We are not watching football anymore

[rajncajn]

But to extend that thought, I have seen hands "graze" facemasks without being called a majority of the time. Much as Brees neck was "grazed" but did not bear the brunt of the hit. I just hate to see a game decided like that. And it was decided on that call. The Saint didn't deserve to win that game because Brees neck was grazed. I think that is my big picture view once you wipe away the minutia.

 

 

San Francisco held the Saints to a field goal on that drive and got the ball back before the two-minute warning and did absolutely nothing with it, just like they'd done the great majority of the game when they weren't presented with a gimme in or near the red zone. The Saints didn't even have to use a time out until after that play. Hell, that play wasn't even 3rd down. It would have been 3rd & 12 and regardless, the next play went to Colston for 14 yards. That wasn't even the final possession by the Saints either, The Saints went into the final drive with still two of their time outs and didn't even have to use one. The 49ers could do nothing to stop them from driving the field again to kick the game winner. At best, you're looking at overtime without that play happening and given the way the 49ers were playing on offense, I don't think the outcome would have been different.

 

Go take a look at the stats. The Saints dominated the 49ers in every single aspect of that game, but gave up two costly turnovers that nearly blew it for them. Neither team deserved to win, the 49ers because they didn't play well, the Saints because they turned it over, but to say that the game was decided on that play is just looking for excuses.

 

Oh, while discussing the bad calls in that game, you might want to include the interception that likely should have been called down by contact at the point of the interception rather than fumbled out of the end zone.

[HowboutthemCowboys]

 

 

San Francisco held the Saints to a field goal on that drive and got the ball back before the two-minute warning and did absolutely nothing with it, just like they'd done the great majority of the game when they weren't presented with a gimme in or near the red zone. The Saints didn't even have to use a time out until after that play. Hell, that play wasn't even 3rd down. It would have been 3rd & 12 and regardless, the next play went to Colston for 14 yards. That wasn't even the final possession by the Saints either, The Saints went into the final drive with still two of their time outs and didn't even have to use one. The 49ers could do nothing to stop them from driving the field again to kick the game winner. At best, you're looking at overtime without that play happening and given the way the 49ers were playing on offense, I don't think the outcome would have been different.

 

Go take a look at the stats. The Saints dominated the 49ers in every single aspect of that game, but gave up two costly turnovers that nearly blew it for them. Neither team deserved to win, the 49ers because they didn't play well, the Saints because they turned it over, but to say that the game was decided on that play is just looking for excuses.

 

Oh, while discussing the bad calls in that game, you might want to include the interception that likely should have been called down by contact at the point of the interception rather than fumbled out of the end zone.

 

not to mention hitting the punt returner after he signaled for a fair catch

 

edit: good to see you around rajn..hope all is well

Edited November 19, 2013 by HowboutthemCowboys

[keggerz]

so out of the .3%, how many of these illegal hits, in your estimate, have caused QB's to miss time?

 

No clue.

[HowboutthemCowboys]

No clue.

 

me neither

 

can anyone tell me how many starting Qb's aren't playing right now b/c of an illegal hit?

[keggerz]

me neither

 

can anyone tell me how many starting Qb's aren't playing right now b/c of an illegal hit?

 

That just means the rules are working. How many wouldn't be if the rules weren't in place is another question, and with the new concussion protocols there would probably be quite a few at times...the thing to do would be to go back and assess hits from previous seasons that are now illegal and how they knocked players out of games or would today (ie: concussions)

[HowboutthemCowboys]

That just means the rules are working. How many wouldn't be if the rules weren't in place is another question, and with the new concussion protocols there would probably be quite a few at times...the thing to do would be to go back and assess hits from previous seasons that are now illegal and how they knocked players out of games or would today (ie: concussions)

 

I'd love to see those #'s

[keggerz]

I'd love to see those #'s

 

Would be a extremely daunting and probably impossible task

[HowboutthemCowboys]

Would be a extremely daunting and probably impossible task

 

no doubt

 

my memory sucks but I cant remember the last time a QB was hit, while not running with the ball, and suffered a concussion that caused him to miss games. which is why I find the "this is why we have so many backup QB's playing" argument to be ridiculous

[Cowboyz1]

 

They want them to stop hitting the QBs high (neck and head) and low (below the knee). Penalties will be calle when you do. As a player you can choose to adapt or have penalties called.

 

As a an you need to stop your bellyaching tha the 49ers were robbed of a win by bad calls. It is beyond old and lame.

 

 

 

Man that was al pretty lame, but I guess you have to find something to complain about with the Cowboys off. So Brees shoudn't be allowed to play QB because he's too short and the 6'6" defenders just naturally hit him in the head/neck area every time they tackle him.

