• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

NFL Week #7

Well, sloasdaylight and Chris Fitzgerald, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the Cribbs hit. But like Solomon Wilcots said on the clip posted by Ray Salamon, the reason there was no flag thrown on the Cribbs play was because Cribbs was a running back, and therefore not deemed to be in a defenseless position.

While running some errands today, I was listening to Adam Schein and Rich Gannon on Sirius NFL radio. They both felt that neither of the Harrison hits should be classified as illegal; but that the Cribbs play shouldn't even be in the conversation regarding illegal hits. (And Gannon's career ended due to injury.)

Just goes to show how people can see the same thing and come away with different perceptions of it...
 
Kind of grainy, but here's the hit. I think that almost anybody who has ever played football would agree that he's just making a play and trying to finish a tackle at this point:



As for "What the heck have I been listening to...", there are a bunch of sources. NFL network. ESPN. Sirius NFL Radio, etc.. IMO, the hit on Massaquoi (spelling?) was much more questionable than the hit on Cribbs. You can believe me or not, but I haven't heard one commentator say that there was anything wrong with the hit on Cribbs. Just an unfortunate result. Cribbs was a runner leading with HIS head. Harrison was coming in from "the West" and was partially screened by another player. He had no idea where Cribbs' head was.

I could be wrong on this, but I don't even think the NFL fined Harrison for the Cribbs hit. The $75K was strictly for the Massaquoi hit. I even the heard the Head of Officials, Ray something (who took over for Mike Perriera) say unequivocally that the hit on Cribbs was NOT illegal. That was on Mike & Mike In the Morning. By the way, Mike Golic felt that the only illegal hit of the weekend was Merriweather's. He clearly disagreed with a lot of what the H.O.O. was saying. But it sounds like some of you guys have your minds made up because of your dislike for Harrison.

So what do you guys think about the hits on Jackson (Eagles), Heap (Ravens) and the other ones? My take is that the hit on Jackson was absolutely devastating, but not illegal. Same kind of effort you see every week when a defender is trying to make sure the receiver either doesn't catch, or at least doesn't retain the football. Watch Ray Lewis on any given Sunday. That's what he does. Tries to separate the ball from the receiver. And he's lauded as a great linebacker. All you ever hear is, "If you come into Ray Lewis' neighborhood, you'd better be prepared to pay the price!" Then everybody else agrees, "Yeah, Ray's one of the best linebackers to ever play the game."

The hit on Heap? Cheap and dirty. Merriweather made an effort to leap upwards to cause the helmet-to-helmet hit.


Still can't see the hit. Youtube's blocked. But if he just used himself like a javelin without even extending his arms (which is what I've heard), I'm sorry, I don't see how that's not a trick move.

As for the bolded part, I agree, I haven't heard much at all on the Cribbs hit. And I don't watch or listen to Mike & Mike so where you're coming from is starting to piece together for me.

I dislike Harrison; he seems like a jerk to me, but I always try to make a concerted effort not to be biased. He doesn't help his case, though, when he kicks and screams and threatens to take his ball and go home because the NFL doesn't want people getting jacked up in the head.

Nothin wrong with the Dunta Robinson hit; looked a lot like a Ray Lewis hit to me.
 
Well, sloasdaylight and Chris Fitzgerald, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the Cribbs hit. But like Solomon Wilcots said on the clip posted by Ray Salamon, the reason there was no flag thrown on the Cribbs play was because Cribbs was a running back, and therefore not deemed to be in a defenseless position.

While running some errands today, I was listening to Adam Schein and Rich Gannon on Sirius NFL radio. They both felt that neither of the Harrison hits should be classified as illegal; but that the Cribbs play shouldn't even be in the conversation regarding illegal hits. (And Gannon's career ended due to injury.)

Just goes to show how people can see the same thing and come away with different perceptions of it...

Don't remind me :atoz:
 
I'm at work. Youtube is blocked on the net filter

Since you seem to have so much trouble finding/viewing a video on the internet... I made you a few screen caps off of one I found...

Harrison = Black
Woodley = Yellow
Cribbs = Brown

Link Removed
Link Removed
Link Removed
Link Removed
Link Removed


Edit:
Not sure who said Harrison acted as a "javelin" on this play, but I'm not seeing that :|
 
the Cards offense did not score ONE TD all day. All three AZ TD's were on turnovers, two Saints turnovers and one extremely fortunate AZ turnover that bounced right to an offensive lineman.

Hold on, you're confusing yourself, here.

First, the last TD you are describing was indeed scored by the Cards offense.

Yes, the two others were scored on turnovers.

But who placed the Saints offense so far back in touchdown range? The Cards offense and special team.

The Cards offense actually did a really good job keeping the ball in the Saints camp most of the time, during the second half time.

