RealGM

Looks like it may be reduced to a heavy fine.

If give Detroit about a 10% chance of winning this game with Suh and Fairley. Is Fairley still out too. Thats incredibly fortunate to be playing one of the best D's round one and having their top 2 defenders out. But to win a SB you need to be good and get breaks.

Yes, Suh suspension overturned. $70K fine

I know Pday wanted him to play. I didn't see the Riola play from last week, but that game was very significant as well. Call me a pansy but I think it's BS.

Romotodez wrote:I know Pday wanted him to play. I didn't see the Riola play from last week, but that game was very significant as well. Call me a pansy but I think it's BS.

Darn right I want him to play.
Martin/Fredrick look the all pro part to me....should be epic stuff!

The explanation on why the appeal occurred was amusing. Even the lady on the NFLN that provided an explanation, prefaced her explanation with something like, "Suh benefited from an odd loophole as a result of a rules change regarding player safety earlier this year." The bottom-line was that he's guilty so to speak, but it was basically treated like a first offense because it's been just long enough since the last time he committed a questionable act. Funny how this stuff works some times.

So I guess that excuse just flew out the window for Detroit fans or anyone else that would credit his absence as the reason for a Dallas victory, if Dallas can win this game.

If I was a Det fan I would want what was best for my team and I'm sure I would want him to play. With that being said, I would be sick and tired of his act. If he was suspended he deserved it and I would understand. It may have given a few an excuse, but in 5 yrs I don't think many would say Dallas beat Det in 2015 because Suh didn't play. To me it's another black eye to Goddell even though he did suspend him. I haven't heard a Dallas fan say the reason we lost to SF the first game was because our best defensive player was suspended. Suh and Scandrock aren't on the same level I understand that, but how far are they gonna let this guy go. As far as an epic battle, I want to win and I know Suh makes them better. We had a big advantage wiped away today. I understand the mantra that you want to beat a team at their best, I'm just trying to be realistic. They aren't screaming well damn I wish the Cowboys had Lee, Durant, Claiborne. Who knows, maybe our line manhandles his ass.

On one hand I agree w/ PDay play a team at their best but same day this idiot Suh has to be dealt with. He has done this stuff so many times. His playoff game check offsets a good chuck of the fine anyway. BS

I think Suh's past should have kept the suspension intact but at least this way theres no excuses. I'm good with the decision.

Romotodez wrote:If I was a Det fan I would want what was best for my team and I'm sure I would want him to play. With that being said, I would be sick and tired of his act. If he was suspended he deserved it and I would understand. It may have given a few an excuse, but in 5 yrs I don't think many would say Dallas beat Det in 2015 because Suh didn't play. To me it's another black eye to Goddell even though he did suspend him. I haven't heard a Dallas fan say the reason we lost to SF the first game was because our best defensive player was suspended. Suh and Scandrock aren't on the same level I understand that, but how far are they gonna let this guy go. As far as an epic battle, I want to win and I know Suh makes them better. We had a big advantage wiped away today. I understand the mantra that you want to beat a team at their best, I'm just trying to be realistic. They aren't screaming well damn I wish the Cowboys had Lee, Durant, Claiborne. Who knows, maybe our line manhandles his ass.

Reading their board I think they are tiring of his act. Now that could be more to do with his upcoming free agency and his desire to leave Detroit.

I heard just now that you are considered to not be a habitual offender if you haven't been fined in 32 games. THis was literally Suhs 33rd game since his last altercation. THe minute he is off the "bad boy" list he stomps someone again. He's good but a complete jag-off.

I get wanting to earn it and play a teams best. But to just get "1" playoff win under our belt, I'm sorry but I will take any break I can get. I'll "earn it" on the next one. Not that it matters now.

ncmalko1 wrote:I heard just now that you are considered to not be a habitual offender if you haven't been fined in 32 games. THis was literally Suhs 33rd game since his last altercation. THe minute he is off the "bad boy" list he stomps someone again. He's good but a complete jag-off.

does that mean he is gonna be good now for another 31 games?

Schmoopy1000 wrote:

ncmalko1 wrote:I heard just now that you are considered to not be a habitual offender if you haven't been fined in 32 games. THis was literally Suhs 33rd game since his last altercation. THe minute he is off the "bad boy" list he stomps someone again. He's good but a complete jag-off.

does that mean he is gonna be good now for another 31 games?

32 more. If he's good for only 31 he's not past the 32 game Statute of Limitations.