Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Big Ben going to get banned?

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Max Power1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,272 ✭✭✭✭Max Power1


    Hazys wrote: »
    Ben to be banned for 6 weeks, he could get out in 4 with good behaviour (as in try not to get accused of sexually assaulting somebody in the next 4 weeks, Ben):

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5121614
    fyp :P


  • Options
    #63
    Hazys
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,510 ✭✭✭Hazys


    frostie500 wrote: »
    So he'll definitly miss the first four:
    Falcons
    at Titans
    at Bucs
    Ravens
    Does a bye count in this suspension? If not he would also miss the game against the Dolphins.
    bye
    Browns

    Bye doesnt count as part of the suspension, that question came up in Holmes suspension.

    If for example Ben is suspended for 6 games, the fact that the bye occurs in week 6 he will not be able to train the extra week for the game in week 7 (the last game of the suspension), so the bye means Ben will lose an extra week of training bcos of the bye.


  • Options
    #64
    cooker3
    Registered Users Posts: 6,646 ✭✭✭cooker3


    Adam Shefter said in his twitter feed that Pittsburgh are shopping him for a top 10 pick in the first round of the draft. 1 team is seriously considering.
    My guess would be Cleveland.


  • Options
    #65
    The Sparrow
    Registered Users Posts: 3,614 ✭✭✭The Sparrow


    cooker3 wrote: »
    Adam Shefter said in his twitter feed that Pittsburgh are shopping him for a top 10 pick in the first round of the draft. 1 team is seriously considering.
    My guess would be Cleveland.

    Good. Get rid I say. Most people seem to think it is the Raiders that would be most likely to make a trade. Al Davis can have him.


  • Options
    #66
    tallaghtoutlaws
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,067 ✭✭✭tallaghtoutlaws


    cooker3 wrote: »
    Adam Shefter said in his twitter feed that Pittsburgh are shopping him for a top 10 pick in the first round of the draft. 1 team is seriously considering.
    My guess would be Cleveland.

    Talk about daft. I wouldn't give up a 1st round pick for him. Banned for so many games and an sh1tty attitude to boot. Whatever team takes him wont gain anything from him this season in my opinion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    frostie500
    Registered Users Posts: 3,444 ✭✭✭frostie500


    tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »
    Talk about daft. I wouldn't give up a 1st round pick for him. Banned for so many games and an sh1tty attitude to boot. Whatever team takes him wont gain anything from him this season in my opinion.

    It's a QB driven league and some team would always be willing to take a plunge on a player of his quality. I've said elsewhere I don't like his attitude etc. but if I'm an Oakland, Buffalo even St. Louis and there is a proven top tier QB on offer I'd have to think about it. St. Louis obviously have Bradford pegged with the number 1 but I'd offer the 33rd pick(just to see if the Steelers are actually willing to deal) and take Suh or McCoy with the other pick. I'm not saying that a 2nd would suffice for him but as discussed elsewhere that pick is very valuable this year


  • Options
    #68
    tallaghtoutlaws
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,067 ✭✭✭tallaghtoutlaws


    frostie500 wrote: »
    It's a QB driven league and some team would always be willing to take a plunge on a player of his quality. I've said elsewhere I don't like his attitude etc. but if I'm an Oakland, Buffalo even St. Louis and there is a proven top tier QB on offer I'd have to think about it. St. Louis obviously have Bradford pegged with the number 1 but I'd offer the 33rd pick(just to see if the Steelers are actually willing to deal) and take Suh or McCoy with the other pick. I'm not saying that a 2nd would suffice for him but as discussed elsewhere that pick is very valuable this year

    I would agree with you if he wasn't banned for games. As the season goes if he does have to sit out for 6 games that is 7 weeks of non involvement. Half the regular season he will miss. At this point he isn't worth a 1st round pick. And to be honest QB league or not he isn't the greatest passer either. Never liked him his as a QB and I always felt he was over rated.


  • Options
    #69
    jdivision
    Registered Users Posts: 4,260 ✭✭✭jdivision


    The Sparrow wrote: »
    . Plus he didn't technically call anyone that defends him a scumbag. Just anyone that thinks its ok to get a girl drunk and "follow her - without being invited to do so - into a jacks and mess around with her". I would assume that is everybody's definition of a scumbag and I assumed jdivision wasn't talking about people here who are defending Roesthlisberger's right to innocence as he was never found guilty and not defending rape.

    Precisely
    tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

    I didn't think scumbag was a bad word either and to be honest if someone called me one I would laugh meself but I suppose to each their own.