Did you play football? Just checking.
 
Ah, what a load off. Well from the frame-by-frame, I can see why his hit on Cribbs wasn't talked about much at all.

I'm not sure where I heard "javelin;" it could have been just the image I got when the hit was described to me

I kinda of imagined that once you saw the hit that you'd see more of where myself (and others) were coming from. Still not an ideal tackle, but honestly, when you're screened and also just the pure physics of being a big dude running, you're not going to be able to change your posture on a dime.
I did something similar in week #6 thread for the Mo hit - but only did one frame. What's funny, is his (Harrison) arms are extended, though his head is down. What mostly caused the helmet-to-helmet, I believe, was Mo upon landing bentover/lowered himself. Harrison appeared to actually have been going for a lower / midriff type hit, but through again the speed of how things happened, he couldn't stop.
Harrison's hit on Mo was still, clearly, a hit on a defenseless receiver and I believe should've been called as such.

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree about these hits being disturbing and issue causing. They're not the only ones though. Check this link out:
Invalid Link Removed

and, to cap this off from my chair, I think that the Harrison/Mo. hit is a good example of how a well intentioned posture (though aggressive!) can have consequences. The end result was what it was, and it also shows that the NFL is going to come down on players harder (good!), but I feel that they just used this as a poster child more than anything. Especially since the NFL is capitalizing on it by selling photos of the hit... for up to $250 a pop! :eek:


So, to call "my game" for this week... I see the Steelers coming out on top of the 'fins, but it'll be close. It'll come down to some key plays in the 4th by my defense :).
 
Hold on, you're confusing yourself, here.

First, the last TD you are describing was indeed scored by the Cards offense.

Yes, the two others were scored on turnovers.

But who placed the Saints offense so far back in touchdown range? The Cards offense and special team.

The Cards offense actually did a really good job keeping the ball in the Saints camp most of the time, during the second half time.

Did you play football? Just checking.

Yes, I was a starting MLB for 3 years in HS, I know the game well.

Better than you apparantly:

The "offensive" fumble that was recovered and carried into the endzone by the Cards offense is NOT an offensive score. It is a turnover, and by definition CANNOT be an offensive score, AND is officially not credited by the NFL as an offensive score - check the official stats for the game, you will see there are NO offensive scores for the Cards in that game.

Bottom line, Cards offense did NOT play well (under 200 yards), their defense did to a point.

Gift.
 
Yes, I was a starting MLB for 3 years in HS, I know the game well.

Better than you apparantly:

The "offensive" fumble that was recovered and carried into the endzone by the Cards offense is NOT an offensive score. It is a turnover, and by definition CANNOT be an offensive score, AND is officially not credited by the NFL as an offensive score - check the official stats for the game, you will see there are NO offensive scores for the Cards in that game.

Bottom line, Cards offense did NOT play well (under 200 yards), their defense did to a point.

Gift.

Bottom line they played well enough to win, which the Saint's didn't.
 
Well, sloasdaylight and Chris Fitzgerald, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the Cribbs hit. But like Solomon Wilcots said on the clip posted by Ray Salamon, the reason there was no flag thrown on the Cribbs play was because Cribbs was a running back, and therefore not deemed to be in a defenseless position.

While running some errands today, I was listening to Adam Schein and Rich Gannon on Sirius NFL radio. They both felt that neither of the Harrison hits should be classified as illegal; but that the Cribbs play shouldn't even be in the conversation regarding illegal hits. (And Gannon's career ended due to injury.)

Just goes to show how people can see the same thing and come away with different perceptions of it...

Like I said the Cribbs hit isn't against the letter of the law in regards to launching, but it was helmet to helmet. Running with you head up and then lowering it when he realized he was going have contact isn't showing me that "he didn't realize where Cribbs was" or that "he was trying to make a play." The play was over and he could have came over and used his shoulder or just made sure that Cribbs was pinned down and go back to work on the next play. He chose to use his helmet to "tackle" an already wrapped up player. That tells me like his wanted to use his helmet to inflict pain. That and his history of using his head and questionable launching tackles led to his fine being the largest of the three.

My perception of Harrison changed from a tough player playing on the edge to a thug in the Pitt vs Ari superbowl. Now I see on the the stuff that is right on the line and it seems like it only on the line because he wasn't able to do worse.

I think there are a few sides to this issue:

1. "You are trying to make it flag football": No, just trying to make sure that retired players know their names and are functional when they are in their 50s. Harrison will still be an idiot in 20 years, but they are trying to make sure that every player's life (including Harrison's) after football isn't confined to his mind or a wheelchair. The concussion became an extremely hot topic last year and it will remain that way as it should. The days of being a "warrior" for going back in a game with a concussion are over. To my knowledge only the Eagles Linebacker went back into the game this year when it was obvious he had a concussion. I believe he was removed from the game shortly thereafter. The average number of days missed from a concussion has doubled and you are seeing premier stars staying out for weeks with the effects of them. Concussions have effectively ended Brian Westbrook's career.

