EPTNFL Season 2010 - Page 89
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
tonight
United States11130 Posts
| ||
|
Southlight
United States11768 Posts
On October 23 2010 03:57 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: Except that's not what anyone has said. Oh really? Joshua Cribbs, Mohamed Massquoi Diagnosed with Concussions After Sunday's Game On October 23 2010 04:53 Ferrose wrote: It seems like Massaquoi(sp) just got his shit rocked. That was a BS fine IMO. On October 23 2010 04:50 Hawk wrote: I really don't even get how this hit got shit ... And the Cribbs one, totally agree with you. That's what happens when you want to cut back all day like Cribbs always does. At least to his credit, he said there was nothing wrong with that and he's eager to play against Harrison again. PHILADELPHIA - DeSean Jackson can't remember the vicious collision that left him with a concussion. That's a typical consequence for anyone who suffers such a violent head injury. So is missing playing time. Dunta Robinson 'much better' following concussion On October 23 2010 04:08 Hawk wrote: The DeSean Jackson hit was 100% clean. I can't even believe the fucking league is going after that. Total pussification of the game. It is a full contact game. You can't give someone a fucking penalty for hitting too hard. I don't understand why Harrison got so much shit either. The one hit where the guy came across the middle, that was marginal at best. The other, what the fuck is he supposed to do there?? Regretable, but he's gotta hit the guy. It took me one page to find people marginalizing that people got concussions off of "violent hits," including one instance where the guy making the tackle got one too. How am I not justified saying it's hypocritical/stupid that people on one hand try to laud efforts to deal with concussions (or just write them off altogether) while on the other hand they defend the hit? Edit: For the record I totally understand the Mass one, as that's a tough gray area given that Mass lowered his head into Harrison's helmet. | ||
|
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
11739 Posts
On October 23 2010 05:58 Southlight wrote: Oh really? It took me one page to find people marginalizing that people got concussions off of "violent hits," including one instance where the guy making the tackle got one too. How am I not justified saying it's hypocritical/stupid that people on one hand try to laud efforts to deal with concussions (or just write them off altogether) while on the other hand they defend the hit? Edit: For the record I totally understand the Mass one, as that's a tough gray area given that Mass lowered his head into Harrison's helmet. The majority of those came after I said that, firstly. Secondly, most sane people agree about blows to the head. I'm not exactly sure how much more clear I can be.... the issue people are concerned about is NOT BLOWS TO THE HEAD (in general, I shouldn't make all or nothing statements, that's my fault). I even referenced a hit that was discussed on national TV as being a devastating blow, and questioned whether or not it would be fined. THAT is what most of us are concerned about. In any case, your post seemed a direct response to mine, which never said helmet to helmet blows, or blows to the head of a defenseless receiver are part of the game. I agree with those rules, and think it only makes sense. My concern, as well as the concern of the list of people that I named, is the devastating hits. What does it mean? Is it only the ones that they already have rules against, or will players be fined and suspended for blocks like Earl Bennett put on Seattle's punter? That was as devastating of a blow as they come, but it was 100% clean. And then how are they going to gauge the severity of the fine? Are they going to base it on severity of injury? Jay Cutler was concussed from a fair shot (we think that's the one he was hurt on, in any case, the Giants weren't lighting him up... I even thought to myself on several occasions "wow, they're really putting him down gently tonight"), should the CB have been fined and suspended because a player got hurt? These are the concerns that fans have. Most sane people think that the helmet to helmet blows should be eliminated. We think the defenseless receiver one softens the game, but is a reasonable rule. What we are concerned about is what I've been ranting about for three posts now. But, I also think that sometimes these hits will happen, it's unavoidable, and you can't just suspend players for unintentional hits. Cribbs lowered his head against what, otherwise, would have been a clean hit. What is the defender to do? Stop himself in midair and adjust? I understand the firm stance the NFL is taking against these types of hits, they need to be limited. BUT, you can't tell a defender not to hit hard when his JOB is to stop the other team from scoring. Look what happens with QB's. You can't light them up, so the guys will put him in the grasp (what they think is in the grasp), and the QB dumps the ball off for a five yard gain. That's incredibly unfair to the defenders. Now they won't be allowed to light up WR's? Why even have a defense on the field at this point? And the defenders get hardly any protection from the offense. A runner can put his head down and crack a defender in the facemask, but a defender isn't allowed to do the same back? It's nonsense. The shot to Massaquoi was illegal because it was a blow to the head of a defenseless receiver. Harrison knows the rules, he could have gone for the center of his body, but he went high. That's why it was illegal. It doesn't matter if it's pad, helmet, forearm, or jockstrap first (though that'd be foolish), you're not allowed to lead to the head of a defenseless receiver. You CAN hit to the head first on a runner, though. Keep in mind that a WR becomes a runner after possession is established. The rules are pretty clearly defined, and they were put in place BECAUSE of guys like James Harrison, etc. | ||
