Skinny Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Damned if you do Damned if you don't. If you read all the way through you forget what you were gonna post about. If you post as you go it is inevitable that some one else posted before you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squintz Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Again - I feel bad that the NFL has come down with a full year. The guy has owned up to it and hasn't backed away from any criticism. The difference of one year to a football player is HUGE when compared to a normal Joe getting a year off without pay. Granted, he has enough to retire on now, but it's still a harsh punishment. Hell, it's a much more severe hit than what even the legal system doled out. Brutal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blowe Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 well, im not a steeler troll Im a die hard browns fan I know this. You must've mistaken what I wrote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RestinPeace Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 The NFL doesn't want Stallworth, he probably doesn't have the common sense to retire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaak Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 The simple difference is that Stallworth didn't intend his action. If in fact BR did commit rape, and I make no judgment on that, it would have to be considered a purposeful act. The justice system did its thing in the Stallworth case, (and in the Vick case). I do see a bit of a contradictory situation here though....with Vick, after he completes his government imposed punishment for his action, he is immediately reinstated. With Stallworth, after he completed his government imposed punishment he is suspended now apparently for a full additional year. (Should it matter that Vick got 2 years in jail and Stallworth only 1 month? Apparently it did) The justice system, criminal or civil, will still have its say in the BR case. If he is found "responsible" in that matter in civil court, should he or should he not suffer some NFL imposed penalty, as these others have? actually, I feel the disparity in the ruling by Goodell has to do with one thing, and one thing only. Someone died. If Stallworth had been sober, the guy might still have died. But on the other side of the coin, if Stallworth hadn't been driving at all, the guy might still be alive. Regardless... I expected Goodell to come down hard because someone died. Pure and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoorta Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 Amazing how your fan base can so readily forgive a man who killed another by operating a vehicle drunk (a violation that in some states is 2nd Degree Murder)---and was convicted of this crime in a court of law..... But you're all over Ben for a rape allegation that has no criminal charges and is decidedly about only extorting money. Hypocrites. Don't paint every Browns Fan with the same brush Squealer. FWIW, I think Stalworthless got off amazingly light. Might just be me- I have no love for dogs- but Vick should have gotten the 24 days, and Stallworth the 19 months- or more, like an average drunk would have gotten. Yup, and now his "house arrest" allows him to go and work out at the gym 5 times a week? Damn rough if you ask me. Maybe they can set up a Bowflex in the bar he was at before he took the guy out. PS. Now that you know how I feel about a guy that should have done 5 years for vehicular homicide, let me tell you how I feel about your precious Ben. There's documented photos of the guy shit-faced in bars. Rule #1 don't bang a chick you don't know when drunk off your ass if you're rich & famous- it can have repercussions. Same problem- lapse in judgment when booze was involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammertime Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 Stallworth is probaly not too upset with this decision by the NFL, he can now start to put things back together in his life. Football i'm sure would help but he has closure in knowing his punishment and has said he will abide by all rulings. The bulk of the suspension is for substance abuse, not his first positive test. Even though he could physically play i think mentally a year off should give him time to get his mind 'right'. His whole life he's been a user and that way of thinking doesn't go away overnight just because you served 24 days in jail. Browns won't be waiting with open arms for him and they shouldn't, they got there own problems to deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NebBrownsFan Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 Don't paint every Browns Fan with the same brush Squealer. FWIW, I think Stalworthless got off amazingly light. Might just be me- I have no love for dogs- but Vick should have gotten the 24 days, and Stallworth the 19 months- or more, like an average drunk would have gotten. Yup, and now his "house arrest" allows him to go and work out at the gym 5 times a week? Damn rough if you ask me. Maybe they can set up a Bowflex in the bar he was at before he took the guy out. PS. Now that you know how I feel about a guy that should have done 5 years for vehicular homicide, let me tell you how I feel about your precious Ben. There's documented photos of the guy shit-faced in bars. Rule #1 don't bang a chick you don't know when drunk off your ass if you're rich & famous- it can have repercussions. Same problem- lapse in judgment when booze was involved. Two things.... 