James Thrash complains about social media reaction to his Myles Garrett decision

Getty Images

On Thursday, former NFL receiver James Thrash upheld the NFL’s indefinite suspension of Browns defensive end Myles Garrett. The decision prompted a reaction on social media.

Thrash has reacted to the reaction.

Please stop tweeting me about the decision,” Thrash tweeted late Thursday afternoon. “This was a grueling process and the outcome is final. Player safety is what’s most important!!!”

Some would say that the process couldn’t have been grueling, because a decision was made in roughly a day. Also, as one source explained it to PFT, the Browns are keenly aware of the fact that Thrash is a former teammate of NFL executive V.P. of football operations Troy Vincent and NFL V.P. of policy and rules administration Jon Runyan.

Hearing officers are jointly appointed and jointly paid by the NFL and the NFL Players Association. In some cases, however, it makes sense to be sensitive to whether one side wants a specific outcome more badly than the other. If either the NFL or the NFLPA become sufficiently frustrated with a given hearing officer, it will want to find a new hearing officer.

In this case, the NFL didn’t simply want the indefinite suspension to stick — it needed it to stick, for moral/legal reasons and for reasons related to the future of football as influenced by youth participation. The NFLPA, which has a duty under federal law to support and to defend all players, may have been less zealous regarding Garrett’s punishment than the league was.

Regardless, it was the right outcome. Whether it also enhances Thrash’s relationship with one of his two primary constituents is irrelevant to that fact, even though it may be very relevant to Thrash.

29 responses to “James Thrash complains about social media reaction to his Myles Garrett decision

  1. So the NFLPA didn’t care that much about defending the accused player? But that’s cool because in the end that’s what the owners wanted?

    There’s a lesson in there that members of the NFLPA should take note and seriously consider during the next opportunity to discuss the purpose of the NFLPA.

  2. An indefinite suspension is just avoiding the responsibility of actually making a decision. It’s the opposite of a strong, clear move. It’s closer to sweeping it under the rug, which isn’t bold or setting any kind of positive example.

    There are only two choices here. Either Garrett’s act is completely unacceptable and merits a ban from the game, or there is a path back through time away, education, and second chances with conditions.

    That’s it. The league has two options. It should make a choice. Indefinite suspension is just a delay, not a real choice.

    Personally, I think there should be a path back. No one died or was even seriously hurt (or damaged in any way, it seems). It should be a teachable moment. Rest of this season + first 4 games of next season, with no pay, and counseling while he’s suspended.

  3. Anyone who disagrees with the suspension agrees that it’s ok to clobber a fellow human being on the head with a blunt object and not be punished. Sick.

  4. What in the world do you care what a bunch of clowns who haven’t a scintilla of regard for player safety have to say about your decision? It was absolutely the right one and will hopefully serve to send the message that there are definitive lines of conduct that can’t be crossed on the football field.

    What you should be considering is your response when Garrett inevitably accuses you accusing you of being a racist for making the decision you did.

  5. hippstuff says:
    November 22, 2019 at 11:58 am
    Anyone who disagrees with the suspension agrees that it’s ok to clobber a fellow human being on the head with a blunt object and not be punished. Sick.


    Having yet to see a single person suggesting there should be no suspension at all, I have no idea what you’re talking about. All the debate is over how long, not whether there should be one.

  6. Any arbiter should be tone deaf to public opinion and criticism, especially Twitter.

    Heck, paying attention to twitter should be ground for removal.

  7. I agree with Thrash. An indefinite decision is the right move. At some point they will review Garrett’s action but he should not have a chance to play for at least 8 games or more.

  8. Its not just indefinite. The suspended is definite for the rest of this season including playoffs, then what ever after that.
    Its not like in two weeks he gets back in the game.

  9. His mind was made up before the appeal hearing started. If player safety is most important, why reduce Pouncey’s suspension?

  10. Okay let’s settle this. Propose to Garrett that he gets to say anything he wants to Rudolph. Anything. In return he has to stand there and let Rudolph hit him over the head as hard as he wants with a helmet. Then we’ll call it even.

  11. Browns fans are just upset that after the so-called Championship offseason achieved by the Browns they thought that they would be a top team in the league instead of still 1 game behind a Steelers team without Ben Roethlisberger and missing multiple skill players on offense all season.

  12. Thrash should have recused himself. Way too many conflicts of interest. I’m sure he got a lot of pressure through Rooney to make this thing stick and to swallow whatever garbage Rudolph was spewing.

  13. MasonRudolph’sHair says:
    November 22, 2019 at 12:16 pm
    His mind was made up before the appeal hearing started. If player safety is most important, why reduce Pouncey’s suspension?

    Because Pouncey was standing up for his teammate who was just clobbered over the head with a helmet. If your brother or sister was hit over the head with a helmet, you would punch and kick the person that did it regardless of who instigated what. And Pouncey owned up to it instead of playing a bogus race card or whatever.

  14. A millennial did something wrong, and it was against a rule that is clearly defined in the rulebook , but doesn’t want to be held accountable for his actions. Gee there’s something new – NOT

  15. Thrash made the right call. No matter what. Even if Rudolph called Myles Garrett the N word it doesn’t give Garrett the right to club him over the head with a helmet, for God’s sake!

    That’s the problem with this woke culture. Equating words with violence are forgetting what your mom’s taught you: sticks and stones make break my bones but words will never hurt me.

    Granted, I don’t believe Garrett for a minute in his slander on Rudolph but even if it happened it doesn’t give him the right to club someone over the head with a helmet! Get some perspective!

  16. Thrash could easily have ruled 16 games for Garrett, pending a positive interview after game 14. Which would have set a firm date and time frame. After the helmet swing there is no way Garrett is getting anything less than a full calender year.

    Where the NFL has blown the call is not suspending Rudolph for 1 to 2 games for going after Garrett’s helmet first.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.