Jump to content

KleShreen

Ndamukong Suh

Recommended Posts

I think it's painfully obvious to see on a weekly basis how his actions have impacted the team as a whole since he arrived in terms of penalties. Every time there's a borderline call or those "shoving" matches result in a penalty, it's nearly always the Lions getting called for it. This isn't just by coincidence, it's because the things that started with Suh's questionable decisions on the field in 2010 have negatively affected how officials referee the Lions during games. Granted, this is not just Suh. Corey Williams and Cliff Avril don't help the situation by committing dumb penalties on a weekly basis either. However, it started mostly when Suh got here. Yes, the team has, for the most part, improved since Suh joined the team. But what is frustrating is watching penalties decide a majority of Lions games and I feel like Suh has had the biggest impact on that.

I'm well aware that his called penalties have gone down recently. I am also aware that he plays right on the line of legal and not illegal every week. No matter what, whether it's warranted or not, it seems like every 2 or 3 weeks, there's some kind of questionable play by Suh that gets highlighted by media and therefore scrutinized by the various people that see it, including the NFL and its officials. I am well aware that the sack on Cutler earlier in the season was not a penalty and was called clean by the players/teams involved, but it still got highlighted and was a main point of the media and negatively impacts the way officials treat the team on anything that looks questionable. You don't think that because of the reputation the Lions have earned behind the leadership of Suh, that the officials are looking for almost anything at all that looks questionable and calling it? Since Suh came in the league, the Lions have been 29th (2010 - 63.6 yds/gm), 31st (2011 - 67.0 yds/gm) and 29th (2012 - 65.1 yds/gm) in penalties. In 2009 before Suh arrived? 15th in the league at 48.0 yards a game, and 2008 was even less than that. I don't think that's some kind of coincidence.

I realize this also came with a coaching change and that's a whole other story because I feel Schwartz encourages this kind of behavior on the field, but I don't think it makes for a winning team. Again, I realize the team has improved over the last three seasons if you look at as a group, but you can't tell me the team isn't being negatively impacted in terms of referees calls as a whole because of the attention they get based on Suh's borderline hits. There's no reason for him to pull a QB down by his neck or collar when he could wrap up around the waist just as easily (like on the Cutler hit). There's no reason for him to do his overhand punch down on the QB's arm every time he gets close attempting a sack, but he does it anyway and brings attention to himself and the rest of the team in the officials' eyes. If this were the 90's, I would fully encourage what Suh does and how he plays. But in this day and age, I do not.

To summarize:

a. Other players on the line do bad things -> clearly Suh's influence -> Suh's fault

b. The national media comments on him even when everyone involved agrees it was a legal play -> No actual damage to Lions, but it makes you butt-hurt -> Suh's fault

c. Schwartz encourages behavior, but it is Suh's fault because refs pay more attention to him (as evidenced by him getting fewer penalties) as well as his teammates. Note: If this is true, it would mean refs pay less attention in other games.

Edited by Mr. Bigglesworth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My two cents:

I agree with KleShreen that people who drive recklessly can have the propensity for bigger trouble in other areas of their life. I've seen it. In fact, every person that I've known who has had troubles with the law had driving issues as well.

That said, I defer to Yoda's point:

Since last thanksgiving he's had a mere 3 offsides penalties. 0 suspensions. 0 personal fouls. 16 games plus one playoff game.

That's the trump card right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My two cents:

I agree with KleShreen that people who drive recklessly can have the propensity for bigger trouble in other areas of their life. I've seen it.

I would say they were probably going to have said propensity for bigger trouble later on anyhow and that it probably had nothing to do with the way they drive. There may be a random example of this here and there but I don't think you can just point to anyone that drives recklessly and say they're going to start getting into more trouble as KleShreen is doing. Just my two cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say they were probably going to have said propensity for bigger trouble later on anyhow and that it probably had nothing to do with the way they drive. There may be a random example of this here and there but I don't think you can just point to anyone that drives recklessly and say they're going to start getting into more trouble as KleShreen is doing. Just my two cents.

Agreed. I don't think its a 100% accurate measurement.

