NFL Took Too Long To Hand Down Suspensions

It was about a month ago that we learned that several NFL players were facing suspension for taking a diuretic that is often used as a masking agent for steroids tests, and is therefore banned by the league. Finally, today, six of those players were suspended for four games each.

Why did it take so long? There were some legitimate considerations, such as one of the players involved saying they had been unable to reach the league's hot-line that is set up to inform players as to whether certain supplements contain banned ingredients.

But to allow four Sundays to pass to investigate this is absurd. It upset the balance of the league, as now these teams are facing the month of December without their star players.

But it seems especially punitive to my team, the Green Bay Packers. Consider how important this was for them, having to play both the Minnesota Vikings and New Orleans Saints, the only two teams with multiple players suspended.

How much different would the Packers game just over two weeks ago have been if the Vikings did not have their two All-Pro defensive tackles anchoring their No. 2 rush defense? The Packers lost the game by one point.

What's more, I submit that having those two players suspended for one drive would have resulted in a Packers victory. Had Green Bay been able to run up the gut at the end of the game, they might have made Mason Crosby's 52-yard field goal attempt in the closing seconds a few yards shorter.

A field goal of 50-plus yards is a 50/50 prospect at best even in a dome, while a 47-yard field goal is about half as likely to be missed.

But surely I cannot suggest that New Orleans, who scored 51 points on the Packers, loses without their three players, right? Wrong! Charles Grant did not play in the Monday Night Massacre, but let's look at what having the other two players did for New Orleans.

Will Smith is the Saints top defensive end, and he had four tackles in the game. Right now the Saints list only three defensive ends: Bobby McCray, Jeff Charleston, and Josh Savage—anyone outside of New Orleans and wherever these kids played college ever heard of more than one of them?

Even if you have, the Saints would have had a thin rotation and would have been able to be worn down. Moreover, pressure created by the Saints' line contributed to Aaron Rodgers' second-half struggles.

The pressure created by the success of the Saints offense contributed even more as Rodgers tried to keep up.

Deuce McAllister's absence, in addition to Reggie Bush's for injury, would have left an already thin backfield even more so and would have led to more scouting of Pierre Thomas, the back who was successful against the Packers. It also would have led to fewer eight-man fronts and a better pass defense.

Remember, the Packers were only down 24-21 at halftime. Is it unreasonable to think Green Bay could have scored once more or held New Orleans once more? It is not. And it is likewise not unreasonable to assume that had they been able to stay a bit closer, they could have avoided being overwhelmed.

That does not even consider that having been without those players, New Orleans might not have even been in contention. Their previous two wins were by five and 10, and they were losing at points in both games.

If they lose just one of those games, they are going into the game 4-6, and it changes a team's mindset.

However, while I will say we might have beaten New Orleans, I have no doubt we'd have beaten Minnesota. They would be 6-6, but lose tie-breaks with either Chicago or Green Bay. That puts the Packers in control of our own destiny, instead of needing two Vikings losses to get the division.

Mind you, I believe the Vikings will lose two of their remaining four (at Detroit, at Arizona, versus Atlanta, and versus the New York Giants), especially since they face two good running games without the "Williams brothers" and three teams have winning records. That means if the Packers win out, they will probably still win the division.

But it shouldn't come to that. And there should be the margin of error that is now gone.

It's not even just about what may happen to the Packers, it is about the fact that procrastination hurt teams they played during the wait and helped those after it.

The Packers and Buccaneers were the only teams that faced both during that delay. The Buccaneers took care of business in both games, and I know, good teams win anyway. I do not dispute that they are a better team thanks to the injuries the Packers have piled up.

You can also say that the Chargers could have still won if they had stopped the Broncos next play or two-point conversion attempt after Denver was handed a second chance. If Denver makes the playoffs with a one-game margin over the Chargers, the Chargers are more worthy. If the Vikings make the playoffs with a one-game margin over the Packers, the Packers are more worthy.

But no one will say anything about those less-worthy teams "taking care of business."

Almost makes me wonder what the Packers did to the league to get hosed—perhaps putting the face of the NFL through a nasty divorce?

I'm just saying...(no, I'm not: I'm sure the league prefers having him in New York).