Woodley and Harrison Crying again !

[part-timer]

It is realy sickening listening to their crying about the softening of the NFL. All the rules they now play by have changed in history for the benifit of the players and the game. Would Woodley or Harrison consider playing with out a helmet, or are they softer than the players that did so before them. Without helmets the launching and spearing would not be so destructive. Helmets were instituted as a safety feature NOT a weapon. Players of history would consider it soft to play in a dome, wasn't the sport originaly considered an out door sport to be played in the elements? Maby players now are just soft. What would Harrison or Woodley say if their career was ended by an illegal chop block tearing out their knees? This rule was not always so, and was designed to protect them as well as other defensless defenders. Or maby they are just soft haveing a rule designed to protect a defenseless player on defence. If it OK to launch and lead with the helmet as a weapon, why not launch and lead with the spikes for a weapon. This is crazyness, players learn to abuse the system to their benifit, and when rules are made to close the loopholes the offenders cry about it. Those that cry the loudest are the worst offenders and rely most upon this CHEATING for their game to be effective. Then they will be the first to cry about the terrible effects they suffer in retirement due to concussions from launching and leading with the helmet. Just shut up and play the game you are payed very well to play,and by the rules you must follow determined by the employers you have chosen to work for, after all their ARE other oppertunities for employment.

 

[stinebot]

Those that cry the loudest are the worst offenders and rely most upon this CHEATING for their game to be effective.

If it's not against the rules it isn't cheating. If the rules are changed so be it. But don't call a guy a cheater if he is playing withing the bounds of the current rules at the time the incident takes place, even if you think the rules should be different.

 

[part-timer]

If it's not against the rules it isn't cheating. If the rules are changed so be it. But don't call a guy a cheater if he is playing withing the bounds of the current rules at the time the incident takes place, even if you think the rules should be different.

What game have you been watching? It IS ILLEGAL to launch and lead with the helmet! And IT IS CHEATING! The only difference is the teams can now be fined for the CHEATING of the player on it. Player fines have been handed down to little avail, now they will see how the team handles the fines. The league will find what point they have to go to stop this form of CHEATING and disrespect for other players in the game. Maby Harrison or Woodley need a nother player to cheat and chop block them out of the game with the same disrespect they have for others they injure.

 

[ausbacker]

I don't think they are cheaters more they play with a dirty style. Either way, they aren't both too bright with their comments.

 

[jays52]

Well, they are softening the game. First, leading with the helmet is for the safety of the guy making the tackle, not the other way around. That's how ya break ya neck, homie. "Launching" has been around forever and for a long time was the best part of playing defense. Don't believe me and have laundry clouding your judgement? Type Rodney Harrison into YouTube and press enter.

I'd add defenseless receiver hits to that list as well. There's a reason why people value intimidators on defense. There's a reason "aligaror arms" is a negative term for receivers. A major component of pass defense was to take the heads off of receivers who go for bad balls. Ever hear the term "separate the man from the ball"? You are supposed to try to knock the guy out. If you're separating a receiver from the ball and you're not trying to give the guy a concussion, cave in his sternum, or both you don't have a defensive player's mentality. It sounds brutal but that's the mindset these guys need to have.

Unfortunately, they're trying to completely remove defense. It's football. It's the most collision oriented sport in the world with tremendous pride taken in the most impactful of these. You really want to solve the problem? Remove the helmets and give them hockey shoulder pads. Impacts will go way down in severity and resemble rugby style stuff which is comparatively nothing.

 

[Why?PJ]

Well, they are softening the game. First, leading with the helmet is for the safety of the guy making the tackle, not the other way around. That's how ya break ya neck, homie. "Launching" has been around forever and for a long time was the best part of playing defense. Don't believe me and have laundry clouding your judgement? Type Rodney Harrison into YouTube and press enter.

I'd add defenseless receiver hits to that list as well. There's a reason why people value intimidators on defense. There's a reason "aligaror arms" is a negative term for receivers. A major component of pass defense was to take the heads off of receivers who go for bad balls. Ever hear the term "separate the man from the ball"? You are supposed to try to knock the guy out. If you're separating a receiver from the ball and you're not trying to give the guy a concussion, cave in his sternum, or both you don't have a defensive player's mentality. It sounds brutal but that's the mindset these guys need to have.

Unfortunately, they're trying to completely remove defense. It's football. It's the most collision oriented sport in the world with tremendous pride taken in the most impactful of these. You really want to solve the problem? Remove the helmets and give them hockey shoulder pads. Impacts will go way down in severity and resemble rugby style stuff which is comparatively nothing.

I have no doubt that is what will happen. Much softer helmets with some new safer but softer materials. Same for pads.

Add that to blood testing to get rid of performance enhancing drugs, and they will bring the safety of the game up a few notches.