1) the courts took into consideration ALL evidence for Stallworth, including the alleged video showing Reyes' actions prior to the ACCIDENT. 2) Vick INTENTIONALLY killed dogs in many heinous ways for YEARS, lied to everyone, didn't own up to it until people turned on him. Oh, and FYI, his 23 months were for breaking FEDERAL LAWS involving interstate GAMBLING, not for killing the dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingphisher Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 He's not a #1 WR. Not many cats that aren't the #1 guy on his team get 1,000 yards in a season. I am at a lack of words for calling the guy a wash out. If the production he's had, aside from last year here in CLE, make him a wash out, then I guess just about every team in the NFL should cut their #2 WR. That 697 was on 46 catches. 27 of those were for first downs, and that is a 7.2AC average. All that happening while Welker is hauling in 112 for 1100+ yards and Moss hauling in 98 for 1,500 yards. Stalworths numbers in NE were good and something to brag about, when you look at the big picture. Did you really just but Hubbard in their as better talent? I defend Hubbard, in that he is still learning the WR position, but he ain't even sniffing Donte's jock. Just saying that we have 3 young receivers that have shown more promise than a guy that has been touted as a #1 reciever on 2 other teams and a #2 on the patriots. Stallworth has been a financial pit in that he has been paid alot money for a few mediocre games. The guy is a PR nightmare at this point BECAUSE HE KILLED A MAN WHILE DRIVING DRUNK, so why keep him? Can you honestly give me one solid reason why the Browns should hang on to him at this point? This team has enough issues without having a second rate receiver putting that stink on the organization. He's ok, but he's not really that good and definitely not woth all this crap. Just sayin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Masters Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 Just saying that we have 3 young receivers that have shown more promise than a guy that has been touted as a #1 reciever on 2 other teams and a #2 on the patriots. Stallworth has been a financial pit in that he has been paid alot money for a few mediocre games. The guy is a PR nightmare at this point BECAUSE HE KILLED A MAN WHILE DRIVING DRUNK, so why keep him? Can you honestly give me one solid reason why the Browns should hang on to him at this point? This team has enough issues without having a second rate receiver putting that stink on the organization. He's ok, but he's not really that good and definitely not woth all this crap. Just sayin. I have never said CLE should keep him. I simply disputed the swipes you have taken at his skills and what he has accomplished in the NFL. Defending what the guy has done on the field for his career doesn't equal me wanting him to be playing for the Browns this year. It is a stretch to say CLE has 3 young receivers that have shwon more promise than Stallworth. Not one of those 3 has played a meaning full down in the NFL. They havent' show anything yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingphisher Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 I have never said CLE should keep him. I simply disputed the swipes you have taken at his skills and what he has accomplished in the NFL. Defending what the guy has done on the field for his career doesn't equal me wanting him to be playing for the Browns this year. It is a stretch to say CLE has 3 young receivers that have shwon more promise than Stallworth. Not one of those 3 has played a meaning full down in the NFL. They havent' show anything yet. Not going to argue with you. We are both Browns fans. My point is that Stallworth has been a bust for his lofty draft position and that he is mediocre at best. For the Browns, he has been a bust (17 rec. for 170 yds and 1 td last year) and a PR nightmare to boot. We have 3 young receivers with a lot of promise ans DS is not woth the headache or the money that he has been paid. I'm glad that he is suspended for the whole year (probably was not stiff enough in my opinion). Maybe the Browns can reclaim that roster bonus they paid out the day before his accident. We can pick nits if you want to, but my opinion is that he is not a great wr, he's always hurt, and that he's definitely not worth the headache (just my opinion though). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoorta Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 Two things.... 1) the courts took into consideration ALL evidence for Stallworth, including the alleged video showing Reyes' actions prior to the ACCIDENT. 2) Vick INTENTIONALLY killed dogs in many heinous ways for YEARS, lied to everyone, didn't own up to it until people turned on him. Oh, and FYI, his 23 months were for breaking FEDERAL LAWS involving interstate GAMBLING, not for killing the dogs. 1) Even if Reyes was doing suicide by car, that doesn't excuse Stallworth from getting behind the wheel- he just had gotten paid $4 million- could have rented the penthouse at the hotel, or called a limo to drive him home. Bad choice Donte. Agreed, if he hadn't been drunk, there wouldn't even have been any charges filed. BTW, his suspension is not only for personal conduct, but for violating the League drug policy. 2) And Vick's gambling killed who? Stallworth isn't as big a PR nightmare as Vick, but I'm all for dropping the guy like a ton of bricks as soon as his suspension is up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.