Captain Hindsight Posted October 19, 2010 Posted October 19, 2010 Anyone who has ever played football will agree with Harrison. A big hit gets your whole team going, it makes you look tough and it makes your opponent think twice before going up for that pass. I never looked to injure someone but to get that big hit and "hurt" someone, a football player is lying if he said hes never tried for a big hit
DreReed83 Posted October 19, 2010 Posted October 19, 2010 If I'm understanding Harrison correctly, then I have no problem with what he said. There IS a difference between trying to injure someone badly (illegal cut blocking, diving at ankles, being named "Vince Wilfork") and trying to hit someone so that they can't/don't want to get back up. There is nothing wrong a with a good clean hit that makes a guy writhe on the turf and miss a few series or the rest of the game. That's football. That being said, I don't think helmet-to-helmet collisions of any sort should be tolerated in the NFL. Some pundit I heard this morning summed it up well by saying that a helmet is there for protection; it's not a weapon. Unfortunately, it's construction makes for a great weapon and too many players are using it as such. So while I agree with Harrison's sentiment (and think people demonizing him are wrong), I think the kind of hits he levied this week should be illegal. If they ARE banned and he still thinks they are okay, then that is a different problem. If the retard knows the difference between hurting and injuring, then he shouldn't be inflicting helmet to helmet hits on 2 people in the same game. The guy's trying to cover his own azz.
Stealth Posted October 19, 2010 Posted October 19, 2010 (edited) Anyone who has ever played football will agree with Harrison. A big hit gets your whole team going, it makes you look tough and it makes your opponent think twice before going up for that pass. I never looked to injure someone but to get that big hit and "hurt" someone, a football player is lying if he said hes never tried for a big hit Simple and to the point. Anyone who's ever played a down of organized football at any level, one of the first things you learn is never to hold up on a hit, and to drive and always follow through. When you hold up on hits, out of fear you might injure the other person or yourself odds are you are going to get injured. No one intentionally goes out there to try to cripple an opposing player, but make no mistake about it, the very idea is to hit the other team as hard as you can, whether on offense/defense/or special teams. Anyone who says otherwise has obviously never played football. If people didn't want to see people get hit, Baseball would still be America's #1 sport. You can't take the physicality out of a collision sport, when the majority of people who play are taught to hit this way from the time they're 7-8 years old. Accidents happen, but it's so few and far between it's almost negligible. Go Hard or Go Home. If the retard knows the difference between hurting and injuring, then he shouldn't be inflicting helmet to helmet hits on 2 people in the same game. The guy's trying to cover his own azz. The Hit on Josh Cribbs, was not inflicted with malace it was in the action of a tackle. That kind of play happens just about every down. If that's the type of hit that's gonna cause suspensions you'll start seeing key players suspended weekly, and ratings quickly drop. The hit on Massoquoi well that was a bit over the top, as there was simply no reason to launch himself. The problem for the NFL becomes where do you draw the line now at "devestating hits". It's a slippery slope, one that take the sole purpose of football out of the game. It's another horrible rule to pussify the game yet again. One step away from putting red jerseys on qb's and flags in the back pockets of skill players. Edited October 19, 2010 by Stealth
dave mcbride Posted October 19, 2010 Posted October 19, 2010 (edited) The NFL has a *huge* problem on its hands -- bigger than many seem to realize. I now know pretty much *zero* parents anymore who will allow their children to play football because of the concussion issue. The publicity surrounding the after effects of concussions has just begun - the narrative has been set, and you'll be seeing a lot more of it in years to come. If you think that parents are holding back their kids now, just wait. (The Rutgers paralysis story is rightly getting a lot of play too.) I suspect that in ten years time, there will be very, very few kids from the middle class who are playing even college ball (much less in the NFL). The league has to do something to curb the excessive violence, although I realize that you can't eliminate it. I mean, James Harrison is a flat out thug - he's been doing this sort of thing for years. Yet he's rewarded for it. Most people I know may probably wouldn't have thought much of the hits this weekend a number of years ago, but now I know some that are turning off the set. Has it resulted in declining ratings yet? No -- I'm talking about a small sample set. But over time, the sport's popularity may well decline (I'm talking long term, of course). Moreover, tolerating that sort of crap is not only bad for business, it's ethically wrong. Edited October 19, 2010 by dave mcbride
Big Turk Posted October 19, 2010 Posted October 19, 2010 Interesting choice of words after this weekend. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/14149970/harrison-after-head-hits-i-dont-care-if-i-hurt-players He tries to rationalize it with: "I don't want to injure anybody," Harrison said following Pittsburgh's 28-10 victory. "There's a big difference between being hurt and being injured. You get hurt, you shake it off and come back the next series or the next game. I try to hurt people." How do we get 22 of these type of players to come play for us? Bet we would be better than 0-5 with them...
Recommended Posts