Using my own personal observations again, I have a couple of friends who are speed demons. They eventually built race cars and have stayed out of trouble. They're all good fathers with steady jobs. They just like to go extremely fast in/on vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, I can type pretty fast, so who knows what kind of trouble I'll get into in the future. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My two cents:

I agree with KleShreen that people who drive recklessly can have the propensity for bigger trouble in other areas of their life. I've seen it. In fact, every person that I've known who has had troubles with the law had driving issues as well.

I think this is a logical fallacy though. You're saying that everyone you know who has troubles with the law also has driving issues. And you're concluding that therefore anyone with driving issues will have other troubles with the law. You can't make that conclusion based on the evidence you have. Your logic is essentially saying: Every poodle I've seen is also a dog, therefore every dog must be a poodle.

I know many many people who have had driving issues who do not also have other law issues. Now, to be fair most of these people have not had 4 or 5 incidents in a couple of years, but I don't think it's a fair statement to say that driving issues is indicative of bigger law issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this is a logical fallacy though. You're saying that everyone you know who has troubles with the law also has driving issues. And you're concluding that therefore anyone with driving issues will have other troubles with the law.

Au contraire mon fraire, if you read what I wrote I said "people who drive recklessly can have the propensity for bigger trouble in other areas of their life". I made no absolute statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think KleShreen's point is well taken. Every time Bob Probert had an issue, it was "oh leave poor Bobby alone. The media just likes to pick on him". Yes, I realize there was alcohol involved in his situation and not Suh's. For me, with Suh, the bigger issue is his attitude and personality. After his stomping incident, all he had to do was issue the perfunctory apology and it's an old story. Instead,he makes some lame *** excuse, blames everyone else, is rude and short tempered with the media for having the audacity to mention it, and gets mad that people keep bringing it up. The ridiculous response to Schaub is just another case in point.

FWIW, it was the NFL PLAYERS who voted Suh the dirtiest player. The media just reported it. You can play tough and aggressive and still be respected. Suh just hasn't figured that out yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think KleShreen's point is well taken. Every time Bob Probert had an issue, it was "oh leave poor Bobby alone. The media just likes to pick on him".

That isn't what happened with Bob Probert. The Wings tried everything in their power to correct his actions.

Also, just because Bob Probert wasn't able to overcome his alcoholism issues does not mean Suh won't mature, if his maturity is the issue, as you suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You asked for me to explain my viewpoint, so I did. If you have a problem with it or don't agree, then leave it at that. I've seen many personal accounts where what I say is true to a sad extent. I don't see the need for immaturity and unprovoked name-calling for something that I know exists and have personally witnessed. Then again, I guess that's par for the course for some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That isn't what happened with Bob Probert. The Wings tried everything in their power to correct his actions.

Also, just because Bob Probert wasn't able to overcome his alcoholism issues does not mean Suh won't mature, if his maturity is the issue, as you suggest.

What does the Wings trying to correct the his issues have to do with anything? He still got into constant trouble, and many fans took issue with the negative attention and had no problem giving him second and third chances because he was a well liked enforcer.

It also doesn't mean Suh will be able to overcome his issues either.

Like it or not, when you're a #2, pick, you will get media attention. What you choose to do with that attention will affect how you're perceived. If he wants to act like a spoiled brat to the media and stomp on someone and not apologize and pile up the traffic tickets, he's entitled to do that. But he reaps what he sows.

I don't get the impression that Calvin Johnson is particularly fond of media attention, yet he's polite and respectful and answers questions, though he may not particularly like to.

Darren McCarty is a prime example. He had many off ice issues, yet he was the first one in front of the camera to apologize or give an interview on an off day or show up at an event. I think it made a huge difference in how he was perceived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What does the Wings trying to correct the his issues have to do with anything?

It was claimed to refute the following statement you made:

'Every time Bob Probert had an issue, it was "oh leave poor Bobby alone. The media just likes to pick on him".'

That simply was not an accurate characterization of how Bob was handled.

He still got into constant trouble, and many fans took issue with the negative attention and had no problem giving him second and third chances because he was a well liked enforcer.

My turn. What does what the fans taking issue with negative attention have to do with anything? Fans not liking that others criticized Bob had zero impact on what happened to Bob on or off the ice.

It also doesn't mean Suh will be able to overcome his issues either.

Of course not. But you were the one who offered Bob Probert as a cautionary tale. I'm not trying to prove Suh won't get into trouble, I'm simply pointing out the Bob Probert experience has little to nothing to do with Ndamukong Suh.

