dave mcbride Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 In a topic about the hit on Edwards, you chose to interject a hit on Lynch, and cite a link about the AZ safety. The backdoor approach to try to sway the original subject is historical. I merely illuminate your obfuscation effort. The use of the word "technically", before legal, is a tip-off... Carry on. You are correct - I did use "technically" to indicate that I thought it was in fact dirty. Upon watching it again, I still feel that it was dirty. It's par for the course and entirely typical of the NFL, which I gather is your point. But that isn't going to make me think it's "clean." Moreover, how is raising the issue of the past history of Wilson a problem? He's a freaking headhunter, and he's part of a long and storied tradition. And trust me - I'd like to like him because he's a former Bruin. But don't trust me - trust the NFL: "An NFL source said that it'll be reviewed not for a 'helmet to helmet' shot but instead for violating a rule called 'Unnecessary acts against a passer.' According to the rule, "a defensive player must not unnecessarily or violently throw him down and land on top of him with all or most of the defender's weight. Instead, the defensive player must strive to wrap up or cradle the passer with the defensive player's arms." http://www.azcentral.com/sports/cardinals/...spt-wilson.html Also, FWIW, PFT says he's probably going to be fined.
bizell Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 I'll have to check. From what I saw, it looked like he was following through on his pass (which is what he did on the TD to Parrish). 1 sec. lemme get you the link...
Jerry Jabber Posted October 6, 2008 Author Posted October 6, 2008 1 sec. lemme get you the link... thanks!
bizell Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 Moreover, how is raising the issue of the past history of Wilson a problem? He's a freaking headhunter, and he's part of a long and storied tradition. And trust me - I'd like to like him because he's a former Bruin. NC State Bruins? :confused:
dave mcbride Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 Adrian Wilson went to NC State. You are correct. Brainlock on my part. Sorry.
bizell Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 thanks! Should be under the link Wk 5: Trent Edwards injury, if it doesn't pop up automatically. http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80b65e35
stuckincincy Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 (edited) You are correct - I did use "technically" to indicate that I thought it was in fact dirty. Upon watching it again, I still feel that it was dirty. It's par for the course and entirely typical of the NFL, which I gather is your point. But that isn't going to make me think it's "clean." Moreover, how is raising the issue of the past history of Wilson a problem? He's a freaking headhunter, and he's part of a long and storied tradition. And trust me - I'd like to like him because he's a former Bruin. But don't trust me - trust the NFL: "An NFL source said that it'll be reviewed not for a 'helmet to helmet' shot but instead for violating a rule called 'Unnecessary acts against a passer.' According to the rule, "a defensive player must not unnecessarily or violently throw him down and land on top of him with all or most of the defender's weight. Instead, the defensive player must strive to wrap up or cradle the passer with the defensive player's arms." http://www.azcentral.com/sports/cardinals/...spt-wilson.html Also, FWIW, PFT says he's probably going to be fined. Were I a HC and really thought one of my players got dog-shi*ted by a member of the opposition, I wouldn't look to third parties for after-game succor - I'd run my horses over that guy then and there, strategy be dam*ed, until the message sinks into him and his management and cleans up the slate. If they don't get the message, war breaks out. Edited October 6, 2008 by stuckincincy
BuffaloBill Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 Hard hit that was clean. It is not the defense's job to avoid hitting him. It is Buffalo's job to protect him. Not training camp where Edwards gets to wear a "do not touch me" red jersey. This is clean especially if wolfork's hit on JP last year was not deemed to be "dirty." (I know he got fined but it was peanuts given he intentionally threw the elbow to the knee).
dave mcbride Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 Were I a HC and really thought one of my players got dog-shi*ted by a member of the opposition, I wouldn't look to third parties for after-game succor - I'd run my horses over that guy then and there, strategy be dam*ed, until the message sinks into him and his management and cleans up the slate. If they don't get the message, war breaks out. Hey - I agree with you here. I thought the Lynch thing was waaaay above and beyond, and deserved a response from the Bills offensive players.
