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

[IllegalContact]

Nobody's been ostracized

 

[MassPats38]

I'm really trying to find the relevance of this in this convo ..... You've mentioned it before but has nothing to do with bounties since most players do it for sheer joy

Have you played professional football, or do you just imagine that you have if you claim what 'they' like? And you apparently never understood what Bruschi meant when he said that, as it had nothing to with injuring a player or illegal hits on non-RBs (you do realize RBs not lined up as wideouts have different contact rules than do QBs and WRs, right?). Roughing a player up legally to knock him off his game is a far cry from trying to injure a player, legally or illegally. One is a show of strength and intimidation, while the other is the coward's way out.

Players love fair, hard hits. They like to make their presence known on defense, and there are plenty of stories that state that. There are also plenty of stories that indicate that players mutually understand that this game is their livelihood, and never want to see a player injured even with legal hits (thus the protestations for going for knees in the secondary on blocks). If you injure players deliberately, prepare to be injured yourself in retaliation. And there are plenty of players on the field capable of doing just that if you haven't seen the size, strength and speed of these professional athletes and how little it takes to blow out a knee.

Bountygate was offensive because the claim was the Saints were deliberately trying to injure players and get them off the field and rewarding players for successfully doing so. That was viewed as reprehensible. With this thread, you sound like you watched too much Karate Kid and dreamed of one day being John Kreese of the Cobra Kai Dojo ("I want him out of commission. . . . I don't want him beat." Sound familiar?).

 

[Ring 6]

Unless you forget the whole bountygate scandal that happened a couple of years ago. One of the biggest scandals in NFL history...

But that was proof that players DO target injured areas

 

[IllegalContact]

No.....not familiar at all

Just another person reading too much into something and overreacting,

I played football at a reasonably high level. Identifying and Emphasizing a weakness in the opponent has always been part of the process of preparing and playing a game. That included using opponents injuries to your advantage. It is the only way to fully prepare for an opponent that has the same goals.

Whether it is to aggravate an existing condition, or creating a new one, it is a part of the game. Marcus Cannon may be scum in the eyes of some, but he succeeded in protecting his qb

 

[Kontradiction]

Nothing here is relevant to bountygate. Nothing at all.

You keep throwing out red herrings like bountygate and Jeff Saturday . They don't help you make your point...,,,by the way, what is your point because you're talking in cirvles

Bringing up relevant topics like Bountygate and what Jeff Saturday said about Suh in relation to what the league thinks about targeting aren't red herrings. Not even close.

A red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.

1. A red herring is meant to distract from the intended argument.

2. A red herring is inteaded to make false inferences.

I've never done either. Your OP, again, originally advocated targeting. Citing bountygate (where targeting took place) and Suh are completely relevant with regard to how the league views the practice. The whole reason we're down that road now is because you called me naive for not believing it's a generally accepted practice within the league. So yeah, you don't understand what a red herring is. Again, that's not a surprise because you've been tossing logical fallacies out there like a old widow given out candy on Halloween.

Nobody's been ostracized

Yes, they have. I've given you multiple and blatent examples now. You might want to do yourself a favor a bow out of this one.

 

[IllegalContact]

You've completely distracted from my original point and have tried to turn it into something that it wasn't.

You're arguing the person and not the point....there are a few of you who enjoy doing so.....,very weak, but I'm ok with it...... Fluff with no substance is exactly that

 

[IllegalContact]

But that was proof that players DO target injured areas

Yes.....because the league is scum......well except for Jeff Saturday .... But maybe that why he didn't get to the probowl until Kevin Mawae retired

 

[Kontradiction]

You've completely distracted from my original point and have tried to turn it into something that it wasn't.

Not really. Let's break down how this conversation has gone...

1. You advocate targeting.
2. I say it's a scumbag move.
3. You call me naive.
4. I give you examples where the league agrees with my stance.

You can try to dismiss the examples that I've given as irrelevant, but they're not. You can call them red herrings, but they're not. To boot, you've yet to make any sort of dent in refuting either.

You're arguing the person and not the point....there are a few of you who enjoy doing so.....,very weak, but I'm ok with it...... Fluff with no substance is exactly that

Wrong again, I've argued the point throughout the entire thread. Here's the first post where the person began being argued...

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

^^ This was from you in post number 22.

