The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread

skippymac6

Morrison J wrote: »

Still completely within the rules. You can't suspend a guy for making a legal block.

Just a cheap shot and very, very cowardly. However as you say it's within the rules....

BKWDR

I think it if it was a WR or OL and not the QB people wouldn't be making such a fuss.

JaMarcusHustle

adrian522 wrote: »

You can't make a hit like that after the play is over. Simple.

What he did was within the rules. You're confusing poor sportsmanship for an illegal play.

Putin

SameOleJay wrote: »

I am amazed by that. If there was one thing you could set your watch to it was the league over-protecting QBs.

Oh, should we go around and start taking out QB'S? I love reading this over protecting rubbish. Have you any idea why QB's are treated differently? They are the face of a franchise, the long term player an offense is built around. So when a play is going dead and one gets blindsided and taken out by a lineman, well that's just chicken shít play. You wouldn't have much of a league if chicken shít play was tolerated and we lost the likes of Brees, Rodgers, Brady, Manning, Rivers ect.

BKWDR wrote: »

I think it if it was a WR or OL and not the QB people wouldn't be making such a fuss.

Who's making a fuss? some people don't seem to understand a simple point. Nobody said the hit wasn't technically correct or legal. He didn't lead with the helmet or hit the head. What we are saying is, it was a cheap chicken shít blindside hit. The player had gone to ground, the play was going dead and yer man took an opportunity for a cheap shot. The reason he escaped a fine was because Foles wasn't injured. But if Foles was injured, I guarantee you he would have been fined.

Chardee MacDennis

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

More details coming out about Rob Bironas. Apparently his wife had reported him missing that night, and a group of students and a couple have come out and said he tried to run them off the road in two separate incidents.

if you read the reports, he didnt try to run the women off the road - he tried to merge into her lane and she blocked him, he then gave her a dirty look, may have tailgated, and sped off.

rumours of it being ambien related...

BKWDR

Putin wrote: »

Who's making a fuss?

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

The most cynical hit of the week and not a peep from the NFL overlords. I suppose it shouldn't surprise us really.

nerd69 wrote: »

baker gets no suspention or fine for the nick foles hit thats some bull****

That's the fuss.

Honestly if you look at it, it happens as the players knee just hits the ground, or at least he's committed to the tackle at that point.

But they argue that about QBs getting involved in a broken / intercepted play anyway. You either are involved (which Foles was) or you just jog after the players and pretend you give a sh1t (like a lot of QBs do after an INT Play).

Personally i think he's fair game. Had the player not been grounded Foles would have been next in line to make a tackle on the in-cut.

Edit: It's not popping a go at anyone here. But in ANY sport including AF you are always told to play the whistle / finish assignments / blocking drills. My point was if it was anyone other than a QB it probably would be viewed as a good hit

JaMarcusHustle

BastardPrince wrote: »

if you read the reports, he didnt try to run the women off the road - he tried to merge into her lane and she blocked him, he then gave her a dirty look, may have tailgated, and sped off.

rumours of it being ambien related...

What it says is that he tried to merge, she didn't let him, and that's when he started driving erratically. Only when she let him past did he give the dirty look and speed off.

The woman told the dispatcher neither she nor her husband recognized the man who drove up behind them. She says he pulled his SUV up beside their vehicle and gave them a look before speeding away. The woman told the dispatcher the man was dangerous and police needed to know something was wrong with him.

"We let him go on past us because he was trying to run me off the road and we don't know who he was," the woman told the dispatcher.

Vandango

Putin wrote: »

Who's making a fuss? some people don't seem to understand a simple point. Nobody said the hit wasn't technically correct or legal. He didn't lead with the helmet or hit the head. What we are saying is, it was a cheap chicken shít blindside hit. The player had gone to ground, the play was going dead and yer man took an opportunity for a cheap shot. The reason he escaped a fine was because Foles wasn't injured. But if Foles was injured, I guarantee you he would have been fined.

I agree with you completely. I was a cheap shot and regardless of him not being injured, the league needs to clamp down and fine players for taking cheap shots. I guarantee you he wouldn't have done that against a 6'6" 330Lbs O lineman

JaMarcusHustle

Vandango wrote: »

I guarantee you he wouldn't have done that against a 6'6" 330Lbs O lineman

Eh, you can bet he would have if that lineman was doing exactly as Foles was doing - looking at the ball carrier, moving towards him, being next in line to make a tackle.