Wilson from Gamehendge Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 After seeing more replays and hearing that the NFL is looking into the hit, I am starting to second guess the thought that it was clean. He does seem to lead with his head, and continues to drive his head into Trent's, and into the ground. Idk...it could go either way.
BuffaloBlood Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 Isnt the bigger issue when it comes to the hit the fact that Wilson led with his head down using it as a spear? Thats what made me question the hit. I'm all for letting QBs get hit since this isnt a pansy game. But the rules latly have fined and suspended players for much less against star qbs. I guess what constitutes an illegal hit depends on how valuable that player is to the league. I say he gets fined just because they dont want to send the message to the rest of the league that hits like this where u lead with ur head and drive the qb to the ground are ok.
Jerry Jabber Posted October 6, 2008 Author Posted October 6, 2008 Should be under the link Wk 5: Trent Edwards injury, if it doesn't pop up automatically. http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80b65e35 I really wouldn't call that a jump, it looked like he was using his hips with his throw.
dave mcbride Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 Isnt the bigger issue when it comes to the hit the fact that Wilson led with his head down using it as a spear? Thats what made me question the hit. I'm all for letting QBs get hit since this isnt a pansy game. But the rules latly have fined and suspended players for much less against star qbs. I guess what constitutes an illegal hit depends on how valuable that player is to the league. I say he gets fined just because they dont want to send the message to the rest of the league that hits like this where u lead with ur head and drive the qb to the ground are ok. The problem is, if you don't have good QBs playing, a game can get boring real fast. The Gary Marangi-led Bills and -- God love him -- AVP-led Bills were not fun to watch.
Tcali Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 The problem is, if you don't have good QBs playing, a game can get boring real fast. The Gary Marangi-led Bills and -- God love him -- AVP-led Bills were not fun to watch. Don't go blasting AVP. I heard that someone injected helium into the footballs he used.
Beerball Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 I would like to add that I have 100% confidence that had that hit been laid on Favre or brady* a flag would have been thrown.
thebug Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 I would like to add that I have 100% confidence that had that hit been laid on Favre or brady* a flag would have been thrown. Now that's a very good point.
Simon Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 Do some of you guys even remember why the "leading with the helmet" rule was enacted? It was a technique that Rod Woodson had honed to perfection and which other guys were starting to copy and just wrecking QB's all over the league. Adrian Wilson's mammoth shot yesterday bore absolutely ZERO resemblance to the technique that the league rightfully banned. Hell, Kawika's payback on Warner (and let's not even pretend that was anything resembling "accidental" ) was waaaayyy closer to a violation of that rule than Wilson's devastating tackle was. If you stretched another rule to its conceivable limits, I suppose it's possible they could have called Wilson for spiking him on the tackle. But penalizing a DB for finishing his tackle on a guy who might even be bigger than him would have just been embarrassing for everybody.
thebug Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 Do some of you guys even remember why the "leading with the helmet" rule was enacted? It was a technique that Rod Woodson had honed to perfection and which other guys were starting to copy and just wrecking QB's all over the league.Adrian Wilson's mammoth shot yesterday bore absolutely ZERO resemblance to the technique that the league rightfully banned. Hell, Kawika's payback on Warner (and let's not even pretend that was anything resembling "accidental" ) was waaaayyy closer to a violation of that rule than Wilson's devastating tackle was. If you stretched another rule to its conceivable limits, I suppose it's possible they could have called Wilson for spiking him on the tackle. But penalizing a DB for finishing his tackle on a guy who might even be bigger than him would have just been embarrassing for everybody. I don't think some of us are talking about "leading with the helmet" we are talking about driving the player into the ground. I have seen that called a few times this season on what looked like far less of a penalty. When I watch the replay I see a player using his helmet and the full force of his body to drive the QB into the turf.
Recommended Posts