"Hit him when he has the ball, hit him when he doesn't have the ball"

[Kontradiction]

LOL......you don't think that happens?

if you put an injured player out there, further injury is YOUR responsibility, not the opponents. I made no mention of illegal hits and there are many ways to do both without breaking any rules.....what you suggest would land every QB on the injury report as a sign to not hit them......in case you haven't noticed, this is football. if your QB is fragile, its your problem.

I'm sure it happens all the time. I'm also sure that there are more instances where further injury to a specific area of the body simply couldn't have been avoided instead of being targetted. And no, you didn't make mention of anything illegal in your OP (though your subsequent responses and defensive nature leaves little doubt that's where you were going). You did, however, make mention of targetting specific areas of injury, which is a scumbag move no matter which way you cut it.

 

[IllegalContact]

I'm sure it happens all the time. I'm also sure that there are more instances where further injury to a specific area of the body simply couldn't have been avoided instead of being targetted. And no, you didn't make mention of anything illegal in your OP (though your subsequent responses and defensive nature leaves little doubt that's where you were going). You did, however, make mention of targetting specific areas of injury, which is a scumbag move no matter which way you cut it.

it seemed the announcers had no problem with the jets 'testing gronk's arm'

so, in order to satisfy your world of semantics, we can call it 'testing manning's ankle' or 'testing welker's head'

it's football........winning is rule 1.

I guess BB is simply psychotic for manipulating the injury report the way he does. either that, or the rest of the league is scum, and we are likely better off joining them

 

[Kontradiction]

it seemed the announcers had no problem with the jets 'testing gronk's arm'

How do you know they were specifically targetting Gronk's arm?

so, in order to satisfy your world of semantics, we can call it 'testing manning's ankle' or 'testing welker's head'

It's not semantics. I called it like it was. Again...

hit welker in the head, hit manning in the ankles

That's called targetting. So when I accuse you of advocating the targetting of other players, that's not semantics.

it's football........winning is rule 1.

Unless you're winning by targetting specific injuries of other players. Then it becomes a scandal.

I guess BB is simply psychotic for manipulating the injury report the way he does. either that, or the rest of the league is scum, and we are likely better off joining them

Put a little more detail into this statement. Belichick lists the areas on the players that are injured because the NFL requires him to do so.

 

[Franchise12]

As far as I know, they dont throw flags for testing a players injury if its not a forbidden target area. It might not be ethical amongst some players but that's about it. If hitting welker rattles his brain, that's his damn fault. I wouldn't blow him in the head but as a tackler if I have the immediate decision to make a traditional wrap up tackle or scooping him by the legs and increasing the chances of his head whiplashing into the turf, I choose the latter. I'm pretty sure if dennard plays with that bum knee manning will call a screen or stretch run to his side of the field so the calvary of offensive lineman can see how fit he is too be in a physical contest. when charles johnson came back last week with that knee injury, if we legally cut block him, that would have been within the framework of the rules. This is football d%#*!@t.

 

[Kontradiction]

As far as I know, they dont throw flags for testing a players injury if its not a forbidden target area. It might not be ethical amongst some players but that's about it. If hitting welker rattles his brain, that's his damn fault. I wouldn't blow him in the head but as a tackler if I have the immediate decision to make a traditional wrap up tackle or scooping him by the legs and increasing the chances of his head whiplashing into the turf, I choose the latter. I'm pretty sure if dennard plays with that bum knee manning will call a screen or stretch run to his side of the field so the calvary of offensive lineman can see how fit he is too be in a physical contest. when charles johnson came back last week with that knee injury, if we legally cut block him, that would have been within the framework of the rules. This is football d%#*!@t.

What you're talking about in the bolded area isn't targetting. I said before that if it couldn't be helped, that's fine. But specifically going after the head of Welker, which is what IC said in his OP, is targetting the injured area specifically. Again, a scumbag move. If it happens in the heat of play or if that's the only area that can be hit to avoid a big play/TD, then yeah that's football.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

That's not what you were advocating, though. You were talking about specifically targetting those areas on both players. Those areas just so happen to be areas where both are nursing injuries. That's a scumbag move.

You do realize the irony of arguing (about body hits) with a poster who's screen name is called IllegalContact?

for the record, I wholeheartedly agree with your position.

 

[BradyManny]

I said this yesterday.
I don't think though that it's about beating him up but about disrupting the timing of the offense.
I would flex the lb on welkers side out to jam him. Not to cover him but to jam him and hold him up at the line then go to whatever coverage assignment he has.

This is an excellent idea.

 

[Kontradiction]

You do realize the irony of arguing (about body hits) with a poster who's screen name is called IllegalContact?

for the record, I wholeheartedly agree with your position.

No, I didn't. But thanks for point it out.

 

[Huckleberry1]

hit welker in the head, hit manning in the ankles

Pathetic................Doesn't matter who you root for, in your case the Jets, any fan who suggests this kind of approach is a dirtball, not a sports fan.

 

[Huckleberry1]

oh jeezus, get a grip

there's nothing questionable about focusing on a weakness if it doesn't break the rules. its a tough sport, if someone loses mobility, you go after it

Calling for head shots is disgusting, and it does break the rules. Don't try to pretend you are just saying they should play them tough, you want them to take cheap shots and play filthy. Really disgusting.

 

[everlong]

Manning was asked about what Welker brought to the team and part of the answer was that he played in a very complicated system in New England and learned a lot from Tom and shared that with them. I have to think that included the defense and wonder if that will help the Broncos out on keys and situations. Players go to other teams all the time but this is a core guy who really gets it.

 

[Huckleberry1]

As far as the OP goes I agree, hit them as much as you can and disrupt Manning's timing as much as possible. I wouldn't even worry about the run and approach it the way the Giants approached the Bills in the Super Bowl, the more they run it the better. I would stack the line with pass rushers with C. Jones and C. Jones inside and Carter and Ninkovich outside as much as possible to get after Manning as fast and as much as possible.

 

[Tunescribe]

The PittPatriot (and family) do not like this plan. We love Wes and would rather have him sit out then get further brain damage, you know?

You need to get your kids new jerseys. At least remove the nameplates.

 

[IllegalContact]

As far as the OP goes I agree, hit them as much as you can and disrupt Manning's timing as much as possible. I wouldn't even worry about the run and approach it the way the Giants approached the Bills in the Super Bowl, the more they run it the better. I would stack the line with pass rushers with C. Jones and C. Jones inside and Carter and Ninkovich outside as much as possible to get after Manning as fast and as much as possible.

this notion of a defensive gameplan is pretty dumb

the more they run it the better? if you let them run it, they will run it

you think they ran the ball 36 times against the chiefs for laughs?

 

[Huckleberry1]

this notion of a defensive gameplan is pretty dumb

the more they run it the better? if you let them run it, they will run it

you think they ran the ball 36 times against the chiefs for laughs?

I'm really sick of your trolling and after your "hit him in the head" posts I'm done with you. Hopefully the moderators get sick of your act soon and ban you for good. Off to ignore you go.

If someone who gives a crap about this team is interested in what I meant by suggesting they use the model the Giants used against the Bills in the Super Bowl I am fine with clarifying it for them.

 

[IllegalContact]

honestly though

cheap shots are ok and forgiven as long as you apologize after the game...just ask marcus cannon....he's one smart dude

 

[Ring 6]

I'm really sick of your trolling and after your "hit him in the head" posts I'm done with you. Hopefully the moderators get sick of your act soon and ban you for good. Off to ignore you go.

If someone who gives a crap about this team is interested in what I meant by suggesting they use the model the Giants used against the Bills in the Super Bowl I am fine with clarifying it for them.

I'm not sure that game plan applies. That game plan was based upon feeling they were better equipped to stop the run, and that they could 'trick' Kelly into what they wanted him to call.
In this case, if we are soft against the run and get put into 2nd and 3s and 3rd a 2s all day, we will be in big trouble.
I get your thinking but what weak run D does to down and distance and therefore the ability to defend the pass is a huge consideration. That game was also 22 years ago, under VERY different pass defense rules.

I would like to see up come up and take away the run, and disrupt the timing of the short passing game. Make Manning throw the ball down the field.
If we back off and allow them to run and dominate in the 7 yards of the field (2 yards behind the los to 5 yards beyond it) with 80% completions and major YAC success we will die a slow death. The chance of them doing that consistently is greater than the chance of Manning consistently making big plays down the field. He will make some, but not enough if we take away his bread and butter within that 7 yard zone.
I would like to see the onside LB play over Welker and pound him to disrupt the timing. Having Welkers man playing behind the LB will overcome the pick play as well.

 

[everlong]

I would like to see up come up and take away the run, and disrupt the timing of the short passing game. Make Manning throw the ball down the field.
If we back off and allow them to run and dominate in the 7 yards of the field (2 yards behind the los to 5 yards beyond it) with 80% completions and major YAC success we will die a slow death. The chance of them doing that consistently is greater than the chance of Manning consistently making big plays down the field. He will make some, but not enough if we take away his bread and butter within that 7 yard zone.
I would like to see the onside LB play over Welker and pound him to disrupt the timing. Having Welkers man playing behind the LB will overcome the pick play as well.

I agree. The big question is if Talib is good to go because you can't do this without him on Thomas and I'd feel a lot better if Dennard was on Decker. Decker vs Arrington is a really bad matchup for the Pats. I think they would be better off putting Ryan on him and kicking Arrington inisde. Julius Thomas is also a bad matchup for any type of man coverage for the Pats.

 

[Huckleberry1]

I'm not sure that game plan applies. That game plan was based upon feeling they were better equipped to stop the run, and that they could 'trick' Kelly into what they wanted him to call.
In this case, if we are soft against the run and get put into 2nd and 3s and 3rd a 2s all day, we will be in big trouble.
I get your thinking but what weak run D does to down and distance and therefore the ability to defend the pass is a huge consideration. That game was also 22 years ago, under VERY different pass defense rules.

I would like to see up come up and take away the run, and disrupt the timing of the short passing game. Make Manning throw the ball down the field.
If we back off and allow them to run and dominate in the 7 yards of the field (2 yards behind the los to 5 yards beyond it) with 80% completions and major YAC success we will die a slow death. The chance of them doing that consistently is greater than the chance of Manning consistently making big plays down the field. He will make some, but not enough if we take away his bread and butter within that 7 yard zone.
I would like to see the onside LB play over Welker and pound him to disrupt the timing. Having Welkers man playing behind the LB will overcome the pick play as well.

All good points. I wasn't suggesting they let them run but more that they go with a pressure defense to offset the losses at DB and not worry so much about the Bronco's beating them by the run. The Bronco's have real OL problems at C/OG/ and LT and rather than use guys like Sopoaga and Vellano, both of whom I like but don't get pressure, switch Chandler Jones inside with Chris Jones and go after Manning as hard as possible. At the same time get in the receivers face and bang them as much as possible off the line to disrupt Manning's timing.

 

[Huckleberry1]

I agree. The big question is if Talib is good to go because you can't do this without him on Thomas and I'd feel a lot better if Dennard was on Decker. Decker vs Arrington is a really bad matchup for the Pats. I think they would be better off putting Ryan on him and kicking Arrington inisde. Julius Thomas is also a bad matchup for any type of man coverage for the Pats.

As far as the match-ups go I agree with Talib on Thomas, Ryan on Decker, and Arrington on Welker. Use McCourty over the top and Collins on Julius Thomas. It's going to be tough but I still think Manning is screwed if it is a windy game.