2014 NFL Playoffs Thread

Paully D

Schedule in Irish time is as follows:

Saturday January 3rd

Cardinals @ Panthers (-4) (21:35pm)
Ravens @ Steelers (-3.5) (01:15am)

Sunday January 4th

Bengals @ Colts (-3.5) (18:05pm)
Lions @ Cowboys (-7) (21:40pm)

Saturday January 10th

TBC @ Patriots (21:35pm)
TBC @ Seahawks (01:15am)

Sunday January 11th

TBC @ Packers (18:05pm)
TBC @ Broncos (21:40pm)

Sunday January 18th

NFC Championship Game (8:05pm)
AFC Championship Game (11:40pm)

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

TheDoctor

Go Hawks!

JaMarcusHustle

8.05pm and 11.40pm don't look right for the Conference Games.... Is that a typo?

Edit: Crap, that's true.

glued

Going for a Pats v Seattle final

Jolly Red Giant

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Both the Packers and the Cowboys are capable of beating Seattle.

The AFC is between the Pats and the Broncos (with the Ravens a possible fly in the ointment - I could see the Ravens beat the Pats if they get to Foxboro)

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Jolly Red Giant

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Seattle have been impressive in recent weeks but they do have vulnerabilities - and ones the Packers can exploit.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

SantryRed

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Why can't Dallas beat them? They're 8-0 on the road and have already beaten them this year in Seattle.

I think Seattle will get through again too, but it's by no means a certainty.

Lionbacker

Well Suh is suspended for the Dallas game, making it almost an impossible task to stop the cowboys O-line & running game having their way with Detroits defensive line, with their top two DT's out of the game. The Lions don't stand a chance unless their offence miraculously awakens to 2011 or 2013 form & that doesn't seem likely.

It's quite frustrating though, to see certain players and teams given preferential treatment in situations like this. Get into a brawl with another team? No big deal, here's a simple fine. Kick a punter in the face? No suspension, just a fine. But step on a player, perhaps inadvertently? You're suspended for a playoff game because you have a "history."

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

SantryRed

Lionbacker wrote: »

Well Suh is suspended for the Dallas game, making it almost an impossible task to stop the cowboys O-line & running game having their way with Detroits defensive line, with their top two DT's out of the game. The Lions don't stand a chance unless their offence miraculously awakens to 2011 or 2013 form & that doesn't seem likely.

It's quite frustrating though, to see certain players and teams given preferential treatment in situations like this. Get into a brawl with another team? No big deal, here's a simple fine. Kick a punter in the face? No suspension, just a fine. But step on a player, perhaps inadvertently? You're suspended for a playoff game because you have a "history."

Inadvertently my arse.

Lionbacker

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

He just stepped on him. No stomping, no force put into it. If there was, I would agree with you that his season should be over, but this punishment is way over the top, essentially handicapping the Lions in their most important game of the season.

glued

Didn't really look intentional at all. This is a ban on reputation rather than on an isolated incident. Rightly or wrongly, Suh has brought this on himself with his stupid actions in the past.

Any chance the Lions had is gone now. That Dallas OLine is going to destroy the Lions.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Lionbacker

glued wrote: »

Didn't really look intentional at all. This is a ban on reputation rather than on an isolated incident. Rightly or wrongly, Suh has brought this on himself with his stupid actions in the past.

It's really hard to tell if its intentional or not. It's only Suh who really knows that answer. In slowmo it does look bad, but in real time is where you can see him slightly lose balance, so its hard to know. But thats where his reputation has got him, not getting any benefit of the doubt.

He's appealing the decision but I wouldn't be too hopeful.

SameOleJay

Farcical suspension imo. I don't know how you decide there's intent there.

Is someone gonna tell me this suspension would have happened if Josh Sitton were on the end of it. Or better still if it was Rodgers who had done it to Suh.

I get that he has history, but that's so harsh.