 

There was a time when there was no forward pass in football either, that changed and players adapted. All this whining about the refs is just a bunch of wannabe tough guys whining about their tough man sport being turned into touch football. Sounds like you want fight club not the NFL.

 

 

Dude gimme a break, that's not what I'm saying at all. The game of football is violent and sometimes a violent AND legal hit is flagged which determines the outcome of the game. In this case, it did in fact change the course of the game when a defender came in, made a legal yet violent hit, and was penalized for doing so, which cost his team perhaps the game. I don't agree with that period. If you go to replay and see that the guy tackled him around his chest and his head and neck flexed forward as a result. Hard hit which got his team the ball or at least should have. My point is that the refs are inconsistently taking the game away from the players and fans, in a game that is violent by nature. Thus you can't flag a guy for doing his job, and performing to the level he is trained and paid for. Simple as that. Now if you want to take hits to the replay both fine, but no way should a LEGAL HIT cost you a game because the refs want to protect the fragile QB.

[HowboutthemCowboys]

 

 

 

Man that was al pretty lame, but I guess you have to find something to complain about with the Cowboys off.

 

get a grip dude..

[Cowboyz1]

Lastly, I can't imagine playing defense in today's NFL, you not only have to fight to get by the pro blocking you but at full speed, desperately trying to get to the QB must now contort his body in such a way as to not offend the fragility of the QB your trying to tackle. Head to Head contact, I get. Going to the knees, I get. Even forearm shivers or clubs upside the head I get, but hitting a guy hard and making his neck stretch in the process is no penalty. It's football. Football at it's finest I might add.........

 

As a defender you are to hit the man with the ball as hard as physically possible in order to jar the ball loose, which is a fundamental principle in football. Take that one thing away and you have removed a faced of the game that makes football what it is. Without it, you have something else but it's not football and that is why I am upset. They are changing the game to something other than football and I want to watch football.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Cowboyz1

[MTSuper7]

The only way that the NFL can enforce safety while minimizing the flags would be to review all questionable hits after the games are played and issues fines / suspensions at a stiffer level than they currently do. When you get hit in the wallet, you notice. If you get called for a roughing the passer penalty, you might just whine/complain about the officiating without changing how you play. They should really go zero tolerance with head hunter types and boot them from the league after too many repeat offenses.

[keggerz]

Dude gimme a break, that's not what I'm saying at all. The game of football is violent and sometimes a violent AND legal hit is flagged which determines the outcome of the game. In this case, it did in fact change the course of the game when a defender came in, made a legal yet violent hit, and was penalized for doing so, which cost his team perhaps the game. I don't agree with that period. If you go to replay and see that the guy tackled him around his chest and his head and neck flexed forward as a result. Hard hit which got his team the ball or at least should have. My point is that the refs are inconsistently taking the game away from the players and fans, in a game that is violent by nature. Thus you can't flag a guy for doing his job, and performing to the level he is trained and paid for. Simple as that. Now if you want to take hits to the replay both fine, but no way should a LEGAL HIT cost you a game because the refs want to protect the fragile QB.

 

It was NOT a legal hit.

[HowboutthemCowboys]

It was NOT a legal hit.

 

and that's the problem....

[Cowboyz1]

It was NOT a legal hit.

 

 

Well we disagree there. If the guy hits him in the shoulder chest area and as a result of the impact and Brees going down slides up, that's not an illegal hit IMO. A close line is illegal that wasn't a close line.

[keggerz]

and that's the problem....

 

But that's a different discussion all together...tell you're fellow fan he's wrong...maybe he'll accept it from you.

[Bronco Billy]

 

Completely different topic, you're trying to make the average NFL player sound like a fully college educated person, when you know that to be complete BS. Your average NFL player spent 2 years in college and learned very little, they're probably not as well educated as the average high school graduate.

 

I'm not looking to blame anybody for that, or anything else, please don't put words in my mouth.

 

 

No, I did not portray NFL players as fully college educated people. Once again you prevaricate to create a position that doesn't exist.

 

You admit that that overwhelming majority of NFL players spent at least 2 years in college. Then you state that they are less educated than the average high school graduate. Care to dissemble that? Or am I bullying you by putting words in your mouth again.

 

And as it pertains to this thread, what is your position on how much risk NFL players understand that they assume when they elect to play pro football. That after all is what is relevant to what I posted.

[gandalas]

Well we disagree there. If the guy hits him in the shoulder chest area and as a result of the impact and Brees going down slides up, that's not an illegal hit IMO. A close line is illegal that wasn't a close line.

