cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
Attorney and NFL commentator Mike Florio, @MikeFlorioPFT , who essentially lobbied for Garrett's crucifixion immediately after last Thursday's fracas, is a virtue-signalling man-twat. Unfortunatley, he seems to have the ear of the NFL offices in Manhattan.
Myles Garrett is not a player, not even a man to Mike Florio. He no longer has any rights or expectation of being treated as an equal to Steelers' QB Mason Rudolph, evidently. Garrett is just a teachable moment with which to maintain control over the rest of the rabble, and his punishment is to be a game-safety advertisement for suburban mommies of future players in Florio's eyes.
Florio, as an attorney, knows the value and impact of every word that comes out of his mouth. After a week of stop-go slo-mo views and exhaustive conversation, the virtue-signalling Florio continues to press the simplistic narrative - the party line of the Garrett haters - that, "...Myles Garrett got Rudolph's helmet off and attacked him with it..".
I'm really disappointed that Ken Carman didn't push Mr Legal Expert for the explanation of how a man taking a swing with said helmet - AFTER being driven backward while offering only enough resistance to stay on his feet, AFTER being removed 20 feet away from Rudolph, AFTER being pursued by Rudolph, and AFTER having Rudolph resumed the fight by jumping from behind the man ALREADY aggressively in his face shoving him backward and taking another shot at Garrett - constitutes a man attacking Rudolph. His swing of the helmet was a defensive reaction to Rudolph's attack, however lame it was, and it could not be more clear that Rudolph renewed aggressions and Garrett reacted to THAT RENEWED AGGRESSION precipitated by Rudolph.
From the time that tackle is made, they hit the ground, and the play is over, it is clear in real time that RUDOLPH not only spends more fractions of seconds engaged in non-football aggressive action toward his opponent than Garrett does, but Rudolph acted out first after the tackle AND after the men had been fully disengaged. Rudolph just happens to be less effective when he plays the bad-. Surprising, since he IS 6'4, 240. He is certainly big and strong enough to pose a threat, and he thoroughly demonstrated his intentions with the nut shots and getting inside Garrett's helmet first.
Florio blathered on about big picture perception and precedent. After reluctantly conceding at the onset of the interview that Garrett had not previously been a guy demonstrating violence outside of normal game play, perception of Garrett's previous career personal - the precedent Garrett had set - became irrelevant. Garrett is just a piece of the product to him, and Florio is nothing more than a virtue-signalling man-twat. Too bad he has a microphone.
The NFL wants to make an example of someone. OK. Did Garrett sign up to be reduced to a teachable moment ? Is that in the NFLPA agreement somewhere in the fine print, Mr Florio ?
Myles Garrett is not a player, not even a man to Mike Florio. He no longer has any rights or expectation of being treated as an equal to Steelers' QB Mason Rudolph, evidently. Garrett is just a teachable moment with which to maintain control over the rest of the rabble, and his punishment is to be a game-safety advertisement for suburban mommies of future players in Florio's eyes.
Florio, as an attorney, knows the value and impact of every word that comes out of his mouth. After a week of stop-go slo-mo views and exhaustive conversation, the virtue-signalling Florio continues to press the simplistic narrative - the party line of the Garrett haters - that, "...Myles Garrett got Rudolph's helmet off and attacked him with it..".
I'm really disappointed that Ken Carman didn't push Mr Legal Expert for the explanation of how a man taking a swing with said helmet - AFTER being driven backward while offering only enough resistance to stay on his feet, AFTER being removed 20 feet away from Rudolph, AFTER being pursued by Rudolph, and AFTER having Rudolph resumed the fight by jumping from behind the man ALREADY aggressively in his face shoving him backward and taking another shot at Garrett - constitutes a man attacking Rudolph. His swing of the helmet was a defensive reaction to Rudolph's attack, however lame it was, and it could not be more clear that Rudolph renewed aggressions and Garrett reacted to THAT RENEWED AGGRESSION precipitated by Rudolph.
From the time that tackle is made, they hit the ground, and the play is over, it is clear in real time that RUDOLPH not only spends more fractions of seconds engaged in non-football aggressive action toward his opponent than Garrett does, but Rudolph acted out first after the tackle AND after the men had been fully disengaged. Rudolph just happens to be less effective when he plays the bad-. Surprising, since he IS 6'4, 240. He is certainly big and strong enough to pose a threat, and he thoroughly demonstrated his intentions with the nut shots and getting inside Garrett's helmet first.
Florio blathered on about big picture perception and precedent. After reluctantly conceding at the onset of the interview that Garrett had not previously been a guy demonstrating violence outside of normal game play, perception of Garrett's previous career personal - the precedent Garrett had set - became irrelevant. Garrett is just a piece of the product to him, and Florio is nothing more than a virtue-signalling man-twat. Too bad he has a microphone.
The NFL wants to make an example of someone. OK. Did Garrett sign up to be reduced to a teachable moment ? Is that in the NFLPA agreement somewhere in the fine print, Mr Florio ?
Last edited:
