Mark Schlereth...

[Wilson from Gamehendge]

I have NEVER EVER liked this guy...but I have a new found respect for him, after seeing this video.

 

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5706315

 

 

I whole-heartedly agree with him...both on the stance of the hits and on the stance of taking care of former players.

 

THE NFL NEEDS TO REVISIT SOME THINGS AND GET IT RIGHT!

Edited October 22, 2010 by Wilson from Gamehendge

[basskik11]

Are you kidding me? I understand where Schlereth is coming from, but I don't care who you are-there is a differece between playing tough and playing dirty. We sell DVD'S on tough hits, but they are clean. Schlereth is a cry baby. I used to like him a lot, but no way do I give a !@#$ what he has to say. He's the new Sean 'Berry.

[Wilson from Gamehendge]

Are you kidding me? I understand where Schlereth is coming from, but I don't care who you are-there is a differece between playing tough and playing dirty. We sell DVD'S on tough hits, but they are clean. Schlereth is a cry baby. I used to like him a lot, but no way do I give a !@#$ what he has to say. He's the new Sean 'Berry.

Yeah and if you listened to ANYTHING he said...he clearly stated that "tough hits" and playing "tough" are a part of the game and what these guys pride themselves on. Dirty, cheap shots have no place in the NFL, or the game of football. Both Schlereth and myself agreed on exactly what you just said.

Edited October 22, 2010 by Wilson from Gamehendge

[BuffaloWings]

I think we have to be careful about this - there are two sides of the fence on this issue and everyone seems to be hurdling it. There is an apparent fine line between tough hits and illegal (I won't call them dirty) hits.

 

Schlereth is a bit hypocritical here. He can't have his cake and eat it, too.

 

Tough hits are the ones that the NFL is selling and marketing with that video. They're physical & violent, but legal. That's the part of the game that Americans love to watch and ones the NFL should sell. Illegal hits are the ones we saw with Harrison & Merriweather last weekend. Those are ones that are designed to injure an opponent and should be penalized on the field and via fine/suspension. They can not only injure another player, but significantly affect that player's health (short term and long term)...forget about how it affects that player's team.

 

I understand Schlereth's point about fining a player for something that the NFL is trying to sell, but the Harrison hits are NOT what the NFL is trying to sell. They want to market the violent, exciting hits that aren't intended to injure someone. Harrison admitted that he was trying to injure someone...that's not what the NFL is about.

[Thud]

Correction. Harrison said hurt not injure and was very specific on what the difference was. Dont try to paint it the wrong way. Go back and watch it and you will see.

Edited October 22, 2010 by Thud

[Red]

I think we have to be careful about this - there are two sides of the fence on this issue and everyone seems to be hurdling it. There is an apparent fine line between tough hits and illegal (I won't call them dirty) hits.

 

Schlereth is a bit hypocritical here. He can't have his cake and eat it, too.

 

Tough hits are the ones that the NFL is selling and marketing with that video. They're physical & violent, but legal. That's the part of the game that Americans love to watch and ones the NFL should sell. Illegal hits are the ones we saw with Harrison & Merriweather last weekend. Those are ones that are designed to injure an opponent and should be penalized on the field and via fine/suspension. They can not only injure another player, but significantly affect that player's health (short term and long term)...forget about how it affects that player's team.

 

I understand Schlereth's point about fining a player for something that the NFL is trying to sell, but the Harrison hits are NOT what the NFL is trying to sell. They want to market the violent, exciting hits that aren't intended to injure someone. Harrison admitted that he was trying to injure someone...that's not what the NFL is about.

 

But you may be missing the point.

 

I agree- malicious hits with intent to injure need to be completely removed from the game. They have always been penalized, but suspending players who deliberately seek to injure their opponent should suffer greater.

 

My question is: who is going to make this decision? What looks nasty to one, may not look that way to another. Are you telling me, that you have reverence for the decisions of officials now? That a group who seemingly can't get pass interference or holding calls right, now are going to be able to distinguish a hard, clean hit versus an intent to injure? Are we going to see emotional, hard-fought, Championship Game battles now being decided by too much violence penalties ala the tuck rule?