 

 

I disagree as well, just from my strict 15-second analysis of the .GIF which I provided above (which you never even really achnowledged). It was a wrap-up tackle around both shoulders. The neck contact was incidental, and there was no head contact at all.

Edited November 19, 2013 by gandalas

[Cowboyz1]

I disagree as well, just from my strict 15-second analysis of the .GIF which I provided above (which you never even really achnowledged). It was a wrap-up tackle around both shoulders. The neck contact was incidental, and there was no head contact at all.

 

 

Your right on there. That was a perfectly legal hit. Especially when you look at the gif Gandalas provided. Shows perfectly well that the arm was not on his neck. Well don't Gandalas by the way. Anyone who watches that gif should see how legal the hit was.

[stevegrab]

No, I did not portray NFL players as fully college educated people. Once again you prevaricate to create a position that doesn't exist.

 

You admit that that overwhelming majority of NFL players spent at least 2 years in college. Then you state that they are less educated than the average high school graduate. Care to dissemble that? Or am I bullying you by putting words in your mouth again.

 

And as it pertains to this thread, what is your position on how much risk NFL players understand that they assume when they elect to play pro football. That after all is what is relevant to what I posted.

 

 

 

Well you sure seemed to make it sound like you thought NFL players were well educated in college, which I think most people who follow sports know is probably not true.

 

As far as them not being as well educagted as the average HS grad, if you look at your average NFL player they are top athletes and probably were back in HS and college too. It is well known that many of those people are given special treatment in school and don't really learn as much as the other kids getting similar grades. So even after 2 years in college before going to the NFL they still haven't learned as much as most HS grads.

 

Regarding the potential risk, I feel that athletes at all levels and all sports know the risks, but at younger ages they ignore them largely while the fame and fortune cloud their judgement as well as the usual young persons view that "it won't happen to me". If the NFL really hid important information from them as is being reported, that is wrong. But still they were not without basic understanding that injuries are a part of the game, and will have long lasting effects (if you meet a former player, watch them walk, I saw it with OJ and Marcus Allen one time).

 

My issue with your post was you should know better, don't make NFL players as a group out to be some well educated populace, because the everyday evidence shows that isn't true.

[keggerz]

You can disagree with the rule but stop calling it a legal hit because it was not legal.

[Bronco Billy]

 

My issue with your post was you should know better, don't make NFL players as a group out to be some well educated populace, because the everyday evidence shows that isn't true.

 

 

I'm not sure that your position is accurate. I 'd love to see you support it with more than your feelings. A few dunces don't mean that the whole bunch are all knuckledraggers. But I'm certainly willing to change my mind if you could show otherwise.

[keggerz]

 

 

Your right on there. That was a perfectly legal hit. Especially when you look at the gif Gandalas provided. Shows perfectly well that the arm was not on his neck. Well don't Gandalas by the way. Anyone who watches that gif should see how legal the hit was.

 

I don't see a GIF provided by Gandalas. He provided his analysis but no GIF.

[gandalas]

I don't see a GIF provided by Gandalas. He provided his analysis but no GIF.

 

 

Yes. I provided no GIF. Simply analysis of what I saw posted here. Which was a form tackle around the shoulders. Don't know how to say it any clearer than that.

[rajncajn]

Initial hit, shoulder pad to helmet, bicep to neck area. Brees is standing upright, not squatting and Brooks hits him high.

http://simmqb.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/ahmad-brooks-drew-brees-800.jpg?w=800&h=465

 

Later through the play, Brooks continues through the tackle driving Brees to the turf with his forearm and hand under Brees' facemask (this being the only contact between the two) and Brees bent backward.

http://i.imgur.com/mXnRCJk.jpg

 

The final image is very near the end of the tackle with Brooks still having his forearm and hand dangerously underneath the facemask of Brees and around the neck, essentially tackling him by the neck.

http://i.imgur.com/0l85EG0.jpg

 

 

FWIW, I don't like the protection rules all that much either and I think they are causing way too many ticky-tack calls to be made that are influencing games. That much I agree with, but using this hit as an example IMO is a very poor example no matter what people like Ray Lewis may think. The way that the rules are written now, this is a clear penalty and I would dare say that this would have been called just as easily 5 years ago as it was for this game. I also believe that had this been a tackle on a WR or RB it would have been called as well. Bottom line is that Brooks hit him high and continued through the tackle despite having Brees around the neck. It should have been a penalty and it was correctly called. If you want to complain about the rule or even the severity of the hit regarding the rule, that's fine, I'm all on board. But using this hit as your soapbox moment? I'm telling you, it absolutely amazes me the uproar this call caused. I seriously just don't get it.