NFL Thread 2013-14

Good start for the Cowboys. March right down and get a TD. Hester return denied as well.
 
And the Bears march right down and get 7. Jesus these two defences are bad. And that is coming from a Vikings fan.
 
What a block by Marshall on Lee!

marsh.gif
 
/\
Cheapshot IMO. Epitome of a "defenseless player." You just never know which refs are going to call what, correctly or incorrectly.

From a 14-14 game to a rout. Dallas' defense is horrendous, one of the worst I have ever witnessed in my thirty years of watching NFL games. Have no idea why Garrett stopped running Murray - he was on pace for 200 yards by mid-second quarter.

that-escalated-quickly-anchorman-gif.gif
 
Dallas' defense is on pace to be one of the worst in league history. At this rate, they'll surrender over 6830 yards of offense, only 212 yards shy of New Orleans record for futility set in 2012. [The 1981 Baltimore Colts still hold the record for most points allowed, 533, and had held the yards allowed mark, 6793, until the aforementioned Saints, however, that was in an era that benefited defenses and teams still ran more than pass, take of that what you will].

Dallas has allowed the most 400 yard passing games in a season (4). They are on pace to finish just shy of the most passing yards allowed in a season, 4796 (Green Bay 2011), having surrendered 3887 through 13 games (299/pg), a pace of 4784.

Dallas is allowing 26.7/ppg, 7th worst in the league this season (New Orleans surrendered 28.4/ppg in 2012). This season, NO's defense is much better than 2012, and far better than Dallas this season.

We all know who the DC in New Orleans is.
 
Haha. I can't stand that guy. One of the most overrated coaches in history, and a pundit that just infuriates me at times. I imagine he masturbates to historical stat lines and dissecting passing plays.
 
Ah I kinda like him. I like his voice on MNF, especially as its dead late at night over here. Definitely an over-rated coach though from his time in Tampa. Maybe that's why he won't go back in to it. He'll get found out!
 
It used to be an unspoken rule in the NFL to not go low and hit players around the knees.

However I have heard a few players this year saying that they are going to start hitting receivers low in order to avoid getting fined for higher hits. They acknowledge that it increases the chance of injury, but they feel like they don't have much choice.
The rules are there to stop helmet to helmet hits. There is a big area below the head but above the knee.
 
The rules are there to stop helmet to helmet hits. There is a big area below the head but above the knee.


I know - am just going by what players have said.

There is a big area until the offenseive player bends down/lowers their own helmet. Thats when the defenders are getting penalised and fined for helmet to helmet hits.
 
/\
Cheapshot IMO. Epitome of a "defenseless player." You just never know which refs are going to call what, correctly or incorrectly.

From a 14-14 game to a rout. Dallas' defense is horrendous, one of the worst I have ever witnessed in my thirty years of watching NFL games. Have no idea why Garrett stopped running Murray - he was on pace for 200 yards by mid-second quarter.

that-escalated-quickly-anchorman-gif.gif


Not at all - a defenseless player is one classed as in the act of catching a ball for example. That was a great block in my opinion.
 
Take away the helmets and we won't see defenders aiming for legs nor going high for the knockout/highlight film hits. I've always felt that way, never understood why the league went to helmets from the start. I hated wearing a helmet when I played in Texas youth leagues. Always had more fun playing tackle the man or backyard/pickup games. We saw real tackling then, just like rugby. The helmet has long given players a sense of invincibility.


Having played both sports I agree with you. The way you hit/tackle is totally different between the sports because you can (or feel you can) get away with it in football compared to rugby. I also feel its harder to wrap your arms round the legs of a runner in football because of the shoulder pads.

In saying that, the league (as it was then) went to helmets in an attempt to reduce the number of head injuries being suffered by players - so not sure if it is really chicken and egg?
 
Take away the helmets and we won't see defenders aiming for legs nor going high for the knockout/highlight film hits. I've always felt that way, never understood why the league went to helmets from the start. I hated wearing a helmet when I played in Texas youth leagues. Always had more fun playing tackle the man or backyard/pickup games. We saw real tackling then, just like rugby. The helmet has long given players a sense of invincibility.
Agreed, some of the tackling in the NFL is terrible. I dont want to do away with big hits but some players really need to focus on basic wrap up tackling.