Yes.....because the league is scum......well except for Jeff Saturday .... But maybe that why he didn't get to the probowl until Kevin Mawae retired

I have Andy on ignore, but I never said the league is scum. I said targeting injuries was a scumbag move and typically gets the player or the organization ostracized. Further, I have also admitted that as much happens in post number 21. I'm aware that it happens, but that isn't the argument at hand. The argument is whether it's right or wrong. In this case, what the Saints did, which was target injuries for monetary gain, was pretty clearly ostracized by the rest of the league. Again, this goes back to you trying to make the point that I was naive.

 

[IllegalContact]

You're just talking out of every side of your mouth, which is the same thing as saying nothing with substance

Do yourself a favor.....put me in ignore too.....because then you won't waste your time replying to me with pure garbage .... And endless piles of it to boot

The funny part is how long you can make post and still miss the target......but you've convinced yourself, so go ahead and have the last word since you were already been done at one point but are still cranking em out.....which is in line with the points you try to make....or not

 

[Kontradiction]

You're just talking out of every side of your mouth, which is the same thing as saying nothing with substance

Do yourself a favor.....put me in ignore too.....because then you won't waste your time replying to me with pure garbage .... And endless piles of it to boot

The funny part is how long you can make post and still miss the target......but you've convinced yourself, so go ahead and have the last word since you were already been done at one point but are still cranking em out.....which is in line with the points you try to make....or not

Now we're back to ad hominem which, again, is the best way of acknowledging you don't have a cogent counter argument. Thing is, I've stuck to the same basic points throughout all three pages (in a 40 post per page format) and argued them. You've actually been the one bouncing around all over the place. Really, it's an instance of the pot calling the kettle black.

And I won't put you on ignore. I still have 34 more minutes left of what I'm doing before I can enjoy my weekend. You can help make those go by faster.

 

[Huckleberry1]

IllegalContact advocated taking head shots, there is no defense for that, period. They are rightfully outlawed by the NFL because of the serious damage they do to player's health. Anyone who calls for player's to go after the head is a pig, period.

 

[IllegalContact]

IllegalContact advocated taking head shots, there is no defense for that, period. They are rightfully outlawed by the NFL because of the serious damage they do to player's health. Anyone who calls for player's to go after the head is a pig, period.

 

[supafly]

Andy makes a good point. Chargers controlled time of possession but, didn't do much with it. Still have to go out there and score.

No one is debating the need to score and execute. That's a no brainer and nothing will ever change that.

My stance is that I'd much rather be like Carolina, who executed on 4/6 possessions (67%) yet only had to score 3 TD's total throughout the game to win.

I see no point in needing to score 6 TD's out of 9 possessions (still a 67% rate), because you are now increasing your volume of TD's that you'd need to score to win the game.

The debate is whether it's better to control the clock and only have to score a few TD's (like Carolina did), or whether or not you want to execute at the same percentage and go up and down the field 6 times instead of 3. Both are going to bring you a 67% touchdown rate. By needing to score 6 TD's, you are decreasing your odds of winning the game simply because you would need to score a higher volume of actual touchdowns.

Judging by all of the coaches that we see in high school, college, and the pros who do exactly what I'm arguing and have been for years, I'm guessing that more people would agree with me; although I respect the differing views and the arguments that both sides would bring.

 

[Ring 6]

No one is debating the need to score and execute. That's a no brainer and nothing will ever change that.

My stance is that I'd much rather be like Carolina, who executed on 4/6 possessions (67%) yet only had to score 3 TD's total throughout the game to win.

I see no point in needing to score 6 TD's out of 9 possessions (still a 67% rate), because you are now increasing your volume of TD's that you'd need to score to win the game.

The debate is whether it's better to control the clock and only have to score a few TD's (like Carolina did), or whether or not you want to execute at the same percentage and go up and down the field 6 times instead of 3. Both are going to bring you a 67% touchdown rate. By needing to score 6 TD's, you are decreasing your odds of winning the game simply because you would need to score a higher volume of actual touchdowns.

Judging by all of the coaches that we see in high school, college, and the pros who do exactly what I'm arguing and have been for years, I'm guessing that more people would agree with me; although I respect the differing views and the arguments that both sides would bring.

Coaches don't do what you are saying they do the way you are saying it.

Coaches of teams that are mismatched and have little chance to win may shorten the game because it increases the chance of a lucky win but that's not what we are talking about here.

 

[IllegalContact]

Since it was deemed legal by referees, the pats need to hit welker the way kuechly just hit Matthews in the end zone and earned a flag....but got picked

I guess helmet to helmet is ok as long as you try use your arms on the head first