 

The way the NFL currently protects their money maker- the QB's- has already gone too far. The NFL should just come out and give QB's a red jersey, tell the defense you cannot even touch them, and move one. Atleast it would be honest. The NFL can't have it both ways. I have always held that Schlereth is a grade A Douche. But I actually respect him after seeing this.

 

The other side of the coin is the poor technique that the pro's currently demonstrate. I always hated Deion Sanders, but I can recall when he was w/the 49ers him making a statement to the effect that he is not paid to tackle, he's paid to make INT's. In other words, "prime time" is more interested in making highlight reel plays to further his own agenda, than that of the team. IMO, 20 INT's per game would not give this guy playing time if he would be a liability in run defense.

 

And I think this where most modern players are- particularly defensive backs. It's not about football fundamentals of hitting AND wrapping up, it's about highlight reel hits to separate the ball from the ball-carrier. This causes unnecessary and dangerous risks to the safety of the players, but also fosters a terrible attitude of seeking to injure the other player and leads to several missed tackles on the field.

 

Though I think the NFL needs to be very careful on this issue and seldom use this rule, players need to go back to fundamentals, learn how to tackle again and let the highlight reel take care of itself.

[Sisyphean Bills]

It's hard to take a man that peed his pants before each game too seriously.

[Thurman#1]

Schlereth doesn't get it. As most of them do, they're lumping together very violent and excessively violent.

 

And while violence is the basis of the sport, excessive violence could easily be eliminated without destroying the game.

 

The world is changing, and the NFL has the choice of changing or being left behind. Unless they do this, they are going to start to be sued by guys who suffered egregious, unnecessarily violent hits, and because the NFL had done nothing (till now) to prevent it, the NFL would have lost those lawsuits.

 

Yeah and if you listened to ANYTHING he said...he clearly stated that "tough hits" and playing "tough" are a part of the game and what these guys pride themselves on. Dirty, cheap shots have no place in the NFL, or the game of football. Both Schlereth and myself agreed on exactly what you just said.

 

 

 

I don't believe you did, because if you did, there'd be no argument. If "dirty" means against the rules, then all three of those controversial plays were dirty. Because they broke the rule about protecting defenseless players.

 

The NFL is just trying to eliminate stuff they long ago decided was illegal. The people who are all heated up about it, and that includes Schlereth and you, are missing that the rules already contained language that made those hits illegal, and thus dirty.

 

But you may be missing the point.

 

I agree- malicious hits with intent to injure need to be completely removed from the game. They have always been penalized, but suspending players who deliberately seek to injure their opponent should suffer greater.

 

My question is: who is going to make this decision? What looks nasty to one, may not look that way to another. Are you telling me, that you have reverence for the decisions of officials now? That a group who seemingly can't get pass interference or holding calls right, now are going to be able to distinguish a hard, clean hit versus an intent to injure? Are we going to see emotional, hard-fought, Championship Game battles now being decided by too much violence penalties ala the tuck rule?

 

 

 

Of course there are opportunities for problems. Of course officials may make mistakes in enforcing this rule. Name one rule change anywhere in NFL history where that's not true. You can't pass only rules which have no potential for mistakes in enforcement. If you do that, you'd never pass another rule of any kind.

[Kevin]

I don't understand what the big deal is. You take the three instances that have been highlighted from the past week. Out of the three the only "illegal" hit was the one that Merriweather put on Heap. To me it is obvious.

 

Look, on this topic, hindsight IS 20-20. The NFL has the technology, and the ability to look at the film a couple of days later, and say either yes, this was indeed a malicious hit, or no it wasn't malicious and make their decision on punishment after that.

 

To me it is simple.

[Rob's House]

Schlereth in general is just too much of a pansy to be an anouncer. Not necessarily just for this but his general dispostion is a little too gay for me. His sensitive vagi-man schtick is better suited for the view.

