My email to Kevin Hench

[Fixit]

In response to this article: Week 5 preview: Is this flag football? - NFL News - FOX Sports on MSN

Kevin, I normally don't classify you with the rest of the national idiots, but your account of the Suggs hit on Brady is ridiculous.

Suggs took three steps and went low on Brady's knee. He wasn't pushed. He didn't stumble. The only reason we're not talking about Brian Hoyer starting for the rest of the season is because Brady was fast enough to move his leg and minimize the contact. If he wasn't, you'd be screaming about Suggs' dirty hit. It's a penalty, and it's been a penalty for years...WAY before the "Brady rule" that no one in the media apparently understands.

Also, your timeline is a little off. The official is reaching for the flag as soon as contact was made. By the time Brady turned around (as ANY QB would have) the flag was already being thrown. Watch the replay, because it's painfully obvious that you haven't.

By the way, Harrison already said that he was joking. He even told Brady about it beforehand, and Brady thought it was funny. See, you learn these things when you actually pay attention to a story that you plan to write about. Just a thought.

But if everyone wants to get back to "real" football, I suppose no one will have a problem with removing the penalties for crackback and cut blocking, for example. Enough babying these defensive guys.

I just can't let this issue go, it seems.

 

[BradyManny]

Yeah, I don't get what people are seeing. Mike Mayock was saying he thought it was a bad call, which surprised me - granted, he might've just been trying to appease his co-host of Playbook, former Ravens coach Brian Billick. It was blatantly obvious that Suggs was diving at his knee - intentional or otherwise - and if it weren't for Brady moving, there probably would've been an injury. As Synovia wisely said in another thread, you have to penalize the action, not the result.

 

[mayoclinic]

Imagine how Peyton (and the media) would have reacted and how Polian would have howled if that had happened against the Dolts ... just wait, the Ravens and Colts play each other later this season.

 

[Wolfpack]

This incident reminds me a bit of the tuck rule. All the constant whining and moaning from the media will do nothing to change the rules or how they are applied because the powers-that-be in the NFL are 100% behind the rules and the reasoning behind them.

 

[olschool]

The NFL rules are damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If it hadn't been flagged, we'd all be screaming about the blind ref's, bending over backwards to not appear biased.

The best teams, with the best players will always be in the spotlight, and will always be hated by someone. They can't all be loveable underdogs.

 

[BSR]

Yeah, I don't get what people are seeing. Mike Mayock was saying he thought it was a bad call, which surprised me - granted, he might've just been trying to appease his co-host of Playbook, former Ravens coach Brian Billick. It was blatantly obvious that Suggs was diving at his knee - intentional or otherwise - and if it weren't for Brady moving, there probably would've been an injury. As Synovia wisely said in another thread, you have to penalize the action, not the result.

I don't know. After a week of arguing this position all week I am starting to see the other side of the coin. I still certainly think Suggs is guilty of a dirty play and was intentionally going for Brady's knees but I am just not sure if there was a penalty there.

We say you penalize the action, not the result and we make the case that Brady is only still standing because he was fast enough, but what if brady was even faster? What if he moved fast enough that he totally avoided contact? Do we still penalize the action? I don't think so. I think the relevant issue here is contact and the rule states that it needs to be forcible. Was it forcible? Probably not and as such I am thinking the penalty should not have been called.

That being said, I still think it was a dirty play and should have been fined because the intent was there to hurt another player. That is where I think the league is messed up on this issue by doing the total oppisite.

As for all the hemming and hawing in the media they are totally missing the boat. At worst this is a bad ticky tacky call on a miss applied rule. At its core the rule is sound and is seeking to prevent forcible contact with a QBs knees which is consistent with rules seeking to protect other players knees.

 

[Jackson 2]

Well-said. I can't let it go, either.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

I don't know. After a week of arguing this position all week I am starting to see the other side of the coin. I still certainly think Suggs is guilty of a dirty play and was intentionally going for Brady's knees but I am just not sure if there was a penalty there.

We say you penalize the action, not the result and we make the case that Brady is only still standing because he was fast enough, but what if brady was even faster? What if he moved fast enough that he totally avoided contact? Do we still penalize the action? I don't think so. I think the relevant issue here is contact and the rule states that it needs to be forcible. Was it forcible? Probably not and as such I am thinking the penalty should not have been called.

That being said, I still think it was a dirty play and should have been fined because the intent was there to hurt another player. That is where I think the league is messed up on this issue by doing the total oppisite.

As for all the hemming and hawing in the media they are totally missing the boat. At worst this is a bad ticky tacky call on a miss applied rule. At its core the rule is sound and is seeking to prevent forcible contact with a QBs knees which is consistent with rules seeking to protect other players knees.

The problem here is where were the media monkeys after week one when we got called for the Wilfork/Thomas penalties? Those two were worse than either Ravens calls.

This is only a problem because it's Brady.

Notice nobody mentiond the Mike Wright penalty. Can anyone guess why?

The danger here is that the league caves and it becomes open season on Brady'd knees.

 

[BradyManny]

We say you penalize the action, not the result and we make the case that Brady is only still standing because he was fast enough, but what if brady was even faster? What if he moved fast enough that he totally avoided contact? Do we still penalize the action? I don't think so. I think the relevant issue here is contact and the rule states that it needs to be forcible.

