'Bounty-gate' and its impact on Manning

[The Hitter]

I've been curious if anyone else sees the potential storm on the horizon regarding Manning.

 

Let's say Manning has signed with another team and begins to show signs of being a top QB again. Now, imagine during a game, Manning drops back, and a DE or blitzing LB gets an untouched 'free shot' at him from the blind side. Does the defensive player hesitate for the slightest second...wondering if he'll get tagged as a 'dirty player' if he hits Manning full on with a legal hit? Does he simply wrap the QB up and just drag him to the ground?

 

I honestly have been wondering about this for a while. I remember LT being distraught over breaking Theisman's leg (eventually leading to JT's retirement from the game). I can only imagine what it would feel like to be labeled as the guy who ended Peyton's career. With the bounty issues currently in play, I'm not sure how or if a defensive player will ever get past the cloud that would follow him during and after his career if his hit sent Manning out of the game forever. Because of this, I honestly believe most, if not all, defensive players will be reluctant to put a major hit on Manning. This, in turn, would allow Manning an increased advantage (as if he needed one!) over most QBs. So, as a defender, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

Just a thought. Anyone else see this too?

Edited March 9, 2012 by The Hitter

[rajncajn]

You have to be joking...

[CaptainHook]

Fans hear the words "neck fusion" and wonder why Peyton Manning is even considering playing again, fearful he'll risk a career-ending injury -- or worse -- the next time he takes a hit.

But safety isn't Manning's issue, several spine specialists said. Arm strength is.

Manning's surgically repaired neck will be able to take a hit just fine once the fusion is healed, with the bone actually stronger than others in his neck. Nerves are delicate, however, and only time will tell if they'll recover enough for the 35-year-old four-time NFL MVP to be the quarterback he once was.

"His risk really is very low," said Dr. Robert S. Bray Jr., who has worked with NHL star Sidney Crosby and whose DISC Sports & Spine Center provides medical services for the U.S. Olympic team.

"If I was a team, I'd ask, 'Did (the fusion) heal? Do you have a CAT scan that showed it healed? Is the rest of neck in pretty good shape?"' Bray asked. "If those two answers are yes, then it gets down to, 'OK, get out on the field and show me you can perform,' because it will only get better from here with time."

Manning missed the entire 2011 season with a damaged nerve that caused weakness in his right arm and required multiple neck surgeries, including a single-level fusion in September. He has brushed off questions about retirement, insisting that -- after parting ways with the Indianapolis Colts on Wednesday -- he still wants to play.

And there's no risk to him doing so, say several doctors in the field who have not examined Manning. Dr. Robert Watkins, Manning's surgeon, is not commenting on the quarterback, his office said Thursday.

Manning had at least two procedures between February 2010 and September 2011 to relieve pressure on a pinched nerve, the cause of the weakness in his throwing arm. When those didn't work, Watkins did the fusion, removing the troublesome soft disk tissue between two vertebrae and fusing the bones together.

The fusion normally takes four to six months to heal and, much like any other broken bone, it becomes even stronger afterward. But just as someone who tries playing with a still-broken arm risks additional injury, so did Manning if he'd returned before the fusion was solid.

But Manning was "working with the best," Bray said, and there's no way Watkins would have allowed the quarterback to play without being certain the fusion had healed. Watkins announced Feb. 2 that he had cleared Manning to play football again.

"In the field of spine surgery and professional athletes, we have a fairly strong consensus that if you have a one-level cervical fusion, you can recover and go back and safely play," said Dr. William Tobler, a neurosurgeon at the Mayfield Clinic in Cincinnati who has done four fusions on NFL players, including four-time Pro Bowl linebacker Chris Spielman, all of whom returned to the field.

"If the fusion heals, the neck is stable so, presumably, you can take all the hitting and impact."

Then it's a matter of the nerve regenerating.

"Nerves are just wires and the muscle is where the wire plugs into," said Dr. Charles Bush-Joseph of Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush University, team doctors for the Chicago Bulls and Chicago White Sox. "Obviously he's got all the intelligence and the skill set. It's a matter of strength. Can he get his arm to do what his mind and eyes want him to do?"

And that takes time.

