Jerry Jabber Posted October 7, 2008 Author Posted October 7, 2008 As redickuleious as my spelling may be, what's the point of this? Are you saying it his own fault he got hurt because he jumped. Now who's being reedykuloes. Being hit up high like he was by a safety at full speed, the point is moot because his feet were going to leave the ground in either case do to the force of the hit. That's reedicueliss!
bizell Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 As redickuleious as my spelling may be, what's the point of this? Are you saying it his own fault he got hurt because he jumped. Now who's being reedykuloes. Being hit up high like he was by a safety at full speed, the point is moot because his feet were going to leave the ground in either case do to the force of the hit. You'd have to be mentally deficient to not understand that being hit airborne would make you more inclined to rotating faster than being on the ground. As you cannot grasp this concept, I don't think this conversation can continue. Have a good day.
SwampD Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 You'd have to be mentally deficient to not understand that being hit airborne would make you more inclined to rotating faster than being on the ground. As you cannot grasp this concept, I don't think this conversation can continue. Have a good day. Watch this at around 1:40 in, and tell me if I'm wrong. This is how the play should have ended with Trent. Ferrotte was hit at almost the exact same place in his throwing motion, on his back foot. His feet left the ground and he landed on his back. He was stung and left the game for a play. That defender had the same opportunity to wrap him up and drive him into the ground as Wilson, but didn't. That's the only difference in these two plays and why ferrotte came back into the game and Trent didn't. He should be fined. In my best Forrest Gump"That's about all I have to say about that"
bizell Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 yeah, i'd have preferred that edwards were pushed in the upper torso rather than tackled into the ground. but i'd be willing to bet that every buffalo bill is instructed to tackle the QB if they get the opportunity...
apuszczalowski Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 Watch this at around 1:40 in, and tell me if I'm wrong. This is how the play should have ended with Trent. Ferrotte was hit at almost the exact same place in his throwing motion, on his back foot. His feet left the ground and he landed on his back. He was stung and left the game for a play. That defender had the same opportunity to wrap him up and drive him into the ground as Wilson, but didn't. That's the only difference in these two plays and why ferrotte came back into the game and Trent didn't. He should be fined. In my best Forrest Gump"That's about all I have to say about that" Theres a couple of differences in those very similar hits. 1. Frerrottes feet don't leave the ground until he was hit, Edwards "hopped" as he threw the ball and was in the air when he was hit. 2. Edwards was hit from the front, Gus was hit from the side Otherwise they were the exact same hit. They both had there helmets at the same height on the QB, and both held the QB as they finished the tackle and were driven to the ground. The biggest difference is #2. Edwards was hit from the front side so because of their body location, Wilsons helmet is located on Edwards chest as he hits the ground. Frerrotte was hit from his side/behind and because of the defenders location on the hit, his helmet is behind Frerrottes body. Frerrotte is shaken up and comes back in the game because he landed on his side, Trent landed flat on his back causing his head to smack the ground from behind. Theres no difference in how both QB's were tackled besides where the player came and made the hit. Wilson, from the front, and the NO player more from the side. Maybe the league should just rule out hitting a QB completly. *EDIT, sorry, I was watching the hit at about 40 seconds in. Watching the one that you suggested, the difference was, Wilson followed through and finished the tackle, the guy on the Saints came in and pushed the QB down instead of trying to make the tackle. Both QB's were injured as a result of what both defenders did, the difference being that Frerrotte came back, Edwards didn't. So why should the hit on Gus also be considered dirty? He was vulnerable and had thrown the ball, pushing him down was unecessary and dangerous too
SwampD Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 Theres a couple of differences in those very similar hits.1. Frerrottes feet don't leave the ground until he was hit, Edwards "hopped" as he threw the ball and was in the air when he was hit. 2. Edwards was hit from the front, Gus was hit from the side Otherwise they were the exact same hit. They both had there helmets at the same height on the QB, and both held the QB as they finished the tackle and were driven to the ground. The biggest difference is #2. Edwards was hit from the front side so because of their body location, Wilsons helmet is located on Edwards chest as he hits the ground. Frerrotte was hit from his side/behind and because of the defenders location on the hit, his helmet is behind Frerrottes body. Frerrotte is shaken up and comes back in the game because he landed on his side, Trent landed flat on his back causing his head to smack the ground from behind. Theres no difference in how both QB's were tackled besides where the player came and made the hit. Wilson, from the front, and the NO player more from the side. Maybe the league should just rule out hitting a QB completly. I think you need to watch it again. At 1:40. Ferrotte was never wrapped up and driven to the ground
apuszczalowski Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 I think you need to watch it again. At 1:40. Ferrotte was never wrapped up and driven to the ground I edited the post, I was watching the hit at about 40 seconds, which was a much closer hit to what Edwards took
SwampD Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 Just for fun, here's another roughing the passer call that was made on Sunday. It's at around 2:40. I promise I'm done now.
bizell Posted October 7, 2008 Posted October 7, 2008 Just for fun, here's another roughing the passer call that was made on Sunday. It's at around 2:40. I promise I'm done now. horrible, horrible call.
bbills17 Posted October 9, 2008 Posted October 9, 2008 The hit wasn't dirty.This is football.....not the ballot. Some of you need to take the homer glasses off. It has nothing to do with homer glasses, you don't know today's game very well. I don't care for the hit either, but the NFL has fined/suspended people for far worse the past couple seasons, they've made it clear. A rule is a rule, whether we agree with it or not.