I disagree - I stand by the notion that you have to penalize the action and not the rule, especially when it comes to a rule designed to protect a player. Suggs dove right at Brady's knees - to me, what happens after that just doesn't matter.

 

[letekro]

In response to this article: Week 5 preview: Is this flag football? - NFL News - FOX Sports on MSN

Kevin, I normally don't classify you with the rest of the national idiots, but your account of the Suggs hit on Brady is ridiculous.

Suggs took three steps and went low on Brady's knee. He wasn't pushed. He didn't stumble. The only reason we're not talking about Brian Hoyer starting for the rest of the season is because Brady was fast enough to move his leg and minimize the contact. If he wasn't, you'd be screaming about Suggs' dirty hit. It's a penalty, and it's been a penalty for years...WAY before the "Brady rule" that no one in the media apparently understands.

Also, your timeline is a little off. The official is reaching for the flag as soon as contact was made. By the time Brady turned around (as ANY QB would have) the flag was already being thrown. Watch the replay, because it's painfully obvious that you haven't.

By the way, Harrison already said that he was joking. He even told Brady about it beforehand, and Brady thought it was funny. See, you learn these things when you actually pay attention to a story that you plan to write about. Just a thought.

But if everyone wants to get back to "real" football, I suppose no one will have a problem with removing the penalties for crackback and cut blocking, for example. Enough babying these defensive guys.

I just can't let this issue go, it seems.

Let us know what he says. I can't imagine this joker gets more than a handful of emails per day.

 

[Deus Irae]

The problem here is where were the media monkeys after week one when we got called for the Wilfork/Thomas penalties? Those two were worse than either Ravens calls.

This is only a problem because it's Brady.

Notice nobody mentiond the Mike Wright penalty. Can anyone guess why?

The danger here is that the league caves and it becomes open season on Brady'd knees.

The Ravens were bleating about the calls, and that's the difference.

 

[denverpatsfan]

imagine how peyton (and the media) would have reacted and how polian would have howled if that had happened against the dolts ... Just wait, the ravens and colts play each other later this season.

exactly!!!

 

[Bill B.]

Go to NFL.com and read some of the message boards. People are really jumping on the "Brady is a sissy" bandwagon over there. As many times as he has been hit in his career and bounced up, and they take this one call and blow it out of proportion. A lot of those "internet warriors" are even quoting Rodney Harrison and saying his own teammate thinks he is a "skirt wearing ****y". Thanks Rodney. Harrison has to realize that words have power on national television and even though he may have been joking, he's added to the anti-Patriots fervor that is going on. The average football viewer is not smart enough to realize that their viewpoint is being manipulated by the media, and that the media hates the Patriots.

 

[PatsWSB47]

The Ravens were bleating about the calls, and that's the difference.

So that's the difference? Seriously, Tom Brady is the lighting rod in this story. It's Brady's perceived preferential treatment that seems to be the theme of every media story out there on it. Everybody is piling on that bandwagon. The Raven's whining contributes to it to a small degree but that's it.

 

[mayoclinic]

So that's the difference? Seriously, Tom Brady is the lighting rod in this story. It's Brady's perceived preferential treatment that seems to be the theme of every media story out there on it. Everybody is piling on that bandwagon. The Raven's whining contributes to it to a small degree but that's it.

Brady adroitley stepped out of the way and pointed to call attention to a near miss that could have ended his career. Manning would have stepped out of the way, fallen to the turf in mock agony clutching his leg, drawing a flagrant foul and a fine/suspension of Suggs, gone off for one play, then come back on the field only to be hailed for his bravery and toughness in the face of possible debilitating injury.

 

[ALP]

the guy is an idiot....

thats all

 

[Deus Irae]

So that's the difference? Seriously, Tom Brady is the lighting rod in this story. It's Brady's perceived preferential treatment that seems to be the theme of every media story out there on it. Everybody is piling on that bandwagon. The Raven's whining contributes to it to a small degree but that's it.

Given that it was Brady who's knee was involved in this incident, what would you expect? If this had been Peyton instead of Tom, people would be talking about how Manning is getting overprotected.

It's all about the bleating of the Ravens. The rest is just typical media piling on.

 

[Nikolai]

If people think Brady is a sissy, fine. That sentiment, like other anti-Patriot sentiments, will rise to become accepted among NFL players. Let them think that at their own peril.

As long as the competition is focusing on whether or not Brady is a sissy, or gets preferential treatment, they're not focusing on the game plan and that can only benefit the Pats.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

How many WRs have you seen calling for a flag when a tiny DB taps them before the ball gets there.

At least with Brady, it is usually some big boys coming after him.

 

[PatsWSB47]

Given that it was Brady who's knee was involved in this incident, what would you expect? If this had been Peyton instead of Tom, people would be talking about how Manning is getting overprotected.

It's all about the bleating of the Ravens. The rest is just typical media piling on.

Manning might be a similar lightning rod but the media piling on is has more to do with the fact that it's Tom Brady than it does with the Raven's bleating as you put it. The media now has another excuse to drag out a non story for the Patriot hating nation. Peyton crticism would likely be confined to Patriots fans and a few conference rivals....Cripes Polian would be proposing a Peyton knee touch suspension clause, lol.