Btw, hurting an opponent is not, never should have been, and never should be part of the game. You can hit a guy cleanly hard enough with your shoulder pads to knock the ball loose with a much smaller chance of injury. You hit the ball with a pad and the odds are almost zero the receiver will be able to keep control of it.

I actually wouldn't mind a return to the old rules where the defense can interfere with the receivers the entire length of the field rather than just the 5 yards. That would also slow the game down and reduce injuries. Of course it would reduce offense and what the NFL thinks it is most marketable and successful selling point as well.

 

[randomk1]

I actually wouldn't mind a return to the old rules where the defense can interfere with the receivers the entire length of the field rather than just the 5 yards. That would also slow the game down and reduce injuries. Of course it would reduce offense and what the NFL thinks it is most marketable and successful selling point as well.

But Peyton Manning and Polian wouldn't like that..

 

[Julius]

They are correct. How is it fair that a 260 pound tight end can catch a pass and lower his head to run over a 210 pound safety. What is the safety supposed to do? Arm tackle the guy? Try and grab his shins? Sounds like a good way to get hurt and embarrassed.

I understand what the league is trying to do but you can only play this game at one speed and helmet to helmet hits will happen. When the fines start pouring in for offensive players hitting too hard, then I will take the league seriously.

Just look at our 2001 season. Bryan Cox's big hit against the Colt's set the tone for the year. That's football. It's a lovely combination of strategy and brutality.

 

[randomk1]

Just look at our 2001 season. Bryan Cox's big hit against the Colt's set the tone for the year. That's football. It's a lovely combination of strategy and brutality.

I agree. Sometimes a monster hit can be a game changer. Whether by putting the fear of god into opposing receivers or just amping your own guys up. It should be a part of the game.

When you have guys like Harrison,Lynch,Dawkins back there it's definately going to affect how the opposing guys play.

 

[PATSNUTme]

If you can't put your fellow union brothers in the hospital, what's the sense of having the game of football.

 

[part-timer]

If you can't put your fellow union brothers in the hospital, what's the sense of having the game of football.

Well put. Is a nascar race not a good event if there are no crashes.

" How is it fair that a 260 pound tight end can catch a pass and lower his head to run over a 210 pound safety."

First of all maby the 275 lb. 4-3 DE or the 260 3-4 OLB should have covered his assignment and covered the TE. Worst case senario sound fundemental tackleing skills will work as apposed to cheap shots.

Second of all by your reasoning how is it fair for a 330 lb DT to lower his head and run over a 210 lb QB.

"First, leading with the helmet is for the safety of the guy making the tackle, not the other way around."

No defender launching helmet first ever did so not intending to give out punnishment. Where do you get for the protection of the defender? Is that a joke.

"Launching" has been around forever and for a long time was the best part of playing defense."

Launching puts you out of controll, reduces impact force from not maintaining contact with the ground and is NOT sound tackleing technique. It also puts you in a possition for a late hit penalty by not being in possition hold up when the play is over. Leaveing the ground does not give you an exception to hit late. If this is the best part of the game for you, you don't understand the game.

"Type Rodney Harrison into YouTube and press enter."

And Rodney was and always will be remembered as one of the dirtyest players in the game, so what was your point. Bucause he played for our Pats it was OK?

"A major component of pass defense was to take the heads off of receivers who go for bad balls. You are supposed to try to knock the guy out. If you're separating a receiver from the ball and you're not trying to give the guy a concussion, cave in his sternum, or both you don't have a defensive player's mentality."

You realy have a distorted opinion of the game. That is not football. You are watching the wrong sport, switch to unlimited martial arts fighting, where what you are looking for is legal.

"Unfortunately, they're trying to completely remove defense. It's football. It's the most collision oriented sport in the world with tremendous pride taken in the most impactful of these."

Defence as well as offence is played with technique,stratige and game planning. It becomes obvious at some point that with the sadistic nature and lack of understanding of the game these coments come from someone who never played the game. When playing the game you NEVER EVER wished harm to come to anyone whether they were teammates or opponents. You learned to apreciate winning or loseing on the merits of yours and your opponents skills. Try actualy watching and understanding the game, it is more than a sequence of car crashes and concussions.

 

[Rob0729]

I am torn on this issue because, although I think Woodley and Harrison act like babies and a lot of the Steelers' playing style especially Harrison is the reason these rules are even considered, I think the league is overreacting to some of the rules on hitting. I love defense and I think that a lot of these rules will just waterdown defenses across the league.

 

[part-timer]

I am torn on this issue because, although I think Woodley and Harrison act like babies and a lot of the Steelers' playing style especially Harrison is the reason these rules are even considered, I think the league is overreacting to some of the rules on hitting. I love defense and I think that a lot of these rules will just waterdown defenses across the league.