    I think we both know I'd say a lot worse about him in person;):D


  • Options
    #70
    tallaghtoutlaws
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,067 ✭✭✭tallaghtoutlaws


    jdivision wrote: »
    Precisely



    I think we both know I'd say a lot worse about him in person;):D

    Oh I know without a doubt you would use more colourful language to describe big ben :D


  • Options
    #71
    cooker3
    Registered Users Posts: 6,646 ✭✭✭cooker3


    Man, I can't believe I didn't title the thread "Big Ben set for big ban". Such a missed opportunity.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    The Sparrow
    Registered Users Posts: 3,614 ✭✭✭The Sparrow


    cooker3 wrote: »
    Man, I can't believe I didn't title the thread "Big Ben set for big ban". Such a missed opportunity.

    Big Bad Ben set for Big Ban would have been even better!


  • Options
    #73
    tallaghtoutlaws
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,067 ✭✭✭tallaghtoutlaws


    The Sparrow wrote: »
    Big Bad Ben set for Big Bad Ban would have been even better!

    FYP :D


  • Options
    #74
    The Sparrow
    Registered Users Posts: 3,614 ✭✭✭The Sparrow


    tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »
    FYP :D

    Ah nuts...


  • Options
    #75
    landsleaving
    Registered Users Posts: 4,345 ✭✭✭landsleaving


    cooker3 wrote: »
    Adam Shefter said in his twitter feed that Pittsburgh are shopping him for a top 10 pick in the first round of the draft. 1 team is seriously considering.
    My guess would be Cleveland.

    If they do trade him, what do they do for a qb? They already took a hit at receiver in talent terms (not attitude obviously) and their offense could be seriously ineffective. Do they really think Dixon is a franchise qb? I just don't see it, he's ok, but he's got an aging Hines Ward and some equally inexperienced players to throw to. If Mendenhall doesn't hit the form he found last year they could do pretty poorly.

    Of course, if they go back to winning games with defense they'll probably be fine.


  • Options
    #76
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,755 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Really despite all the stuff that has been printed about whats gone on, the NFL really has no business banning him. He hasn't even been charged with a crime. If I were him I'd appeal the ban, I know if I was innocent I would appeal the ban and sue the NFL for tarnishing my reputation by suspending me.

    As far as another team going for him, well if you are in the top 10 with a huge need at QB and you have a choice between a proven clutch QB albeit with issues, or Jimmy Clausen who would you pick?

    I'd deffo take Ben Roethlisberger and give up the pick. And I really like Clausen and I do think he will make it in the NFL but threre is nothing like a sure thing and thats what Big Ben is when he is under center.

    Roethlisberger is known as an immature idiot, I think with all thats happened now he has learned his lesson and without any criminal charges. We still don't know for sure what happened there and I'm not convinced either way although the fact that he faces a lawsuit in Nevada makes me think there was something to it.

    But when all is said and done, he is an innocent man legally and after Brady, Manning and Rivers, he is quite possibly the most proven QB in the NFL and he is still only 28.


  • Options
    #77
    Chucky the tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Really despite all the stuff that has been printed about whats gone on, the NFL really has no business banning him. He hasn't even been charged with a crime. If I were him I'd appeal the ban, I know if I was innocent I would appeal the ban and sue the NFL for tarnishing my reputation by suspending me.


    The nfl have a rule where if you tarnish it's name you can be suspended, clearly Big ben has done this even though he was charged. If he doesn't like this rule he should simply quit playing football in the nfl. He signed a contract with them accepting all of this so there is nothing he can do.


  • Options
    #78
    Royal Seahawk
    Registered Users Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭Royal Seahawk


    Anyone else listening to Mike & Mike right now?
    They're saying the trade of Big Ben is a real possibility.
    I for one would love to see him in a Seahawks uniform.


  • Options
    #79
    landsleaving
    Registered Users Posts: 4,345 ✭✭✭landsleaving


    I think Cleveland would do well to tradefor him, they have Delhomme, who *might* be ok until Ben comes back and they need a proven QB to build around, seems like a logical move since the QB class isn't amazing this year.


  • Options
    #80
    tallaghtoutlaws
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,067 ✭✭✭tallaghtoutlaws


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Really despite all the stuff that has been printed about whats gone on, the NFL really has no business banning him.

    Eh yes they do. Ben violated the NFL's personal conduct policy and has been ordered to undergo behavioral evaluation. Something to which he signed to in his NFL contract.

    Goodell's response as to why and how.
    Goodell said the league's conduct policy gave him the right to impose discipline regardless of whether he broke the law.

    "I recognize that the allegations in Georgia were disputed and that they did not result in criminal charges being filed against you," he said in his letter to the two-time Super Bowl winner, a six-year veteran.

    "My decision today is not based on a finding that you violated Georgia law, or on a conclusion that differs from that of the local prosecutor. That said, you are held to a higher standard as an NFL player, and there is nothing about your conduct in Milledgeville that can remotely be described as admirable, responsible, or consistent with either the values of the league or the expectations of our fans."


