Monday, November 26, 2012

Benefit of the Doubt?

The NFL announced that it will not suspend Detroit Lions player Ndamukong Suh for his dirty looking kick to the groin of Matt Schaub on Thanksgiving day. The NFL claims the kick was accidental but is still reviewing it for a potential fine with an escalated penalty for Suh's repeat offenses.

So it's accidental but you might still fine him because of his being a repeat offender? The NFL is acting like sissies. What are they afraid of. Suh should have been suspended. He's a dirty player. He's a thug. He doesn't seem to respect his fellow players.

Will Suh have to seriously injure a player for the NFL to take his dirty playing seriously? Suh is a guy who's already stomped on a player's head during a game. Suh is gutless twerp. I think he is a disgusting player. Yet, the NFL is giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Ndamukong Suh is the NFL poster child for playing dirty. He is a player that has to be watched. Players can't turn your back on this cheap shot artist. You never know when he's going to stomp on you or kick you in the  nut sack.

Suh doesn't have any limits to how dirty he will play. Anyone and any body part is fair game with this thug. Defensive players play hard and many live on the edge while on the football field. Most players set limits for themselves and the types of play that they will not take part in. Suh isn't that type of player.

The NFL says that it is serious about getting tough with dirty players and dirty playing that could seriously hurt players? Yeah right. That seems to be lip service. If it was serious, it would have taken decisive action with this Suh incident.

The league came down hard on the New Orleans Saints for bounty gate and I agree with them for that but you have a player in Suh who has a history of dirty playing. He's been fined and even a suspended for his dirty play. NFL players voted him the dirtiest player in the NFL. Why should he receive the benefit of the doubt.

I actually don't care if the kick was intentional or not. Suh has a body of dirty work. I believe Suh needs to err on the side of caution. I believe he should be suspended because it looked bad. He did kick Schaub. I assume this dirty player acted with intent and in a vicious manner. This punk needs to prove to me that it wasn't intentional. There's very little this creep could say to me that would make me believe him.

Suh has cried wolf to many times. He's lost my respect. Every time he takes the field I expect that he will play dirty. I don't think this scummy player deserves the benefit of the doubt.


  1. That clearly looked intentional to me, no way he had to follow through with his kick. I don't know if a suspension is warranted but he should be fined for sure.

    1. That leg extension sold it for me. The guy is a thug!

      Delete welcomes your comments and lively debates. All we ask is that you keep your comments civil.

Please Note: When commenting on posts, it is prohibited to post links that are deemed to be spam or advertising.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.