Unlike a sponge, which springs right back after someone stops pressing down on it, a nerve is more like a piece of cooked spaghetti, Tobler said. Press on it, and the indentation remains after the finger is lifted.

"It isn't like a light switch," Bray said. "But if you get the pressure off, then the nerve kicks in progressively over time."

While there's no guarantee Manning will ever fully recover, Bray said nerves tend to heal more and for a longer period of time when patients are young and healthy.

Manning said Wednesday he is not completely recovered, but insisted he's closer than ever.

"I'm throwing it pretty well. I still have some progress to make, but I've come a long way," Manning said. "That's been the most fun part is being back out there on the field. I'm doing better, I continue to work hard and hope to continue making progress."

from indystar.com

[Square]

You have to be joking...

The show has reached a new low.

[The Hitter]

You have to be joking...

 

 

Why? It's human nature to feel remorse for an unintended drastic consequence. And look at the way the Saints players are being perceived now. Not every hit on Favre in that game was a 'bounty' hit, but all are being lumped in the same. Like I said in my original post, LT felt horrible ON A COMPLETELY LEGAL PLAY!

 

If you're the guy that gets a running start and a free shot at Manning's backside, I think that has to go through your mind. Especially given how much attention his neck injury has been given the past year.

 

Sorry if you don't agree, Raj'n. It's been a topic of conversation in several of my fantasy circles lately.

[The Hitter]

 

Fans hear the words "neck fusion" and wonder why Peyton Manning is even considering playing again, fearful he'll risk a career-ending injury -- or worse -- the next time he takes a hit.

But safety isn't Manning's issue, several spine specialists said. Arm strength is.

Manning's surgically repaired neck will be able to take a hit just fine once the fusion is healed, with the bone actually stronger than others in his neck. Nerves are delicate, however, and only time will tell if they'll recover enough for the 35-year-old four-time NFL MVP to be the quarterback he once was.

"His risk really is very low," said Dr. Robert S. Bray Jr., who has worked with NHL star Sidney Crosby and whose DISC Sports & Spine Center provides medical services for the U.S. Olympic team.

"If I was a team, I'd ask, 'Did (the fusion) heal? Do you have a CAT scan that showed it healed? Is the rest of neck in pretty good shape?"' Bray asked. "If those two answers are yes, then it gets down to, 'OK, get out on the field and show me you can perform,' because it will only get better from here with time."

Manning missed the entire 2011 season with a damaged nerve that caused weakness in his right arm and required multiple neck surgeries, including a single-level fusion in September. He has brushed off questions about retirement, insisting that -- after parting ways with the Indianapolis Colts on Wednesday -- he still wants to play.

And there's no risk to him doing so, say several doctors in the field who have not examined Manning. Dr. Robert Watkins, Manning's surgeon, is not commenting on the quarterback, his office said Thursday.

Manning had at least two procedures between February 2010 and September 2011 to relieve pressure on a pinched nerve, the cause of the weakness in his throwing arm. When those didn't work, Watkins did the fusion, removing the troublesome soft disk tissue between two vertebrae and fusing the bones together.

The fusion normally takes four to six months to heal and, much like any other broken bone, it becomes even stronger afterward. But just as someone who tries playing with a still-broken arm risks additional injury, so did Manning if he'd returned before the fusion was solid.

But Manning was "working with the best," Bray said, and there's no way Watkins would have allowed the quarterback to play without being certain the fusion had healed. Watkins announced Feb. 2 that he had cleared Manning to play football again.

"In the field of spine surgery and professional athletes, we have a fairly strong consensus that if you have a one-level cervical fusion, you can recover and go back and safely play," said Dr. William Tobler, a neurosurgeon at the Mayfield Clinic in Cincinnati who has done four fusions on NFL players, including four-time Pro Bowl linebacker Chris Spielman, all of whom returned to the field.

"If the fusion heals, the neck is stable so, presumably, you can take all the hitting and impact."

Then it's a matter of the nerve regenerating.

"Nerves are just wires and the muscle is where the wire plugs into," said Dr. Charles Bush-Joseph of Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush University, team doctors for the Chicago Bulls and Chicago White Sox. "Obviously he's got all the intelligence and the skill set. It's a matter of strength. Can he get his arm to do what his mind and eyes want him to do?"