  • Options
    #81
    Hazys
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,510 ✭✭✭Hazys


    Cardinals and Raiders are in the hunt for big Ben


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,755 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Can you name for me any other player that was banned without being charged with something, failed drug test?

    A precedence has been set here.


  • Options
    #83
    The Sparrow
    Registered Users Posts: 3,614 ✭✭✭The Sparrow


    eagle eye wrote: »

    A precedence has been set here.

    Yeah a good one. NFL players get paid a tonne of money, why shouldn't they be expected to behave in a dignified manner that doesn't bring negative headlines on the sport? I agree with the Commish... NFL players have a unique place in society and they should be held to a higher standard as they are role models for the younger generation.

    All players have signed up to that so they can hardly complain when they are banned after doing something stupid.


  • Options
    #84
    The Sparrow
    Registered Users Posts: 3,614 ✭✭✭The Sparrow


    Hazys wrote: »
    Cardinals and Raiders are in the hunt for big Ben

    Really? Where did you see that?

    On Twitter this morning, Adam Schefter said that the Raiders are not interested.


  • Options
    #85
    steelcityblues
    Registered Users Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭steelcityblues


    Whatever you think of Ben, I don't know why a sporting body has the authority to place such a hefty on-the-field ban, when he has yet to be found guilty of something that happened off-the-field.

    If anything the best punishment could be to have him play under extreme pressure and opposition, if a verdict has not been reached by Sept.

    Hell, Frank Ribery took to the field for Bayern Munich last night and would of next week if not for the sending off.

    Surely there is something flawed with the NFL's punishment criteria?


  • Options
    #86
    Dohnny Jepp
    Registered Users Posts: 1,444 ✭✭✭Dohnny Jepp


    IMO no, there is something flawed with fifa's punishment criteria


  • Options
    #87
    The Sparrow
    Registered Users Posts: 3,614 ✭✭✭The Sparrow


    steelcityblues wrote: »
    Whatever you think of Ben, I don't know why a sporting body has the authority to place such a hefty on-the-field ban, when he has yet to be found guilty of something that happened off-the-field.

    If anything the best punishment could be to have him play under extreme pressure and opposition, if a verdict has not been reached by Sept.

    Hell, Frank Ribery took to the field for Bayern Munich last night and would of next week if not for the sending off.

    Surely there is something flawed with the NFL's punishment criteria?

    For what seems like the millionth time in this thread, he is not being punished over the specific allegations which are not being brought to a court by the Georgia authorities. He is being punished for bringing bad headlines on the NFL and his team and for acting in a reckless way and putting himself in a potentially bad situation.

    Every player signs up to the personal conduct policy and on this occasion Roethlisberger has been judged to be in breach of that policy so he is bening punished. That is all.

    Whether he is guilty or not is largely irrelevant.

    Edit: And yeah football over here is hardly a shining beacon of good behaviour and strong fair regulation so you can't compare the two.


  • Options
    #88
    Hazys
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,510 ✭✭✭Hazys


    The Sparrow wrote: »
    Really? Where did you see that?

    On Twitter this morning, Adam Schefter said that the Raiders are not interested.

    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/04/22/report-cardinals-called-steelers-about-roethlisberger/

    Makes sense with Warner retired and Haley as Ben's old coach

    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/04/22/report-raiders-steelers-reached-a-quick-impasse-on-big-ben/

    I dont think the Raiders will gove up that easy.


  • Options
    #89
    steelcityblues
    Registered Users Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭steelcityblues


    The Sparrow wrote: »
    For what seems like the millionth time in this thread, he is not being punished over the specific allegations which are not being brought to a court by the Georgia authorities. He is being punished for bringing bad headlines on the NFL and his team and for acting in a reckless way and putting himself in a potentially bad situation.

    Every player signs up to the personal conduct policy and on this occasion Roethlisberger has been judged to be in breach of that policy so he is bening punished. That is all.

    Whether he is guilty or not is largely irrelevant.

    Edit: And yeah football over here is hardly a shining beacon of good behaviour and strong fair regulation so you can't compare the two.

    Fair enough, but it seems like Goddell is completely shutting out the team owner/CEO (This case Art Rooney) from the decision making. A ban of a few games does not guarantee a change in a player's character.
    Adrian Mutu is one example of that!

    Remember, the big sports organisations (NFL, NBA, MLB) had a vested interest in boosting these players egos and giving them the superstar tag.

    This will inevitably go to some of the players heads!


  • Options
    #90
    The Sparrow
    Registered Users Posts: 3,614 ✭✭✭The Sparrow


    As far as I recall, if the league bans somebody they don't have to involve the players union but if a team does the union has to be involved and it can get messy if it is a team imposed ban over 2 games. It may not be 2 games but something along those lines.

    So it just made more sense for the league to do it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Chucky the tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    Pretty pointless comparing NFL and european soccer, two completely different sports played in different contients.


Advertisement