Like it or not, when you're a #2, pick, you will get media attention. What you choose to do with that attention will affect how you're perceived. If he wants to act like a spoiled brat to the media and stomp on someone and not apologize and pile up the traffic tickets, he's entitled to do that. But he reaps what he sows.

Is anybody arguing this point?

I don't get the impression that Calvin Johnson is particularly fond of media attention, yet he's polite and respectful and answers questions, though he may not particularly like to.

I am aware some don't like dealing with the media, yet do so in a professional manner.

Darren McCarty is a prime example. He had many off ice issues, yet he was the first one in front of the camera to apologize or give an interview on an off day or show up at an event. I think it made a huge difference in how he was perceived.

Is anyone arguing the point how one handles themselves with and through the media influences how they are perceived?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You asked for me to explain my viewpoint, so I did. If you have a problem with it or don't agree, then leave it at that.

Fair enough. For the record, I had much more of an issue with how you argued your position than the underlying premise.

I've seen many personal accounts where what I say is true to a sad extent. I don't see the need for immaturity and unprovoked name-calling for something that I know exists and have personally witnessed.

I am sorry you have had multiple negative experiences. I probably would have found your argument more compelling had you included your personal experiences, had they been reasonably relevant.

I can't speak for others, but I can understand why someone would call your posts whiny. They come across that way for me some of the time. I don't know if that is your intent (presumably it isn't), but I think you are putting that vibe out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's painfully obvious to see on a weekly basis how his actions have impacted the team as a whole since he arrived in terms of penalties. Every time there's a borderline call or those "shoving" matches result in a penalty, it's nearly always the Lions getting called for it. This isn't just by coincidence, it's because the things that started with Suh's questionable decisions on the field in 2010 have negatively affected how officials referee the Lions during games. Granted, this is not just Suh. Corey Williams and Cliff Avril don't help the situation by committing dumb penalties on a weekly basis either. However, it started mostly when Suh got here. Yes, the team has, for the most part, improved since Suh joined the team. But what is frustrating is watching penalties decide a majority of Lions games and I feel like Suh has had the biggest impact on that.

I'm well aware that his called penalties have gone down recently. I am also aware that he plays right on the line of legal and not illegal every week. No matter what, whether it's warranted or not, it seems like every 2 or 3 weeks, there's some kind of questionable play by Suh that gets highlighted by media and therefore scrutinized by the various people that see it, including the NFL and its officials. I am well aware that the sack on Cutler earlier in the season was not a penalty and was called clean by the players/teams involved, but it still got highlighted and was a main point of the media and negatively impacts the way officials treat the team on anything that looks questionable. You don't think that because of the reputation the Lions have earned behind the leadership of Suh, that the officials are looking for almost anything at all that looks questionable and calling it? Since Suh came in the league, the Lions have been 29th (2010 - 63.6 yds/gm), 31st (2011 - 67.0 yds/gm) and 29th (2012 - 65.1 yds/gm) in penalties. In 2009 before Suh arrived? 15th in the league at 48.0 yards a game, and 2008 was even less than that. I don't think that's some kind of coincidence.

I realize this also came with a coaching change and that's a whole other story because I feel Schwartz encourages this kind of behavior on the field, but I don't think it makes for a winning team. Again, I realize the team has improved over the last three seasons if you look at as a group, but you can't tell me the team isn't being negatively impacted in terms of referees calls as a whole because of the attention they get based on Suh's borderline hits. There's no reason for him to pull a QB down by his neck or collar when he could wrap up around the waist just as easily (like on the Cutler hit). There's no reason for him to do his overhand punch down on the QB's arm every time he gets close attempting a sack, but he does it anyway and brings attention to himself and the rest of the team in the officials' eyes. If this were the 90's, I would fully encourage what Suh does and how he plays. But in this day and age, I do not.

Dude, the bolded part has been going on for as long as I have been watching the Lions....Suh did not 'start' that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dude, the bolded part has been going on for as long as I have been watching the Lions....Suh did not 'start' that.