2. "Big hits are intrinsic to the game": This is the side I agree with. Legal, big hits that don't cause injury are exciting. Thuggery and headhunting shouldn't be a part of this game. Not just on the defensive side of the ball. I fully agree with the high-low chop block rule that is now banned for lineman/running backs. It is a block that is effective to the point of injury. Just like using your helmet to tackle is effective to the point of injury.

3. "Illegal Big hits are killing the game": This is the side the NFL is taking and I don't 100% agree with it. The players today are bigger, faster, and stronger than players in any generation before them. Big hits are going to happen. I do agree with the fact that the NFL is cracking down on hits to prevent copycats and continued usage of the helmet as a tackling device.

Of the three fines, Merriweather's was the most blatant, Harrison's had the most history behind it, and Robinson's was unfortunate. He really couldn't have done anything else but collide. Andy Reid, Deshawn Jackson, and Kevin Kolb have as much to do with that hit as Dunta. Dunta was never known as a big hitter in Houston and I bet if you ask him whether he wanted that tackle to happen he would say no. Andy called the play, Jackson ran through a zone into double coverage by the point of the catch, and Kolb threw it. I'm not a QB by any stretch of the imagination, but when two receivers are on one side of the ball with one DB covering and one DB off, it is pretty obvious it is zone coverage. Kolb should have know when he let that one go that it was going to get Jackson lit up.

A lot of things went wrong with that play and Robinson really couldn't control any of them. He rolled his man to the safety came back to the middle and followed the ball which arrived to the receiver a second later.
 
Cincinnati @ Atlanta - Falcons

Jacksonville @ Kansas City - Kansas City

St. Louis @ Tampa Bay - Tampa Bay

Philadelphia @ Tennessee - I'm going with Philly on this one

Washington @ Chicago - Bears come back after being humiliated last week

San Francisco @ Carolina - San Fransico Even away but this my end up closer then I think

Pittsburgh @ Miami - Pitt

Buffalo @ Baltimore - Baltimore

New England @ San Diego - Pats San Diego is broken

Cleveland @ New Orleans - New Orleans

Oakland @ Denver -Denver and their home field advantage

Minnesota @ Green Bay - I think the Vikes take this one

Arizona @ Seattle - My Team... Seattle. If we lose this at home it's going to be another looooooooooog year

NY Giants @ Dallas - NYG I think this is going to be a tough one, but I think NY is playing too well
 
... the Cribbs hit isn't against the letter of the law in regards to launching, but it was helmet to helmet. Running with you head up and then lowering it when he realized he was going have contact isn't showing me that "he didn't realize where Cribbs was" or that "was trying to make a play." The play was over and he could have came over and used his shoulder or just made sure that Cribbs was pinned down and go back to work on the next play. He chose to use his helmet to "tackle" an already wrapped up player. That tells me like his wanted to use his helmet to inflict pain. That and his history of using his head and questionable launching tackles led to his fine being the largest of the three.

I pretty much agree with everything you said in your post. It makes a lot of sense. There are plenty of great legal hits in the game to be made, and there is a great art to a good wrapup/takedown. Certain things tend to injure players: crackback blocks, tripping, chop blocks, horse collars, face mask tackles, and helmet to helmet hits. Everybody knows this. I don't think the game got ruined when these things were outlawed, and I don't think it will get ruined when they crack down on helmet to helmet thuggery. The tough part is that they're going to have to judge intent when it comes to the suspensions if they want to get it right, and I'm sure that will prove difficult.
 
I really wish you all would stop picking the Falcons this week. It is making me nervous.

I am pretty sure the Falcons will take care of business, but I would feel better if some of you (or anyone I have heard...) would pick against them.

While I can't claim to have knowledge equivalent to a starting high school football player, I do play Madden almost every day, so if you guys need any in depth analysis be sure to PM me- I understand the game very well.
 
I really wish you all would stop picking the Falcons this week. It is making me nervous.

I am pretty sure the Falcons will take care of business, but I would feel better if some of you (or anyone I have heard...) would pick against them.

While I can't claim to have knowledge equivalent to a starting high school football player, I do play Madden almost every day, so if you guys need any in depth analysis be sure to PM me- I understand the game very well.

Oh, ok...then I'll change my pick! ;)

...I honestly don't think the Falcons will win, they're a 4-2 team that SHOULD be a 2-4 team. That will start to balance out soon enough.