These types of blocks are made every week after interceptions. People just don't create the fuss they're creating now because a lineman falling to the ground is less dramatic and ragdoll-like than gangly Foles. And part of that is because they are mostly aware of what is going on around them and they know they are about to get blocked. Foles was guilty of not paying attention and got blindsided, hence how bad it looked. It was a poor play by him both before and after the interception.

Did Baker know it was the QB (who is no longer a QB once the ball is intercepted by the way) who he was targetting? I'm sure he did. Did he know he didn't have to block him as violently as he did? Probably. Does that make what he did illegal? No, it just makes it unsportsman like at the very worst, but not against any written rule.

Billy86

Vandango wrote: »

I agree with you completely. I was a cheap shot and regardless of him not being injured, the league needs to clamp down and fine players for taking cheap shots. I guarantee you he wouldn't have done that against a 6'6" 330Lbs O lineman

Who knows? He's a big, big guy. When Jason Peters squared up to him after, Baker just grabbed his face mask and dragged him around for 15 yards or so like he was a receiver or something, it was kind of freakish.

SantryRed

A cheap shot is a shot that is illegal or isn't within the rules. That was completely legal. Reminds me of the hit that was put on Kurt Warner in 2009/2010 I think against the Saints.

raze_them_all_

SantryRed wrote: »

A cheap shot is a shot that is illegal or isn't within the rules. That was completely legal. Reminds me of the hit that was put on Kurt Warner in 2009/2010 I think against the Saints.

not really, everyone remembers the cheap shot that was legal on the punter last year ended up cracking vertabre and his jaw

Podge_irl

Vandango wrote: »

I agree with you completely. I was a cheap shot and regardless of him not being injured, the league needs to clamp down and fine players for taking cheap shots.

How the hell can you fine someone for something that isn't against the rules?

bruschi

I think it was a cheap shot too. an easy way to rough up the QB without getting flagged. Foles was far from next in line, he was at least the third next player, to tackle a player who was already falling to the ground. It was legal, but a cheap shot. No necessity to make any sort of tackle on him at all.

Morrison J

Podge_irl wrote: »

How the hell can you fine someone for something that isn't against the rules?

This!

Its a tough mans game. If you can't take a block you shouldn't be on the field. Simple as that.

Baker was completely within his rights to do what he did.

Only man who deserves a suspension is Peters who threw punches, but nobody is mentioning that!

skippymac6

Morrison J wrote: »

This!

Its a tough mans game. If you can't take a block you shouldn't be on the field. Simple as that.

Baker was completely within his rights to do what he did.

Only man who deserves a suspension is Peters who threw punches, but nobody is mentioning that!

You're dead right man it is a tough man's game but what he did was not tough, far from it.

I'm not shouting from the roof tops for a suspension but I would certainly not be bothered in the slightest if he got a suspension.

Yes he was within his right to do what he did but it was against basically a defenceless player half the size of him. If that's what constitues tough then you've a warped idea of it.

And before you go sprouting about "well he should know his place, if he can't take the hit why is he chasing the play" yes there is an element of truth in that but the fact of the matter is that it was a cowardly hit, end of.

Realt Dearg Sec

skippymac6 wrote: »

I would certainly not be bothered in the slightest if he got a suspension.

Yes he was within his right to do what he did

These two things aren't compatible. The only question is whether the play was over or not. Other than that it's just a block. You can't look for a suspension for something that's within the rules. Although with the current commissioner seemingly making up rules as he goes along, I could be wrong there.

helimachoptor

Within the rules? Yeah.

****ty and cowardly hit? Yes

skippymac6

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

These two things aren't compatible. The only question is whether the play was over or not. Other than that it's just a block. You can't look for a suspension for something that's within the rules. Although with the current commissioner seemingly making up rules as he goes along, I could be wrong there.

You've just cropped what I said to tailor your point.

I said he was within his rights by the letter of the law and said that I wouldn't be shouting for a suspension for him but I wouldn't feel aggrieved if he did get one.

Danger_dave1

If your running towards a ball, expect to be blocked all day. These lads are drilled and drilled to keep playing to the whistle blows.

Its up to foles as a quarterback to just stop and not follow the ball , Eli had the same thing happen to him a few years back, Commentator said he shouldn't be moving towards the ball after the INT. He leaves him self open to taking a big legal hit.

Morrison J

If there wasnt a brawl then Baker wouldn't have got ejected. The refs ejected him to restore some order to the game but the officiating was pathetic all game really.

Nobody has mentioned the fact that Malcolm Jenkins threw his elbow at DeSean Jackson's dislocated shoulder in the first quarter or when the Eagles linebacker piledrived Cousins to the floor well after the whistle went for a false start.

