I would say he should be suspended as long as Lacy is out, but he will already be out that long.

Will be interested to see if he learned anything when he does get back.

doubtful.

I guess they figured the suspension Starks gave him was enough.

"punished"

ya nice! - Glad at least he got a fine even thou no penalty was called ... man just watched the san fran seattle game ... just as rough of a game but this time san fran was on the other end.

Slap on the wrist. Nothing in the NFL will ever change with these types of penalties. Two perfect shots of Meriweather targeting the head of a runner, and succeeding, and all they can come up with is 42K?

He's been fined $40K for a helmet-to-helmet hit before (after winning an appeal to decrease the fine from $50K)... that extra $2K on a 7 digit salary will learn him!

The victim is a Packer in this case, so I'm all for as heavy a punishment as possible, but sometime, the shoe will be on the other foot - or even just somebody hitting whoever the hell it is.

Call me evil; Call me old-fashioned; Whatever, but I just can't get into this whole mentality of no helmet to helmet/put a skirt on the QBs/ don't hit a "defenseless" receiver/ all that silly crap.

These guys get paid multiple millions to play a fun game that almost any of us would give almost anything to be good enough to play. Part of what they get paid so much for IMNHO, is the risk - and really it is a damn small risk even with helmet to helmet contact - of getting their brains scrambled. If they aren't up to that risk, let them quit the game and give up that HUGE money they get paid.

Letting them take the risk cost the guys who write the checks a lot of money. Whether anyone likes it or not that = change. Also the truth is we don't really know that much about the human brain and how impacts like that effect it. Unless you are some sort of brain expert you aren't really very qualified to say it's a "really damn small risk".

As was stated above, I think the NFL took into account that he sort of suspended himself already.

The truth is football is a dangerous sport and they knew that when they signed on and that is all that matters so screw you and your we don't really know that much about the human brain
crap.


That was sarcasm by the way

That sarcasm makes me so mad you jerk!

Football is dangerous enough without a bunch of jackoffs intentionally trying to injure one another. Merriweather should have been banned a whole season. That jackass James Harrison should have had a lifetime ban with all his cheap shots.

I'll say the same thing sschind said, except it AIN'T sarcasm. I don't have any sympathy for anybody makes who knows how many million $ playing a fun game KNOWING he is risking messing up his future life from brain injury. I also have little or no sympathy for the people writing the checks for those salaries (even less for the God damned lawyers and agents sticking their noses into the controversy).

As for the "small risk" you take the sum total of all NFL players and the sum total of all significant long term brain problems as a fraction of that, and hell yeah it is small. Furthermore, you take the sum total of all head first hits or even helmet to helmet hits, and the sum total of all even short term brain injuries - concussions as a fraction of that, and I'd venture to say that is a pretty small fraction also.

Besides, as I said, anybody not willing to take the risk can always quit and pass up that HUGE money for playing a fun game. I don't see very many doing that. Therefore, why make it less risky just because some namby pamby fools get all sanctimonious about the rare consequences?

Thing is your sympathy means exactly jack and shit one way or the other. It's not your money it's theirs and they'll do with it what they wish. Hence the rules changing. Fans are going to keep watching football and people who get seriously hurt are going to keep suing the people in charge so they are going to try and keep people from getting seriously hurt. Your personal feelings don't figure into the equation.

Really? So what are the numbers then? What are the sum totals of brain damage? You really have no clue what the numbers are. You are making a guess on numbers that have been wholly undocumented over the years. There is no list on how many people have been damaged and how damaged they are and how many people were uninjured. Nobody knows. You are "venturing to say" your opinion on something that experts who spend their life studying don't even know that much about.

Either way if the guys in charge of the NFL did what you wanted and didn't give a shit about people getting TBIs or dieing the game wouldn't exist for very much longer. So your genius ideas would kill the game and it wouldn't matter anyway. Don't understand how you cannot see that.

You are exactly right about that. Therefore, I will go on to say, hahahahaha, that the REAL evil here is the media people - stirring up similar feelings as valuable as jack shit in favor of all this silly shit. The damn media is on the same level of rottenness as the God damned blood-sucking lawyers who enable the damn lawsuits, etc. you are talking about.

Just expressing some jack shit feelings hahahaha.

Well, you could start, I suppose, with the participants in that damn lawsuit as a fraction of total NFL players in that time period.

You are, of course, correct about that opinion, which I guess, makes my jack shit opinion about as valuable as those self-proclaimed experts.

Kill the game? You mean like it did the first hundred years or so up to now? Dying? Has anybody EVER died in an NFL game? I seem to recall a Detroit Lion back 50 or so years ago, but he had a heart attack because of a genetic disorder about cholesterol susceptibility or something - not really part of this discussion. If you can cite ANYBODY whose premature death was directly linked to head shots or whatever, I'd like to hear it. I'm pretty sure there aren't very many in all those years.

The thing that could kill the game (although almost certainly won't because people with common sense will prevail) is this idiotic emphasis and lawsuits, etc. on this ridiculous topic.

And not one word of reply about the possibility of players quitting because the risk is too great. If the risk is too great for the reward, you get out of the stock market, you don't bet on the horse, whatever. The fact that they ain't quitting in droves says the risk ain't very great - and the wimpy do-gooders want to make the risk even less? I have to ask WHY?

I find that hard to believe. I'm no expert in NFL contracts, but I believe he will still collect a check when he out with his concussion, but if he were to be suspended, he would not.