And that takes time.

Unlike a sponge, which springs right back after someone stops pressing down on it, a nerve is more like a piece of cooked spaghetti, Tobler said. Press on it, and the indentation remains after the finger is lifted.

"It isn't like a light switch," Bray said. "But if you get the pressure off, then the nerve kicks in progressively over time."

While there's no guarantee Manning will ever fully recover, Bray said nerves tend to heal more and for a longer period of time when patients are young and healthy.

Manning said Wednesday he is not completely recovered, but insisted he's closer than ever.

"I'm throwing it pretty well. I still have some progress to make, but I've come a long way," Manning said. "That's been the most fun part is being back out there on the field. I'm doing better, I continue to work hard and hope to continue making progress."

from indystar.com

 

 

 

Thanks for the post, Hook. Definitely informative.

[tazinib1]

This sort of thinking is exactly why the NFL will be swift and harsh in the punishment. There is no way in hell the NFL can afford to have the average Joe thinking this way about the NFL. No way in hell.

[Bronco Billy]

I don't see how any D player doesn't take the shot at a big hit - a legal big hit - on any QB no matter what the name is on the back of the QB's jersey. It's why they are employed to do what they do, and they relish in these opportunities. If Manning chooses to play knowing what his risks are, the onus is on him and only on him if he were to take a legit shot that damages him beyond what his health condition is now. That's the "implied consent" part of the equation of playing football, and part of why NFL players get paid extraordinary amounts to play the game.

 

I can't realistically see a scenario where a credible D player bypasses the opportunity to help his team by refusing to engage as fully as he is legally entitled to do so.

[Infinity]

Why? It's human nature to feel remorse for an unintended drastic consequence. And look at the way the Saints players are being perceived now. Not every hit on Favre in that game was a 'bounty' hit, but all are being lumped in the same. Like I said in my original post, LT felt horrible ON A COMPLETELY LEGAL PLAY!

 

If you're the guy that gets a running start and a free shot at Manning's backside, I think that has to go through your mind. Especially given how much attention his neck injury has been given the past year.

 

Sorry if you don't agree, Raj'n. It's been a topic of conversation in several of my fantasy circles lately.

 

 

Hold the horses. People need to quit hating on the Saints fans especially hard as of late.

 

I don't think a single player hesitates to make a fully legal hit, no matter how hard it may be. It's their job. It's what puts food on the table for their family. They may feel bad if something happens, but on that play if Manning throws a TD because the defensive player hesitates he's going to hate that he hesitated or didn't make a play a ton more then if he hit Manning hard to the ground. There is nothing wrong with hard LEGAL hits. If a player on my team had a free shot to make a hit(Massive or Not), on ANY QB in the league, especially one that can hurt you on every single play, and he chose not to because he was afraid of hurting him. He'd find his butt on FA the next day. This is the NFL. This is football. Hits happen. People get hurt. If it's not intentional, and there's no "bounty" involved. Go for it. If not, find a new profession.

[delusions of grandeur]

Sorry if you don't agree, Raj'n. It's been a topic of conversation in several of my fantasy circles lately.

 

Maybe he's referring to the fact that this is the third bounty thread and the 6th manning thread just on the front page... I'm thinking we probably didn't need another thread combining them with the idea that somehow Manning is going to get special treatment, or that guys aren't going to play 100% when their job and millions are on the line.

 

In these regards, I'd say that the effect of the bounties is being way overblown... That doesn't make it any more right, but cmon, bounties only incentivized, they didn't change the violent nature of game, nor is getting rid of them going to. Defensive players get paid to make big hits, and if anything it's the rule changes with fines should already be making them think twice by your logic.... But how often do they?

[Furd]

I thought that this was going to a clever thread working the overblown Manning thing into the bounty-gate firestorm.

 

Nope.

[The Hitter]

Maybe he's referring to the fact that this is the third bounty thread and the 6th manning thread just on the front page... I'm thinking we probably didn't need another thread combining them with the idea that somehow Manning is going to get special treatment, or that guys aren't going to play 100% when their job and millions are on the line.