The reason there are so many bonejaring hit on DEFENSLESS receivers is because they are preoccupied looking for the ball. No different than takeing a cheap sucker punch. Makeing this illeagle is exactly like the illeagle chop block rule.(But their were no complaints then) This rule greatly helped the defence. The defender could now pin their ears back and go for the QB without haveing to watch their leg for the chop block while they are engaged. The defenceless receiver rule will help the offensive compleation rate(and save many concussions), in the same way the illegal chop block rule helped the percentages of the defence getting to the QB or influenceing the play( AND SAVED MANY KNEES). When thought threw overall rules have been changed to even the playing field. Offences were helped by the 5 yd. chuck rule. Defences were helped by eliminateing the pushed out of bounds rule. There is no conspiracy against the off. of def. just an attempt to keep the integrity to the game. And saveing many injuries to key starters helps improve the quality of the game.

One more thought, how is the defenseless reciever takeing a blind shot while looking for the ball any different than the defenceless DB watching the reciever and ball and being led into an illegal pick play by a reciever and TE. Again no complaints on the rule helping the defence? Exact same situation but no uproar, or its only OK for the defence to hand out the shots, and NOT OK for them to take the shots.

 

[randomk1]

"Type Rodney Harrison into YouTube and press enter."

And Rodney was and always will be remembered as one of the dirtyest players in the game, so what was your point. Bucause he played for our Pats it was OK?

Hell yeah....you think the Steelers fans have a problem with Harrison and the level of intensity that he brings?

 

[mgcolby]

The reason there are so many bonejaring hit on DEFENSLESS receivers is because they are preoccupied looking for the ball. No different than takeing a cheap sucker punch. Makeing this illeagle is exactly like the illeagle chop block rule.(But their were no complaints then)

No kidding? That is part of the game and always has been. If a receiver goes up for a ball over the middle, then the receiver should fully expect to be drilled. That is what seperated the tough receivers from the *****'s. Ronnie Lott made to the hall dishing out "sucker punches". Its not a sucker punch when the receiver knows or should know it is coming.

And you are comparing apples to oranges with the illegal chop block. When someone chop blocks you are going after the most vulnerable part of their body and until recent times the most likely place for a career ending injury. 2nd chop blocks are illegal outside of the tackles and inside the tackles when the defender is engaged with another player. Go after a guy's knee when he can't defend himself, see it coming or has no reasonable expectation of being taken out at the knee's is dirty! And it shows the hypocrisy of the NFL. For the record I think chop blocking should be removed from the game completely. But Defensive Linemen don't sell tickets so that won't happen.

This rule greatly helped the defence. The defender could now pin their ears back and go for the QB without haveing to watch their leg for the chop block while they are engaged.

This doesn't make any sense to me. If he is engaged then he is no longer pinning his ears back.

The defenceless receiver rule will help the offensive compleation rate(and save many concussions), in the same way the illegal chop block rule helped the percentages of the defence getting to the QB or influenceing the play( AND SAVED MANY KNEES). When thought threw overall rules have been changed to even the playing field. Offences were helped by the 5 yd. chuck rule. Defences were helped by eliminateing the pushed out of bounds rule. There is no conspiracy against the off. of def. just an attempt to keep the integrity to the game. And saveing many injuries to key starters helps improve the quality of the game.

The defensless receiver rule in my opinion will not result in less concussions. Most of the hits for defenseless receivers happened while the receiver was still in the air and most of the contact was to the mid section. I think the rule will have the opposite affect, because now defenders essentially have to wait until the receiver catches the ball and start to come back down to the ground. Often times that receiver, expecting a hit, curls up putting his head right into the same area that his midsection was in a split second previous, which happens to be the most common target zone of the defender.

Lets not pretend for a single moment that the push out of bounds rule was nothing more than the NFL correcting a judgement rule that had become impossible to officiate consistantly. That had nothing to do with the league wanting to help the defense, it was the league helping the refs and it's own reputation. The 5 yard chuck rule was solely implemented to open up the passing game and sell tickets.

One more thought, how is the defenseless reciever takeing a blind shot while looking for the ball any different than the defenceless DB watching the reciever and ball and being led into an illegal pick play by a reciever and TE. Again no complaints on the rule helping the defence? Exact same situation but no uproar, or its only OK for the defence to hand out the shots, and NOT OK for them to take the shots.

Did you just start watching football? You can't possibly compare an illegal pick with a defenseless receiver. The closer comparison would be a crackback block and the elimination of that was BS.

You are all over the place with your thoughts but I will say this; If the league wants to keep the integrity of the game then they wouldn't implement "safety rules" that overwhelmingly favor the offense, and for the most part skill positions, which just so happen to be the positions played by the majority of the NFL's most marketable players. Which is also the side of the ball that draws the average or less knowledgable fan to the TV sets and Stadiums.

Let's call a spade a spade shall we? The safety changes are all about minimizing injuries to the players that sell the tickets. I don't want to see the Brady's and Manning's of the league get hurt either, but injuries are part of football and the safety rules water down the true integrity of the game. Especially on the defensive side of the ball.