2003Contenders Posted October 9, 2008 Posted October 9, 2008 I will have to say that I have come full circle on this one. At the time I was angry because no flag was thrown. However, after watching all the replays it did appear to me that it was not a deliberate helmet-to-helmet hit. So I do not feel that the hit was illegal -- and the officials were right not to throw the flag. My next bone of contention was that, while the hit may not have been illegal, was it justifiable? More pointedly, was Wilson TRYING to hurt Trent? My immediate reaction was Yes he was. It certainly seemed like he could have at least let-up. For one thing that point is debatable. We are talking about a large, fast athlete who was coming at TE at full speed. Also, Wilson's reaction when Trent didn't get up -- motioning to the training staff -- was not the act of someone intent on causing injury. Also, I had to ask myself, how I would have reacted if, say, Poz or Witner had laid a similar lick on the opposing QB. I likely would have applauded their effort -- and, in fact, did so when Mitchell popped Warner's chin open. For me personally, it was a legal, "clean" hit.
Simon Posted October 9, 2008 Posted October 9, 2008 More pointedly, was Wilson TRYING to hurt Trent? Of course he was. Defensive players deal in the currency of pain and intimidation. He wouldn't be doing his job otherwise.
Alphadawg7 Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 OMG I can not believe this thread is still going and is on page 8! Seriously, if this was Kurt Warner being hit exactly the same by Poz no one would be crying for a fine. I swear...I think football is too violent for some of you and you should stick to less contact sports like Olympic Curling. Maybe you should start a petition to have the league run like flag football where the you cant hit the QB and the D line has to count 7 alligators... It was a great hit, legal by all sense of the rules, and the exact hit these players are taught to do since pop warner football. If you have an issue with it you clearly have never played any football any rougher than flag. You act like he got up and stepped on Trent or something...geezus...give it a rest. Find another obnoxious topic that has no relevance or importance at this point to whine about for the next 6 days and let this one die already... FYI: If Trent doesnt get hurt, we still lose because AZ scored on almost every drive and we couldnt stop a pop warner team on 3rd down that day. The way our line blocked he would have probably been hurt eventually in this game any way. And Trent doesnt play on D which was our real achillies heal.
Thurman#1 Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 If I am Mark Kelso I am on the phone to Trents agent and the FO and anyone else who will listen to me to buy some of my goofy looking helmets. The big head bills should lead the NFL to the land of no head injuries. Seriously. We don't want a great QB lost for his career because of a PREVENTABLE problem. BTW watching the replay on NFL highlights it looked fairly clean but I could see him getting a fine just because it is the QB and he did knock him out (not that I think it would be fair). The Kelso helmet is technology from, what 12 years ago? The Riddell Revolution helmet that the guy talked about on the first page is better. It hugely reduces the occurrences of concussion. Forget Kelso and remember the Revolution and the other helmet with the same technological advantages, the Schutt DNA. And as was said on P. 2, you're supposed to keep your head totally away from the helmet. Intent to injure has nothing to do with whether a particular hit is punishable. He absolutely should be fined for the hit on Edwards, and Mitchell should be fined for the hit on Warner. Both were clearly helmet on helmet, and that is the standard that is supposed to be applied. Driving into the ground is a separate issue.
Thurman#1 Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 Right on. Really, the question should be, "SHOULD this hit be illegal?? There's two sides, those who want to protect the QB, and those who want to see men hitting each other with as much force and anger as possible....... you have to pick a side and then argue. If it's Ko burying Warner, we cheer. Those who say otherwise are liars and should go to time out for lying........ No. Mitchell was just as guilty. Whether we like the result of the call or not, the NFL has decided to maximally protect the QB with these two rules. When a rule is in the books, it ought to be enforced, particularly when Goodell just talked about preventing unnecessary and unsportsmanlike hits. All it takes is for helmet to hit helmet, excepting the possibility of sudden violent movement by the QB suddenly putting his helmet into the way. That did not happen on this play. All he had to do was bend over slightly and drive into Edwards' midsection. He deliberately didn't do that because he wanted to go helmet to helmet. It was dirty.
FreakPop Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 No. Mitchell was just as guilty. Whether we like the result of the call or not, the NFL has decided to maximally protect the QB with these two rules. When a rule is in the books, it ought to be enforced, particularly when Goodell just talked about preventing unnecessary and unsportsmanlike hits. All it takes is for helmet to hit helmet, excepting the possibility of sudden violent movement by the QB suddenly putting his helmet into the way. That did not happen on this play. All he had to do was bend over slightly and drive into Edwards' midsection. He deliberately didn't do that because he wanted to go helmet to helmet. It was dirty. OMG, watch the replay! His helmet hit Edwards in the armpit because Trents arm was in it's follow through position from throwing the ball. Then he wrapped and finished the tackle. Nothing more than that. You people have gone mad I tell ya!
Peter Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 I do not have time to read this entire thread, but in case it has not been posted, Wilson has been fined 25K according to PFT and Adam Shefter.
Lori Posted October 10, 2008 Posted October 10, 2008 I do not have time to read this entire thread, but in case it has not been posted, Wilson has been fined 25K according to PFT and Adam Shefter. Wilson fined $25,000 for hit on Bills QB ... The NFL said in an e-mail to ESPN.com that Wilson violated Rule 12, Section 2, Article 12 (2) of the NFL Official Playing Rules, which states "a defensive player must not unnecessarily or violently throw [a player] 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." The NFL pointed out to Wilson in its official letter to him that he had been fined twice in 2007, once for a late hit and again for a horse collar tackle. The league notified Wilson that future infractions could lead to increased disciplinary action.
Recommended Posts