 

In these regards, I'd say that the effect of the bounties is being way overblown... That doesn't make it any more right, but cmon, bounties only incentivized, they didn't change the violent nature of game, nor is getting rid of them going to. Defensive players get paid to make big hits, and if anything it's the rule changes with fines should already be making them think twice by your logic.... But how often do they?

 

 

Actually, that process has been happening for a while. There were a ridiculous amount of instances just last season where game commentators and ex-players commented on the lack of hitting by defensive backs; i.e. the effects of getting fined for vicious hits. See the article below referencing just this point...http://www.nfl.com/n...on-illegal-hits

 

"Dolphins cornerback Sean Smith had Steelers receiver Hines Ward lined up, ready to deliver the big hit. Instead of going high, he went for Ward's legs. No fine or penalty for that one.

It was the sort of play that, most Sundays, would have gone unnoticed, especially because Ward returned to the field a play later after getting his knees checked out.

This Sunday was different, though, because it marked the first set of games since the NFL said it would be cracking down on illegal hits, handing out fines and threatening suspensions. Actually, Ward's brief absence, and the almost total lack of big shots in the afternoon's other NFL games, made it look a lot like any given Sunday, even if it's still too early to tell for sure how things are -- or aren't -- going to change over time.

"It's football," Ward said. "If you play this game worried about getting hurt, you will get hurt. It's a fearless game, it's a physical game, so the rule is the rule. You can't play this game scared. If you do, you won't last long."

With all of the day's 13 games complete, there were no cringe-inducing hits to replay on the highlight shows -- nothing the likes of what James Harrison, Brandon Meriweather and Dunta Robinson delivered last weekend in a spate of vicious plays that brought about hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, along with repeated reminders that the league would be watching more closely from now on.

By sending out its various warnings -- a memo from Commissioner Roger Goodell, a video showing can- and can't-dos, lists sent to coaches letting them know which players have multiple unnecessary roughness penalties -- the NFL is looking for more certainty in a sport that has many shades of gray.

One bit of black and white: No players were penalized for illegal hits to the head over the 13 games, giving the league every reason to believe its message got through.

"I've seen a change in players' behavior in one week," NFL officiating chief Carl Johnson was quoted as telling Peter King on NBC's "Football Night in America."

Ward's Steelers teammate, Harrison, played along, returning to the field after a tumultuous week in which he received a $75,000 fine from the NFL and briefly threatened to retire. He called it business as usual -- well, except for one particular play, when he saw Dolphins running back Ronnie Brown coming across the middle.

"I had a chance to put my head in there, and it looked like he was crouching down," Harrison said. "I didn't want to get a helmet-to-helmet (hit). I didn't put my face in there, and he went down, and luckily he didn't scamper for another 10 or 15 yards."

Harrison wasn't the only player who said he occasionally had the NFL's tougher stance on his mind.

"For sure," Carolina Panthers linebacker Jon Beason said. "I definitely think you'll think about it; $75,000 is crazy."

In the Cleveland Browns' victory over Super Bowl champion New Orleans Saints, Browns linebacker Scott Fujita thought he saw instances of defenders going low when they might have had clean shots higher up.

"Now you've got guys whose ankles are going to be taken out and knees are going to get blown up," Fujita said, "so it's kind of a Catch 22 if you ask me."

Baltimore's notoriously hard-hitting defense gave up a season-high 34 points before pulling out an overtime victory over winless Buffalo, and some Ravens were thinking about the rules. Players in both defensive backfields appeared to give up chances for big hits on receivers, going after the ball instead.

"We touched on that at halftime. We harped on it. The coaches talked about it," safety Ed Reed said. "We talked about it, with the fines and all that coming out. But at the end of the day, you've got to play football, and you've got to be smart playing it."

Meriweather played smarter. Early in New England's game against the San Diego Chargers, he had a chance to tee up San Diego receiver Patrick Crayton, but went after him with his shoulder. Crayton popped up after the 11-year gain and signaled first down.

In Seattle, Cardinals defensive back Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie had a free shot at Brandon Stokley but went shoulder-to-chest to knock him down.