I'll agree with JBK here and add that I suspect most fan bases believe they get screwed on borderline calls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think KleShreen's point is well taken. Every time Bob Probert had an issue, it was "oh leave poor Bobby alone. The media just likes to pick on him". Yes, I realize there was alcohol involved in his situation and not Suh's. For me, with Suh, the bigger issue is his attitude and personality. After his stomping incident, all he had to do was issue the perfunctory apology and it's an old story. Instead,he makes some lame *** excuse, blames everyone else, is rude and short tempered with the media for having the audacity to mention it, and gets mad that people keep bringing it up. The ridiculous response to Schaub is just another case in point.

FWIW, it was the NFL PLAYERS who voted Suh the dirtiest player. The media just reported it. You can play tough and aggressive and still be respected. Suh just hasn't figured that out yet.

Because the response to it was ridiculous and over the top. The national media needed a whipping boy to turn to anytime something got nasty on the field because the league is trying to 'clean up' its image. It is lazy reporting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough. For the record, I had much more of an issue with how you argued your position than the underlying premise.

I am sorry you have had multiple negative experiences. I probably would have found your argument more compelling had you included your personal experiences, had they been reasonably relevant.

I can't speak for others, but I can understand why someone would call your posts whiny. They come across that way for me some of the time. I don't know if that is your intent (presumably it isn't), but I think you are putting that vibe out there.

I would have shared but I prefer not to with the line of work I am in. I have just been around many very successful collegiate athletes and pro athletes who almost all fit the mold of what I've been describing. That's where the premise of my statements comes from. A couple of them have their heads on straight and stay down-to-Earth and the success/money doesn't change them. Many, a vast majority, it does in a negative way from what I have experienced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was claimed to refute the following statement you made:

'Every time Bob Probert had an issue, it was "oh leave poor Bobby alone. The media just likes to pick on him".'

That simply was not an accurate characterization of how Bob was handled.

My turn. What does what the fans taking issue with negative attention have to do with anything? Fans not liking that others criticized Bob had zero impact on what happened to Bob on or off the ice.

Of course not. But you were the one who offered Bob Probert as a cautionary tale. I'm not trying to prove Suh won't get into trouble, I'm simply pointing out the Bob Probert experience has little to nothing to do with Ndamukong Suh.

Is anybody arguing this point?

I am aware some don't like dealing with the media, yet do so in a professional manner.

Is anyone arguing the point how one handles themselves with and through the media influences how they are perceived?

See above post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because the response to it was ridiculous and over the top. The national media needed a whipping boy to turn to anytime something got nasty on the field because the league is trying to 'clean up' its image. It is lazy reporting.

Suh had the league and the city by the balls when he was drafted and the last thing the media wanted to do was turn him into a whipping boy. He turned himself into a whipping boy by his actions on and off the field. I don't even blame him for the stomp. Stuff happens on the field. How he reacted to it, his lame excuses, blaming the media. Its those kinds of things that make him unlikable by fans and fellow NFL players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suh had the league and the city by the balls when he was drafted and the last thing the media wanted to do was turn him into a whipping boy. He turned himself into a whipping boy by his actions on and off the field. I don't even blame him for the stomp. Stuff happens on the field. How he reacted to it, his lame excuses, blaming the media. Its those kinds of things that make him unlikable by fans and fellow NFL players.

Well speak for yourself then because I LOVE the guy and how he plays. And of course they did not want to turn him into a whipping boy when he was drafted, but then he goes on to have a spectacular rookie season mixed with all those phantom BS calls turned him into the whipping boy and it helps the whipping boy mantra to play in Detroit as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would have shared but I prefer not to with the line of work I am in. I have just been around many very successful collegiate athletes and pro athletes who almost all fit the mold of what I've been describing. That's where the premise of my statements comes from. A couple of them have their heads on straight and stay down-to-Earth and the success/money doesn't change them. Many, a vast majority, it does in a negative way from what I have experienced.

I am not surprised a vast majority of 18 to 21 year old males do not handle fame or fortune particularly well. That doesn't mean the vast majority of professional athletes are just like children or are bad citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suh had the league and the city by the balls when he was drafted and the last thing the media wanted to do was turn him into a whipping boy. He turned himself into a whipping boy by his actions on and off the field. I don't even blame him for the stomp. Stuff happens on the field. How he reacted to it, his lame excuses, blaming the media. Its those kinds of things that make him unlikable by fans and fellow NFL players.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      96,634
    • Total Posts
      2,909,393
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...