[starrymessenger]

The same Mark Schlereth who used to piss himself during games and thought he was putting one over on the fans who would never guess what he was up to? What an a$$.

[Captain Hindsight]

My question is: who is going to make this decision? What looks nasty to one, may not look that way to another. Are you telling me, that you have reverence for the decisions of officials now? That a group who seemingly can't get pass interference or holding calls right, now are going to be able to distinguish a hard, clean hit versus an intent to injure? Are we going to see emotional, hard-fought, Championship Game battles now being decided by too much violence penalties ala the tuck rule?

 

That is an exceelent point and something i hadnt thought of. It is a scary propostion because it could affect the entire NFL from the draft, to the playoff matchups to coaches and players jobs

 

 

Scary

[mary owen]

I have NEVER EVER liked this guy...but I have a new found respect for him, after seeing this video.

 

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5706315

 

 

I whole-heartedly agree with him...both on the stance of the hits and on the stance of taking care of former players.

 

THE NFL NEEDS TO REVISIT SOME THINGS AND GET IT RIGHT!

 

You beat me to it, because I was going to say the exact same thing. He is spot on and i applaud him calling out the hypocrisy of the NFL moneymakers. They can't have it both ways. James Harrison nails people and gets DPOY award. The NFL promotes all this, we eat it up b/c face it, we love seeing intense hits. They feed this style into the players when they are in HS and they look for that killer instinct in college. They draft, make stars of these guys, and they reward them. He lays out 2 Browns in one game, they sold pics of the hits on their website. Then they turn around and steal money from the guy??? They made their bucks on both sides.

I'm glad Schlereth spoke up. He is not sitting there trying to ride the fence and please fans and the NFL (or NHL as he puts it). He blasted the league that pays his checks pretty much. He's right in everything he said.

 

Lets not also forget "Jacked Up!" Remember that? Yeah, we loved it...I did, I know that....and so did the NFL bean counters.

 

Imagine this in Hank Williams Jr's voice: "Are you ready for some Flag Footbaaaaalllllll???"

[billsfan89]

Schlereth is a TFAG (Typical Football Analyst Guy) all he does is spout the same old lines about football players playing the game the right way rather then go into actual analysis about the game. The guy once went into a monoluge about Tim Tebow being a football player without making an actual point (His point was that Tebow had a lot of game experience as oppose to just being a guy with freakish gifts put on a field making an impact with physical abilities in a short period of time rather then being a guy who honed his craft through playtime on the field).

 

Schlereth is a guy who once called Brett Favre a river boat gambler. The guy has and always will suck at being an analyst.

[mary owen]

Schlereth doesn't get it. As most of them do, they're lumping together very violent and excessively violent.

 

And while violence is the basis of the sport, excessive violence could easily be eliminated without destroying the game.

 

The world is changing, and the NFL has the choice of changing or being left behind. Unless they do this, they are going to start to be sued by guys who suffered egregious, unnecessarily violent hits, and because the NFL had done nothing (till now) to prevent it, the NFL would have lost those lawsuits.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't believe you did, because if you did, there'd be no argument. If "dirty" means against the rules, then all three of those controversial plays were dirty. Because they broke the rule about protecting defenseless players.

 

The NFL is just trying to eliminate stuff they long ago decided was illegal. The people who are all heated up about it, and that includes Schlereth and you, are missing that the rules already contained language that made those hits illegal, and thus dirty.

 

 

 

 

 

Of course there are opportunities for problems. Of course officials may make mistakes in enforcing this rule. Name one rule change anywhere in NFL history where that's not true. You can't pass only rules which have no potential for mistakes in enforcement. If you do that, you'd never pass another rule of any kind.

 

watch the hit against Massaquoi over and over again. The announcer says he was "defenseless....looking for the football". B/S....this guy cathces the ball (it's in his hnads anyway) and Harison is trying to time the hit to "seperate" the player from the ball. Look at where the WR's body is when the ball touches his hands.....look at where Harrison is and the position he is taking at that time (preparing to launch).....the WR turns towards him and begins LOWERING his body. Harrison is alread in launch mode! This is not defenseless. And if it is than tough sh*t. Harrison is supposed to recognize this and ease up until the WR can turn around, see him, prepare for the hit? If this is the course of action they expect the defenders to take, than guess what....that WR gets a completion and tackled. Big difference.