In New Orleans, Saints cornerback Malcolm Jenkins made a run at Browns fullback Lawrence Vickers but went low.

Not everyone was perfect, though.

Philadelphia linebacker Ernie Sims lowered his head and appeared to use his helmet to knock Tennessee running back Chris Johnson out of bounds, and Titans fans started booing after watching the replay of the unpenalized play on the scoreboard.

Sims said he saw Johnson fighting for extra yards and knew he needed to make a play. Neither player was concerned about a possible fine.

"If the ref calls it, then he does," Johnson said. "I'm not really worried about it."

As if to illustrate the point that head injuries can't simply be willed out of a violent sport, there were some more Sunday.

Arizona Cardinals rookie quarterback Max Hall left the Cardinals game at Seattle in the third quarter after he received what the team announced was a "blow to the head" on Chris Clemons' blindside sack.

In Atlanta, Falcons safety Thomas DeCoud collided helmet-to-helmet with Cincinnati Bengals running back Cedric Benson, and DeCoud needed help getting off the field after that one. No penalty was called, and Falcons coach Mike Smith said DeCoud was not allowed back in the game.

In the stands, there were signs that fans had taken notice of the issue after being bombarded by news about the hard hits and the fines.

There was a sign at Lambeau Field before Sunday night's Vikings-Packers game that read, "Stop the concussions we want the players to remember us."

Not surprisingly, players' opinions about whether things had changed were divided -- sometimes even in the same locker room.

"It was in the back of my mind on a couple of plays," said Falcons defensive end John Abraham, who had two sacks against the Bengals. "I had a shot and held off."

But across the way, linebacker Mike Peterson said the Falcons made a point of not holding back.

"The thing we've been saying in our locker room (is): We're going to let everybody else tone it down, and we're going to turn it up," Peterson said.

Still, the league is making it plain where it stands: Players need to put the brakes on.

"On some plays where I had a clear shot at the quarterback, I kind of slowed down and made sure I hit him in the right spot," Dolphins defensive end Tony McDaniels said. "I definitely think it slows us down. When you think about a $75,000 fine or a $50,000 fine, for some guys, that's four or five game checks."

 

 

Now, granted there are some players that will be willing to play 'as normal' and let the chips fall where they may. But I think its insane to believe that players don't think about it. The article quotes many players that state exactly what I'm getting at. Couple those thoughts with the fact of injuring or retiring an icon like Manning, and I think some players will err on the side of caution.

 

If Manning goes down from a vicious hit, no matter how legal, the word bounty will resurface immediately. And the hitting player will have to deal with that argument.

Edited March 9, 2012 by The Hitter

[rajncajn]

I just don't see how any of what you're referring to relates to bounties or exclusively Payton Manning at all. It makes no logical sense to me & I think it's a huge reach to suggest that a defensive player will hold back because he's worried that someone might think he's collecting a bounty if he hits the QB too hard. I can understand holding back a little to make sure you're not hitting them where you would get a $75,000 fine (which I think they are full of it when they say they are), but what you're suggesting to me is a bit out there to say the least.

Edited March 9, 2012 by rajncajn

[Bronco Billy]

I just don't see how any of what you're referring to relates to bounties or exclusively Payton Manning at all. It makes no logical sense to me & I think it's a huge reach to suggest that a defensive player will hold back because he's worried that someone might think he's collecting a bounty if he hits the QB too hard. I can understand holding back a little to make sure you're not hitting them where you would get a $75,000 fine (which I think they are full of it when they say they are), but what you're suggesting to me is a bit out there to say the least.

 

 

Agreed.

 

If anything, the fining will lead to some better tackling. Instead of putting the head down and attacking the opponent's head (extremely dangerous to both the tackler and the tackled) maybe players will drive through the middle of the body with their head up (facemask through the ball or facemask through the numbers, both which are much safer techniques to both players as well as more effective tackling forms). Imagine that - pros being forced to actually show some tackling technique that players from Pop Warner through college are taught.

[The Hitter]

I just don't see how any of what you're referring to relates to bounties or exclusively Payton Manning at all. It makes no logical sense to me & I think it's a huge reach to suggest that a defensive player will hold back because he's worried that someone might think he's collecting a bounty if he hits the QB too hard. I can understand holding back a little to make sure you're not hitting them where you would get a $75,000 fine (which I think they are full of it when they say they are), but what you're suggesting to me is a bit out there to say the least.