Lionbacker

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The Lions can't do anything with him, because the new CBA has handicapped teams from handing out any punishments without the players bringing the NFLPA into it.
Only the NFL can hand out any sort of discipline these days. The Lions hands were tied or being "limpswrited" as you put it.

bruschi

It's as clear as day he did it on purpose, I can't even see how it could be defended otherwise. Firstly, he did make an accidental step, but the second one he elevates his foot off the ground to ensure his full weight is on the foot on Rodgers leg.

And there is a reason he is suspended based on history. It's like any justice system, you get one or two strikes, but keep being persistent and you'll keep getting punished. Again, I don't see how anyone wouldn't get that. Making comparisons that Rodgers wouldn't be suspended is ridiculous. Of course he wouldn't, he doesn't have previous. But he'd probably get a fine. It seems fairly black and white to me and very straight forward. Only one person to blame here.

Lionbacker

There is still some hope left!

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/12/29/ndamukong-suh-has-a-chance-of-winning-appeal-of-suspension/

Bill Polian is another person who says a suspension is way too harsh.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Lionbacker

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What are you talking about. He is one the most scruntinised players in the NFL. Every borderline dirty play stirs up a media frenzy & he has had to pay a fair amount of money for fines in the past; last one was September 2013, so he's not been as bad the last two years as the media would portray.

But he rarely gets away with anything scot-free.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Lionbacker

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's only on rare occasions where suspensions are handed out & only in extreme cases of misconduct. I don't think what Suh has done here & in the past (excluding the Deitrich-Smith incident) would be deemed worthy of suspension.

raze_them_all_

Lionbacker wrote: »

He just stepped on him. No stomping, no force put into it. If there was, I would agree with you that his season should be over, but this punishment is way over the top, essentially handicapping the Lions in their most important game of the season.

Aye a mere 310 odd lbs mildy standing on my ankle on purpose, then put no force at all into stepping off him

Chucky the tree

Lionbacker wrote: »

It's only on rare occasions where suspensions are handed out & only in extreme cases of misconduct. I don't think what Suh has done here & in the past (excluding the Deitrich-Smith incident) would be deemed worthy of suspension.

When you add up all the scummy things he has done then it does deserve a suspension. It's obvious fines aren't going to change his behaviour so it's only normal that punishment is then increased for repeat offenders.

Lionbacker

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

Aye a mere 310 odd lbs mildy standing on my ankle on purpose, then put no force at all into stepping off him

Point I was making was that it was completely different to his Thanksgivng day stomp & Raiola's one last week. I just don't believe that the level of punishment handed last week for Raiola's stomp is equal to what Suh has done, regardless of his past.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

When you add up all the scummy things he has done then it does deserve a suspension. It's obvious fines aren't going to change his behaviour so it's only normal that punishment is then increased for repeat offenders.

Maybe that should be implemented, but has it happened for anyone else? Besides Merriwether going out of his way to launch himself at players heads, I can't think of anyone who's been suspended for an accumulation of fines. And besides, only one fine in the past two years has changed his behavoir in my view.

JaMarcusHustle

Lionbacker wrote: »

Maybe that should be implemented, but has it happened for anyone else? Besides Merriwether going out of his way to launch himself at players heads, I can't think of anyone who's been suspended for an accumulation of fines. And besides, only one fine in the past two years has changed his behavoir in my view.

Pretty sure James Harrison was.

Lionbacker

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

Pretty sure James Harrison was.

Wasn't that also for a lot of helmet to helmet hits?

JaMarcusHustle

Lionbacker wrote: »

Wasn't that also for a lot of helmet to helmet hits?

Well I thought Chucky's point was that if a player gets multiple fines for doing the same thing over and over, and shows no signs of cutting it out, then a suspension is the next step.

Harrison was fined for numerous late hits and helmet-to-helmets, so a suspension was the next step.

Just saying that there is precedence for it and it is something Goodell can claim some consistency on.

Lionbacker

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

Well I thought Chucky's point was that if a player gets multiple fines for doing the same thing over and over, and shows no signs of cutting it out, then a suspension is the next step.