Interestingly rugby is now becoming more concerned with concussion. I would be interested to see statistics on concussion rates in rugby vs american football.

The wes welker hit was another cheap shot with the helmet used as a weapon.
 
Not at all - a defenseless player is one classed as in the act of catching a ball for example. That was a great block in my opinion.

Side note: I've never understood the league's allowance of blocks/hits below the knees and I foresee a rule change coming. This will give another advantage to offensive players but I can understand the reasoning.

Anyhow, the defenseless player rule was expanded to cover defensive players and offensive players-turned-defensive players during a possession change (i.e. turnover). The rule was complained because offensive players were making blindside blocks while the defender's attention is focused on the player with the ball. Refs call some, don't call others (see the Golden Tate blindside launch on Sean Lee last season, clearly an illegal block by definition of many rules yet Dallas got a flag when Carter "pushed" Wilson out of bounds, and Tate pranced around like the jackass he is, though later fined for the illegal hit). The league also made it illegal for crack-back blocks, i.e. blindside blocks on the legs.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/15_2012_Player_Conduct.pdf
Article 7 Players in a Defenseless Posture. It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture.
(a) Players in a defenseless posture are:
(8) A player who receives a “blindside” block when the blocker is moving toward or parallel to his own endline and approaches the opponent from behind or from the side
 
Side note: I've never understood the league's allowance of blocks/hits below the knees and I foresee a rule change coming. This will give another advantage to offensive players but I can understand the reasoning.

Anyhow, the defenseless player rule was expanded to cover defensive players and offensive players-turned-defensive players during a possession change (i.e. turnover). The rule was complained because offensive players were making blindside blocks while the defender's attention is focused on the player with the ball. Refs call some, don't call others (see the Golden Tate blindside launch on Sean Lee last season, clearly an illegal block by definition of many rules yet Dallas got a flag when Carter "pushed" Wilson out of bounds, and Tate pranced around like the jackass he is, though later fined for the illegal hit). The league also made it illegal for crack-back blocks, i.e. blindside blocks on the legs.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/15_2012_Player_Conduct.pdf
Article 7 Players in a Defenseless Posture. It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture.
(a) Players in a defenseless posture are:
(8) A player who receives a “blindside” block when the blocker is moving toward or parallel to his own endline and approaches the opponent from behind or from the side

Legal Hit then in reality.
 
That no helmet thing is actually quite interesting. When, and why, did they introduce them?
 


Nice links.

You could argue that the move from leather to plastic was perhaps the moment when it went from something to protect against clashes of heads, to something that gave the wearer the feeling of relative invulnerability.

I always remember Roger Craig's running style - knees high, legs pumping. You saw some players take knees to the head that you would never see in rugby, because the tackler would make sure their head was not close to the knees of the player! But when you try and tackle someone low in football (when wearing pads and helmet), then I think the reduced flexibility etc afforded by the equipment (and the increased protection) means that you worry less about things like where your head is.
 
The Niners are looking solid - up 17-0 against the Bucs. Niners D is looking as good as usual, Kaepernick just had a 52 yard TD pass to Davis.
 
The Niners are looking solid - up 17-0 against the Bucs. Niners D is looking as good as usual, Kaepernick just had a 52 yard TD pass to Davis.


No sooner I say that, the Bucs go on a 80 yard drive and get a TD with less than a minute left in the half...17-7
 
Quiet day from the resident Pats fans... They're like Liverpool fans - flood the boards when winning, strangely absent when losing.

Loving the Eagles laying a classic choke job at Minnesota (the Vikings minus both AP and CG).
 
Romo is picking apart Green Bay's secondary and Murray is running wild at the moment. Big problem is the offense stalling deep in GB territory and settling for field goals.
 
Quiet day from the resident Pats fans... They're like Liverpool fans - flood the boards when winning, strangely absent when losing.

Have you not noticed you get very little reaction to stuff like this.

Even from the people that comment during the game and get emotional.