 

 

Raj'n - I only brought the topic up as I see a scario where all three 'issues' (Manning injury, bounties, and the league's crackdown on 'defenseless' hits) meet on the horizon. I don't think its that farfetched at all. Regardless, if you believe them or not, players are on record as saying that they're thinking, during the act, about the way they're about to hit a QB. That was caused only by the league's penalties. Now add in the current bounty issues and that'll give a player even more reason to go out of their way to 'change' their attack. Finally, throw in the fact that you cannot hit a QB low...forcing you to hit him higher in the body...and I can see a scenario where a defender 'lets up' or softens a hit on Manning. Either that or Manning gets injured in a blindside hit, the defensive player has to defend a 'dirty' label, and the league fines said player for the hit. All on a legal play.

[rajncajn]

If the play is legal then why would the player be labeled as dirty & why would the league fine him? I'll have to just respectfully disagree with your theory. I don't think it will affect their play at all.

[delusions of grandeur]

Raj'n - I only brought the topic up as I see a scario where all three 'issues' (Manning injury, bounties, and the league's crackdown on 'defenseless' hits) meet on the horizon. I don't think its that farfetched at all. Regardless, if you believe them or not, players are on record as saying that they're thinking, during the act, about the way they're about to hit a QB. That was caused only by the league's penalties. Now add in the current bounty issues and that'll give a player even more reason to go out of their way to 'change' their attack. Finally, throw in the fact that you cannot hit a QB low...forcing you to hit him higher in the body...and I can see a scenario where a defender 'lets up' or softens a hit on Manning. Either that or Manning gets injured in a blindside hit, the defensive player has to defend a 'dirty' label, and the league fines said player for the hit. All on a legal play.

 

I see what you're saying now, but I think you're overestimating the impact of public perception about hits. I do not think it's going to be in the back of their heads "Golly, I don't want to be known as the guy who ends Manning's career by doing what I'm paid to do, and deliver a blow that can end their drive and maybe even turnover the ball. I better lay off"....

 

Perhaps you're correct that the fines are having more of an affect than I thought (good), but that's because it's hitting them in their pocketbooks and it's a pretty sizable penalty for most players.... However, I do not think they're looking anywhere further than their wallet, which is why they only have incentive to make a big play for their team (as long as it's not bad enough to cost them too much money). So yes, back off from a hit that you could get fined for, but defensive players just don't have the mindset to worry about public perception regarding what they're paid to do: be aggressive.

 

I also think you're overestimating the "outrage"... The reason it's taken so long for these violent hits to be addressed is because we all love watching it. It's more the owners and league recognizing that they have too much invested in these players, and the evidence suggesting things like head-to-head are very detrimental.... But even they still don't want to take that killer instinct out of defensive players. They just have no choice but to draw the line somewhere.

 

So other than the monetary fine, I just don't see how any of this other stuff is going to detract a defensive player from doing their job at 100% like they're supposed to do... Like one of the players said in your article, they still know that if they don't bring the house, they aren't gonna have a job anymore.

[The Hitter]

I see what you're saying now, but I think you're overestimating the impact of public perception about hits. I do not think it's going to be in the back of their heads "Golly, I don't want to be known as the guy who ends Manning's career by doing what I'm paid to do, and deliver a blow that can end their drive and maybe even turnover the ball. I better lay off"....

 

Perhaps you're correct that the fines are having more of an affect than I thought (good), but that's because it's hitting them in their pocketbooks and it's a pretty sizable penalty for most players.... However, I do not think they're looking anywhere further than their wallet, which is why they only have incentive to make a big play for their team (as long as it's not bad enough to cost them too much money). So yes, back off from a hit that you could get fined for, but defensive players just don't have the mindset to worry about public perception regarding what they're paid to do: be aggressive.

 

I also think you're overestimating the "outrage"... The reason it's taken so long for these violent hits to be addressed is because we all love watching it. It's more the owners and league recognizing that they have too much invested in these players, and the evidence suggesting things like head-to-head are very detrimental.... But even they still don't want to take that killer instinct out of defensive players. They just have no choice but to draw the line somewhere.

 

So other than the monetary fine, I just don't see how any of this other stuff is going to detract a defensive player from doing their job at 100% like they're supposed to do... Like one of the players said in your article, they still know that if they don't bring the house, they aren't gonna have a job anymore.

 

 

Thanks for replying, DG. I enjoy hearing the differing views that others have, and you've made some valid points. But, I will ask (regarding your comment in bold above)...how many times have you seen a defensive player not give 100%? IMHO, it happens ALL the time in today's NFL. I see DBs take an angle or run down a WR, only to 'back off' once they're within the 5 yard line. Like its not worth it to make the stop now that the runner's that close. Like he's conceded it was a great run so, 'eh, why bother'. Some guys even step out of the way of a bruising runner. Maybe my definition of 100% is different from others, but I see this 'short effort' all the time. That tells me that quite a bit of thought goes into how to & when to make those tackles. So some players definitely let 'other stuff' detract from doing their job 100% (stopping the offense).

 

Again, thanks for the replies.

[The Hitter]

If the play is legal then why would the player be labeled as dirty & why would the league fine him? I'll have to just respectfully disagree with your theory. I don't think it will affect their play at all.

 

 

 

Q: In the Saints/Vikings game, was every hit that Favre took a 'dirty hit'? Was every Favre hit penalized as illegal? Many were completely 'legal' hits and therefore not penalized during the game. But due to the current bounty issues, every hit on Favre is now questioned and every player is 'tainted'. I don't agree with this perception at all, but the way its all been blown out of proportion, that's exactly the way the public sees it.

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Thanks for replying, DG. I enjoy hearing the differing views that others have, and you've made some valid points. But, I will ask (regarding your comment in bold above)...how many times have you seen a defensive player not give 100%? IMHO, it happens ALL the time in today's NFL. I see DBs take an angle or run down a WR, only to 'back off' once they're within the 5 yard line. Like its not worth it to make the stop now that the runner's that close. Like he's conceded it was a great run so, 'eh, why bother'. Some guys even step out of the way of a bruising runner. Maybe my definition of 100% is different from others, but I see this 'short effort' all the time. That tells me that quite a bit of thought goes into how to & when to make those tackles. So some players definitely let 'other stuff' detract from doing their job 100% (stopping the offense).

 

Again, thanks for the replies.

 

 

I think we have all heard announcers and commentators remark that a player made a "business decision" on that play.

[keggerz]

[polksalet]

I've been curious if anyone else sees the potential storm on the horizon regarding Manning.

 

Let's say Manning has signed with another team and begins to show signs of being a top QB again. Now, imagine during a game, Manning drops back, and a DE or blitzing LB gets an untouched 'free shot' at him from the blind side. Does the defensive player hesitate for the slightest second...wondering if he'll get tagged as a 'dirty player' if he hits Manning full on with a legal hit? Does he simply wrap the QB up and just drag him to the ground?

 

I honestly have been wondering about this for a while. I remember LT being distraught over breaking Theisman's leg (eventually leading to JT's retirement from the game). I can only imagine what it would feel like to be labeled as the guy who ended Peyton's career. With the bounty issues currently in play, I'm not sure how or if a defensive player will ever get past the cloud that would follow him during and after his career if his hit sent Manning out of the game forever. Because of this, I honestly believe most, if not all, defensive players will be reluctant to put a major hit on Manning. This, in turn, would allow Manning an increased advantage (as if he needed one!) over most QBs. So, as a defender, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

Just a thought. Anyone else see this too?

 

 

Unless that player's name is James Harrison he has nothing to worry about.

[stevegrab]

Did LT stop making legal hard hits on players after he broke Theismann's leg and ended his career?

 

I don't recall it.

 

I think the simply answer is, fear of being fined for illegal hits will cause some players to take it easy and hold up. The hitting a defenseless player type stuff especially.

 

But your average defensive player isn't going to be thinking the way you describe, if Manning is there and vulnerable they will hit him. They cannot worry about ending player X's career because it could happen on any play (legal hits too).