Harrison was fined for numerous late hits and helmet-to-helmets, so a suspension was the next step.

Just saying that there is precedence for it and it is something Goodell can claim some consistency on.

Well helmet to helmet hits are far more serious than what Suh has ever done.
I assumed Goddell was suspending them specifically because they were blows to the head, rather than an accumulation of fines.

Itssoeasy

I've seen the suh incident a few times now and he knew what he was doing with the second step back.

JaMarcusHustle

Lionbacker wrote: »

Well helmet to helmet hits are far more serious than what Suh has ever done.
I assumed Goddell was suspending them specifically because they were blows to the head, rather than an accumulation of fines.

Well in that case they would have been suspended after their first offence. But it was only after several fines that they were suspended, so it was clearly an accumulation of offences that led to the suspension.

Chucky the tree

Lionbacker wrote: »

Well helmet to helmet hits are far more serious than what Suh has ever done.
I assumed Goddell was suspending them specifically because they were blows to the head, rather than an accumulation of fines.

There has been lots of helmet to helmet hits but players are rarely suspended for them. Guys like Harrison and Merriweather are though. Because they have done it consistently and never showed signs that they would stop by simply being fined.

Lionbacker

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

Well in that case they would have been suspended after their first offence. But it was only after several fines that they were suspended, so it was clearly an accumulation of offences that led to the suspension.

I always just assumed rather than an accumulation of fines that led to their suspensions, it was specifically that they continued with multiple helmet to helmet hits, which is an offence Suh has never committed.

I just don't believe the offences he has made in the past deserves the suspension he has incurred now. A fine yeah but not severe enough for banning him from a playoff game.

Itssoeasy

Lionbacker wrote: »

I always just assumed rather than an accumulation of fines that led to their suspensions, it was specifically that they continued with multiple helmet to helmet hits, which is an offence Suh has never committed.

I just don't believe the offences he has made in the past deserves the suspension he has incurred now. A fine yeah but not severe enough for banning him from a playoff game.

It's not the offense he committed that got him suspended ,it that he has done it before.

Lionbacker

Not so, if you read the press release that came with his suspension. No mention of past discretions or his history has come up in it.

Itssoeasy

Lionbacker wrote: »

Not so, if you read the press release that came with his suspension. No mention of past discretions or his history has come up in it.

Well it might not have been said in the press release but it played a part in the decision.

Bateman

Academic now as he's won his appeal.

What a joke, I hope the Cowboys give them a good hiding.

alchemist33

SantryRed wrote: »

Why can't Dallas beat them? They're 8-0 on the road and have already beaten them this year in Seattle.

I think Seattle will get through again too, but it's by no means a certainty.

As a Seahawks fan, I fear the Cowboys more than the Packers. Our loss to them earlier in the season was painful to watch.

But we have improved since then so I'd have some confidence in a better outcome this time.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Realt Dearg Sec

Patww79 wrote: »

Disgrace letting Suh away with that, but anything that makes things harder for the Cowboys can't be a bad thing for the rest of the NFC playoff field.
Hopefully, with him going into end of contract, a Cowboys lineman takes his knee out before he gets his payday.

Wow, that was a pretty hypocritical thing to say.

double GG

Patww79 wrote: »

Hopefully, with him going into end of contract, a Cowboys lineman takes his knee out before he gets his payday.

Horrible thing to say or wish upon any player.

SameOleJay

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What.

Itssoeasy

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree it's a joke that he got it overturned but to wish ill on any player is wrong on so many levels. I'd never wish ill on any player regardless of what team they play/played for. I mean when victor Cruz did his knee I didnt cheer and think that was a good thing.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Lionbacker

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Here's a little statistic for you.
Number of games missed by the players that were due to been "injured" by Suh =0.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

jack presley

I was just listening to the Ross Tucker podcast and as Suh is now allowed to play but is fined $70k instead, he's going to be out of pocket by about $48k (apparently $22k is the paycheque for wild card teams) because he got his ban overturned. Small change for him I know but funny that it's actually costing him to play this weekend now.