 

You gotta look at the plays agsin...the speed of the game does not make it possible to adjust the long taught hitting techniques employed by NFL players.

Edited October 23, 2010 by Arrogant Bastard

[mary owen]

an artical along the same lines by Jason Whitlock

 

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/james-harrison-is-face-of-problem-but-hes-just-doing-his-job-jason-whitlock-102210

[Sabre Bill]

Schlereth in general is just too much of a pansy to be an anouncer. Not necessarily just for this but his general dispostion is a little too gay for me. His sensitive vagi-man schtick is better suited for the view.

 

 

:thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:

 

 

Hey, ITG, You are WRONG about your point and how you make it!

[NoSaint]

I enjoyed that when asked if he had reviewed the rule in a radio interview... He said no.

 

For a week these guys have been spouting off and I bet 2/3 don't even know what they are complaining about. Then that misinformation spreads through the fan conversation. It's embarassing journalism and stink is leading this charge.

[Chandemonium]

Correction. Harrison said hurt not injure and was very specific on what the difference was. Dont try to paint it the wrong way. Go back and watch it and you will see.

He also made it obvious that he doesn't consider concussions injuries.

[Red]

Schlereth doesn't get it. As most of them do, they're lumping together very violent and excessively violent.

 

And while violence is the basis of the sport, excessive violence could easily be eliminated without destroying the game.

 

The world is changing, and the NFL has the choice of changing or being left behind. Unless they do this, they are going to start to be sued by guys who suffered egregious, unnecessarily violent hits, and because the NFL had done nothing (till now) to prevent it, the NFL would have lost those lawsuits.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't believe you did, because if you did, there'd be no argument. If "dirty" means against the rules, then all three of those controversial plays were dirty. Because they broke the rule about protecting defenseless players.

 

The NFL is just trying to eliminate stuff they long ago decided was illegal. The people who are all heated up about it, and that includes Schlereth and you, are missing that the rules already contained language that made those hits illegal, and thus dirty.

 

 

 

 

 

Of course there are opportunities for problems. Of course officials may make mistakes in enforcing this rule. Name one rule change anywhere in NFL history where that's not true. You can't pass only rules which have no potential for mistakes in enforcement. If you do that, you'd never pass another rule of any kind.

 

 

In regards to your response: the integrity of the NFL game is at stake here. Schlereth makes an excellent point: the NFL sells the vicious nature of hits, every week, I catch a game where CBS in particular slows down the play, jams the audio and "sells" the sound of the collision between players. But then the NFL wants to make sure it doesn't get too violent.

 

That's a difficult distinction. On the one hand, the NFL promotes the violence of the game, but now they want to say only controlled violence is acceptable? Huh?

 

My point is that if the NFL wants to come out, and say that ridiculously obvious plays where it is clear that the intent is to injure the opposing player, then those players will face stiff fines and possible suspension, I think is fine in and of itself. Letting it be known that malicious behavior will not be tolerated and that there will be consequences is understandable.

 

But if the NFL is going to create more rules, then expect an official- who can't get holding calls and pass interference calls right on a consistent basis- to see split second collisions and be able to determine if they were legal or malicious?

 

Who is going to make the call?

 

If it will be the onfield officials in the game environment, then I will say that this may be one of the most abused penalties and is threatening to make the officials too powerful a force in the game (again, taking the playoff scenario, when emotions are already high, now players are going to be called for being viewed by some "over-officious jerk" (Marv-ism)as too violent? What price will that have if an impact player, is ejected from the game?).

 

If it will be a review made by the league office after the game is over, then I would have less of a problem with it. Providing the league then also take the corrective step and direct players and coaches to return to the proper technique of tackling, and stop selling the violent aspect of the game.