wide_right Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 And of course after the fact the NFL is saying . Just means that Greggo and his defense will be watched even more. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/200...tory?id=4868880 could very well have changed the outcome of the game too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
300yrds Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 This only bothers me because of the Minn game. I thought the first half was riddled with uncalled roughing the passers. I totally agree with the fact that qb's are over protected in the league, but there has to be some level of protection, and everybody on the field seemed to be looking the other way at that game. There are plenty of teams that go aggresively go after the qb, and plenty of that get there(legally) and do some damage. Last weeks display of clear cheap shots (there where tons that didnt include the one at the end of the game) and some of the things eluded in the interview are concerning. If it were not for last week I would have brushed this off as nothing. I do hope that the refs dont go crazy over protecting Peyton after this. Hopefully he hits the dirt hard a few times. Just a side thought. If it seems to be a defenses clear intent is to injure a player as a part of the game plan, could their be a rule protecting that. ie a total of 6 late hit penalties (on any player on the field) by a defense = ejection of dc. I am not necassarily for this, but what if we turn on the super bowl and it is late hit after cheap shot all night long? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rust Belt Nights Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 What a scumbag. I hope the Colts destroy the Saints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 You do realize that people on this board are bitching about this more than people in Minnesota, right? Almost everyone I've talked to in the office has said the hits were borderline, but not outrageous, and that it had nothing to do with the loss. Just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bills!Win! Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 If you want to know which team wins the superbowl, just watch which team hits the opposing quarterback more. The last two years we have seen the Giants beat the Patriots and then the Steelers beat the Cardinals. In the 2008 Superbowl, the Giants knocked Tom Brady on his butt most of the game and was always getting chased around and had to rush his throws. Near the end he was wayyyyy off target. Then last year, the Steelers were pressuring and CRUSHING Warner into the ground throughout the game; some of those hits were even flagrantly late after the play. In summary, if you get to the quarterback in the Big Game, you are probably the team coming out with a victory and a superbowl ring... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 As someone that was at the saints vikings game -- it went both ways. it was a physical game. drew was driven into the ground on a no call too, but the saints won and favre was showing the wear and tear more. I just question where in this quote he did any more then what fans of any team do saying you have to get to the qb and hit him. If you were designing the buffalo defense to beat tom brady and the pats what do you do -- pressure with the front four, get him moving, make him jumpy, AND HIT HIM. its the defensive philosophy of nearly any team anywhere. my wonder is whether that will be what they do out of the gate... the way the saints beat the patriots so badly was by dropping 8 and only rushing 3 most of the game. is this a smokescreen to make him think there will be more blitzing? i certainly think they will make sure he feels it if they get close and sneak some blitzes in, but its an odd comment to make if you plan on blitzing early and often. maybe hes pushing them to get ready for an attack thats not coming nearly as aggressively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfreak Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 You do realize that people on this board are bitching about this more than people in Minnesota, right? Almost everyone I've talked to in the office has said the hits were borderline, but not outrageous, and that it had nothing to do with the loss. Just sayin'. I totally agree. The one thing that there were more of than hits on Favre, where mistakes made by the Vikings. That is why they lost, not cheap hits (that weren't cheap) or bad calls, they fumbled, penalized and threw interceptions to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 You do realize that people on this board are bitching about this more than people in Minnesota, right? Almost everyone I've talked to in the office has said the hits were borderline, but not outrageous, and that it had nothing to do with the loss. Just sayin'. The reason people are more outraged here is because the Vikes fans didn't have to suffer through three years with that vainglorious blowhard as a coach. That's the *only* reason people care here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wide_right Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 I totally agree. The one thing that there were more of than hits on Favre, where mistakes made by the Vikings. That is why they lost, not cheap hits (that weren't cheap) or bad calls, they fumbled, penalized and threw interceptions to lose. even though the head of officiating agrees it was a blown call, and it hobbled favre for the remainder of the game? if anything, Childress and Favre were way too passive during this .... if that were a Cowher or Brady they would have had a sh#t fit, and rightfully so. then maybe they would have gotten the officiating straight and we would have had a fair game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfreak Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 even though the head of officiating agrees it was a blown call, and it hobbled favre for the remainder of the game? if anything, Childress and Favre were way too passive during this .... if that were a Cowher or Brady they would have had a sh#t fit, and rightfully so. then maybe they would have gotten the officiating straight and we would have had a fair game. The couple that were even close were flagged. It is called football-a contact sport. Live with it. If it was the Bills pounding Favre all day like that and taking advantage of their avalanche of mistakes, it would be just fine with you I am sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 The couple that were even close were flagged. It is called football-a contact sport. Live with it. If it was the Bills pounding Favre all day like that and taking advantage of their avalanche of mistakes, it would be just fine with you I am sure. You are wrong about that, and you must be aware by now the engaged-high while hit low in the legs was not legal. And league admitted they made a mistake. Say what you want about Vikes had their chances, but please get your facts straight. It's getting old Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts