisting and late hits and all of that crap he deserved to be suspended for but this hit is not an offense that warrants a suspension and that is why a lot of people including myself are calling it targeting of the franchise and a player. 

When James Harrison was getting suspended over and over he cleaned up a little, and then the suspensions stopped. Last year, Burfict was flagged once for and was fined nothing. The league hammering him for a normal football play that is coached into LBer's starting in pop warner is the issue here. 

This isn't reaping what he sowed, this is targeting. If it was reaping what someone sowed, Harrison would still get suspended, Shazier would have been suspended. Everything he does gets blown way the hell up by the media and the league, and that is completely biased and unfair.

He was a nutjob, but if people don't see the trend in the right direction they are just blind haters.

Yep.  You don't let a receiver cross your face unchecked on those shallow crossing routes, LBS are supposed to hit those guys.  Bengals staff should gather video of other lbs doing the exact same thing this preseason cuz certainly they have been, and submit it to the league.

Even more disturbing than this bullshit is that the new rule they're citing....the first example of "defenseless posture" states that "a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass, (passing posture)" is a defenseless player.  According to the rule the way it is worded, it is literally illegal to hit a qb who has begun his throwing motion.....haven't seen it called yet but the way it's written is very clear.  A qb in the act of throwing, is considered defenseless and can't be legally hit.

(08-29-2017, 10:17 AM)Savagehenry54 Wrote: Yep.  You don't let a receiver cross your face unchecked on those shallow crossing routes, LBS are supposed to hit those guys.  Bengals staff should gather video of other lbs doing the exact same thing this preseason cuz certainly they have been, and submit it to the league.

Even more disturbing than this bullshit is that the new rule they're citing....the first example of "defenseless posture" states that "a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass, (passing posture)" is a defenseless player.  According to the rule the way it is worded, it is literally illegal to hit a qb who has begun his throwing motion.....haven't seen it called yet but the way it's written is very clear.  A qb in the act of throwing, is considered defenseless and can't be legally hit.

Agree.....and damn good to see you back savage.... :andy:

Everyone keeps looking at the video and saying that it's a legal hit, when what they really need to be looking at is the exact rules in question that  were (supposedly) violated. Where VB's  helmet hit the receiver is not the issue.  According to the rules regarding hitting a receiver that's not being thrown to, there appears that the league MAY have a case (although even that is a little murky).  

The way I understand the new rule is that if a receiver is in the process of running a route, not blocking, they're considered defenseless and cannot be laid out. Period.  Doesn't matter where on the field it is, or if it was helmet to helmet or not, it's still an unsportsmanlike penalty.  So if this fits that criteria, which it kinda seems to,  VB is not being singled out or being picked on or discriminated against.  Where he IS being singled out is in the punishment. The 5 games, in my opinion, is definitely due to his history.