RME JICO Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 The Raiders learned Tuesday that recently acquired running back Dominic Rhodes has been suspended by the NFL for violating its substance-abuse policy and won't be available for the first four regular-season games. Rhodes, 28, signed a two-year, $7.5 million contract with the Raiders on March 9, less than two months after playing a pivotal role in the Indianapolis Colts' Super Bowl victory over the Chicago Bears. Rhodes is expected to split time with Raiders incumbent starter LaMont Jordan. Rhodes rushed for 306 yards in the Colts' postseason games, including a game-high 113 yards in the Super Bowl. His suspension begins Aug. 31 and extends through Oakland's game against the Miami Dolphins on Sept. 30. Rhodes won't be paid for the four games he misses, costing him $352,941 of his $1.5 million base salary. The suspension means Rhodes is a repeat offender of the league's substance-abuse policy. Another violation would result in Rhodes receiving a one-year suspension. Now obviously Rhodes alone was not the reason the Bears lost, but he was a huge factor in the Colts win. Who knows how the game would have turned out if he was not plowing over Bears defenders in a juiced up rage. You take out his 113 yards, 1st down runs, touchdown, etc and that is a whole new ballgame. I know there is nothing that can be done now, but it kinda sucks to hear something like this after such a bitter loss. The odd thing was I even mentioned to some friends watching the game how much better Rhodes looked than his numbers. We all thought it was the Bears D, and now we know. He had more carries (21) in the SB than in any other game in 2006, and his YPC was up from 3.4 to 5.4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan1 Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 I think you're making too much out of it. "Juiced up rage"? You're reaching. If Rex could catch the ball from the center, we might have won. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RME JICO Posted July 5, 2007 Author Share Posted July 5, 2007 QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Jul 5, 2007 -> 03:49 PM) I think you're making too much out of it. "Juiced up rage"? You're reaching. If Rex could catch the ball from the center, we might have won.I am sorry, I didn't want to put the whole thing in green, and I thought the juiced up rage was pretty funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangercal Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 I don't think it's a reach. It would be a BIGGER story if it were baseball related and the red sox lost to the mets in the 2007 world series because (insert any slugger here) was caught the following year and was a key reason the mets won the series. I think it helps the athlete a hell of a lot more in football compared to baseball, but it is more scrutinized in baseball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 I'm glad he's out of the city of Indy. Addai is a much better rep for the team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 And I blame wet slick footballs for my Cowboys not being in the Super Bowl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Jul 5, 2007 -> 03:42 PM) And I blame wet slick footballs for my Cowboys not being in the Super Bowl. Out of steroids and wet footballs, which one is against the rules of the NFL and against the law? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Pratt Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 Uh, let's not pretend that no Bear players are on steroids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RME JICO Posted July 5, 2007 Author Share Posted July 5, 2007 QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jul 5, 2007 -> 07:49 PM) Uh, let's not pretend that no Bear players are on steroids.Tank is no longer on the Bears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mplssoxfan Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 I know that the title of this thread is a joke (a little bit at least), but according to this link the suspension looks to be alcohol related. But, you know, it's definitely a lot more fun making baseless accusations about steroids, isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 I'll still never get how the Bears were in that game until the Hayden pick 6. They were just so badly outplayed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Pratt Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 QUOTE(RME JICO @ Jul 5, 2007 -> 06:57 PM) Tank is no longer on the Bears. I'm sure if he was on steroids (which I don't know and won't state), he wouldn't be the only one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.