|
setzer
United States3284 Posts
My concern, as well as the concern of the list of people that I named, is the devastating hits. What does it mean? Is it only the ones that they already have rules against, or will players be fined and suspended for blocks like Earl Bennett put on Seattle's punter? That was as devastating of a blow as they come, but it was 100% clean. And then how are they going to gauge the severity of the fine? Are they going to base it on severity of injury? Jay Cutler was concussed from a fair shot (we think that's the one he was hurt on, in any case, the Giants weren't lighting him up... I even thought to myself on several occasions "wow, they're really putting him down gently tonight"), should the CB have been fined and suspended because a player got hurt? These are the concerns that fans have. Most sane people think that the helmet to helmet blows should be eliminated. We think the defenseless receiver one softens the game, but is a reasonable rule. What we are concerned about is what I've been ranting about for three posts now. The Earl Bennett hit was discussed on nfl.com as being a hit that was 100% within the rules. It's exactly like the Kurt Warner hit from last season's playoffs. When the QB goes to make a play on the ballcarrier he can be hit just like any other player on the field, and that carriers over to punters/kickers. One of my main problems with the rules is how it will impact a game from an officiating standpoint. As of right now penalties that are considered "judgment calls" like pass interference, unnecessary roughness, are things that cannot be reviewed and changed. With the added awareness of these hits I feel like the games are going to suffer from calls that are mistakenly made. One such call just last week was on Jim Leonard who made a perfectly acceptable hit within bounds and was flagged for it. Like pass interference, these calls can completely change the momentum and even outcome of the game. I would really like for the NFL to allow coaches to challenge these penalties that can cripple a teams chance of winning the ballgame. | ||
|
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
11739 Posts
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81b86a50/article/wrist-surgery-ends-season-for-colts-te-clark?module=HP_headlines Clark out for season. Are the Clark owners really happier knowing? I wouldn't be happier. | ||
|
Southlight
United States11768 Posts
I understand the point about wondering if this'll mess up the NFL for spectators, my point was just that I think it's inevitable at this point, and that I think a lot of people are being hypocritical about protecting heads and protecting the violence in the sport. | ||
GTR
51530 Posts
Pick two. I'm currently with Torain and Gaffney at the moment. | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Gaffney vs. Oakland might be good, since Asomugah will be on Lloyd. Denver is good at stopping the run, and they can just stack the box because Jason Campbell blows ass, so McFadden may be a bad play, plus he'll be sharing carries with Michael Bush. Crayton would be a great pick this week as everyone seems injured on the Chargers offense (Gates, Floyd, Nanee, Matthews, even Buster Davis) and the Patriots secondary is balls. Woodhead vs. SD can be a possible sleeper but Tom Brady spreads the ball a lot, so he's not such a safe bet. So... I'd go with Gaffney and Crayton. | ||
|
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
11739 Posts
| ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
If the Cowboys lose this game their season is essentially over. I don't see a team (especially one that seems so undisciplined so far) coming back from a deep 1-5 hole in the NFC East. There's gonna be some major discontent in Big D if they lose... | ||
|
don_kyuhote
3006 Posts
Do I start Hakeem Nicks? He's questionable as of now. I have Percy Harvin and Brandon Tate on bench as substitutes. | ||
|
KOFgokuon
United States14902 Posts
On October 24 2010 20:09 DannyJ wrote: Should be a really good MNF game. If the Cowboys lose this game their season is essentially over. I don't see a team (especially one that seems so undisciplined so far) coming back from a deep 1-5 hole in the NFC East. There's gonna be some major discontent in Big D if they lose... seriously? this game is gonna be awful the cowboys are so sloppy they're hard to watch | ||
|
Tx-MisfiT
United States283 Posts
On October 24 2010 23:14 KOFgokuon wrote: seriously? this game is gonna be awful the cowboys are so sloppy they're hard to watch Being a die hard cowboy fan, it hurts to watch them beat themselves week in and week out. As far as this season is concerned to this point, they've been in every single loss. It hurts to even talk about this.... | ||
|
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
11739 Posts
On October 24 2010 23:14 KOFgokuon wrote: seriously? this game is gonna be awful the cowboys are so sloppy they're hard to watch I have no plans to watch the game, myself. | ||
|
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
11739 Posts
| ||
|
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
11739 Posts
How about the Bears? This offense is just pathetic. There isn't much to be said that hasn't already been said though. | ||
|
Fruscainte
4596 Posts
HOW BOUT DEM' STEELERS? | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
| ||
|
junemermaid
United States981 Posts
| ||
|
don_kyuhote
3006 Posts
On October 25 2010 03:25 CultureMisfits wrote: Drew Brees is killing me. 3 pick 0 td just at the first half is pretty amazing considering he's Drew Brees. | ||
| ||