Realt Dearg Sec

skippymac6 wrote: »

You've just cropped what I said to tailor your point.

I said he was within his rights by the letter of the law and said that I wouldn't be shouting for a suspension for him but I wouldn't feel aggrieved if he did get one.

Why wouldn't you feel aggrieved about someone getting fined for playing the game within the rules? (I mean, you could just not care, but then we wouldn't be discussing it)

skippymac6

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Why wouldn't you feel aggrieved about someone getting fined for playing the game within the rules? (I mean, you could just not care, but then we wouldn't be discussing it)

Ha I'm not getting into the nuances and meanings of words.

If he gets suspended like most things this year, it will be on the back of the clamour from the public about the hit. By the letter of the law he shouldn't get suspended and I don't mind which way the comish goes with it as Foles was able to play on and no major harm was done it seems.

One thing is for sure that the offensive line won't forget about it and we could have some Any Given Sunday like retribution (eye on the field!) later on when they meet again :eek:

Vandango

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

Eh, you can bet he would have if that lineman was doing exactly as Foles was doing - looking at the ball carrier, moving towards him, being next in line to make a tackle.

No, I seriously doubt the chicken would have tried that cheap blindside shot on a lineman.

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

These types of blocks are made every week after interceptions.

Players don’t tend to block when a play goes dead.

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

Foles was guilty of not paying attention and got blindsided, hence how bad it looked. It was a poor play by him both before and after the interception.

Complete nonsense, why don’t you go onto a field and try tracking a ball carrier while looking behind you as you run. I mean seriously wtf.

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

Did Baker know it was the QB (who is no longer a QB once the ball is intercepted by the way) who he was targetting? I'm sure he did. Did he know he didn't have to block him as violently as he did? Probably. Does that make what he did illegal? No, it just makes it unsportsman like at the very worst, but not against any written rule.

Breaking news, a QB isn’t a QB when he hasn’t got the ball. Is that supposed to be some sort of revelation? If you bothered your ass reading what I said – I said there was nothing technically wrong with the block. But I also said it was a deliberate cheap shot as the play went dead, against a blindside player. Therefore a chicken s**t play.

Morrison J wrote: »

Its a tough mans game. If you can't take a block you shouldn't be on the field.

Ya, for men who actually tackle like men. Not some chicken who throws a cheap blindside shot. Nothing 'tough' about that at all.

BKWDR

Players don’t tend to block when a play goes dead.

In fairness the play actually hadn't gone dead. If you are to watch the gif slow mo there must be mili-seconds between the runners knee going down and the hit? At real time that would not have even been noticed. Then if you are playing the whistle (which players would be) then the play is nowhere near dead.

Chewing over fat here though lads.

I think if a QB goes looking to throw himself into a broken INT play he leaves himself open to being blocked / tackled.

There was a game last year where a WR tangled with a Corner or Safety well after the whistle and the helmet came off and was head butted and sure nothing close to what we are cribbing about was muttered.

Realt Dearg Sec

Vandango wrote: »

No, I seriously doubt the chicken would have tried that cheap blindside shot on a lineman.


Players don’t tend to block when a play goes dead.

Complete nonsense, why don’t you go onto a field and try tracking a ball carrier while looking behind you as you run. I mean seriously wtf.


Breaking news, a QB isn’t a QB when he hasn’t got the ball. Is that supposed to be some sort of revelation? If you bothered your ass reading what I said – I said there was nothing technically wrong with the block. But I also said it was a deliberate cheap shot as the play went dead, against a blindside player. Therefore a chicken s**t play.





Ya, for men who actually tackle like men. Not some chicken who throws a cheap blindside shot. Nothing 'tough' about that at all.

And some were saying people were making a fuss. You showed them.

It was clearly a ****ty thing to do, and probably intended to take the opportunity to rough up the qb, but the only rule broken was possibly that the play was dead. If you suspended players every time some b0llocks does something sh1tty, there'd be no NFL by now.

Putin

BKWDR wrote: »

In fairness the play actually hadn't gone dead. If you are to watch the gif slow mo there must be mili-seconds between the runners knee going down and the hit?

Ah will ya give over, he was lining up the cheap shot regardless of him going down or not.

matthew8

Looks like a thuggish cheap shot, but it doesn't seem there are any grounds for a ban so it had to go unpunished.

OAOB

Great photo showing the size difference of King Dunlap and Eddie Royal.

I'd like to see Fr. Ted explain this one to Dougal

Billy86

Reminds me of Valbuena, Kompany and Fellaini from last year if I recall.