Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
please delete (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter spider321
- Start date
Tommy Collins
Footballguy
To a degree. Because they leave themselves open to some bad hits they have to be protected. But at the same time, we can't make it so these guys are considered as soft as kickers. After all, this IS football. There needs to be some kind of intent. If you get blocked into the QB, regardless of where you hit the QB, it shouldn't be your fault. If you hit the QB and take all your weight to slam him on the ground, that is a different story.
Chaka
Footballguy
All players deserve to be protected and the NFL tries to do just that.
Defensive linemen are protected from chop blocks because they are engaged and can't see the chop coming. QBs are protected from diving at the knees because (if they are doing their job) their attention is primarily downfield and not on the pass rush. Defensive linemen cannot be hit in the head and neither can QBs. Their are rules to protect defenseless receivers too.
I don't get why this is such a big deal because Tom Brady got one questionable call and Jamarcus Russell didn't.
Defensive linemen are protected from chop blocks because they are engaged and can't see the chop coming. QBs are protected from diving at the knees because (if they are doing their job) their attention is primarily downfield and not on the pass rush. Defensive linemen cannot be hit in the head and neither can QBs. Their are rules to protect defenseless receivers too.
I don't get why this is such a big deal because Tom Brady got one questionable call and Jamarcus Russell didn't.
Grigs Allmoon
Footballguy
No, and nor should WRs. They should have to know when to push the envelope. If it's not worth the risk of injury they should have to learn to give up on a play.
Code:
And, I am an offensive minded type...Tommy Collins
Footballguy
It's not as if its the only questionable call that has gone Brady's way. Tuck rule ring a bell. He has a history of getting the better half of tons of questionable calls. I think what fueled this is how these rules seem to benefit Brady more than any other QB... or at least thats how it seems. I personally hate the guy. I've watched enough of him whining to sour my feelings on him. You don't see it a whole lot because the cameras quickly bounce off the guy after the play. But here and there they stay on him long enough and every single time he's yelling at the refs over something. Every play.
Grigs Allmoon
Footballguy
I agree 100%, but why does that matter to you?
Tommy Collins
Footballguy
But seriously, I do have some odd feeling about the NFL and its love for the Patriots. Two years ago the NFL Network advertised the hell out of the Patriots. Every week, Patriots this, Patriots that. They were capitalizing on the Patriots being undefeated. And obviously they kept it going and had an incentive for them not to lose. I'm not saying the refs purposely blew calls but I saw a ton of questionable, game changing calls that should've easily gone the other way (remember Jabar Gaffney "changing hands" with the ball against the Ravens? He clearly was bobbling it). Just like they said on NFL Live tonight, the rule was obviously made because of Brady's injury. Brady and the Patriots are certainly of interest to the NFL. This rule didn't happen when Palmer went down or any other QB for that matter. As soon as it happens to the precious Tom Brady there is a new rule... coincidence? Please.
tonka
Footballguy
Yes. It has been demonstrated time and time again that there is a limited number of good QBs at any time. The game is far more entertaining to watch when the top QBs are on the field. This translates to higher TV ratings and more money for the league. Everyone wins (except defenders, I guess).
If protecting QBs means that some defensive players get upset, too bad for them.
If protecting QBs means that some defensive players get upset, too bad for them.
Ted Lange as your Bartender
Footballguy
Yes, because no one's interested in seeing Billy Volek vs Brian Hoyer on national TV
Tommy Collins
Footballguy
It means them playing the game differently, taking a lot of pressure off the QB as the defenders will be afraid to get fined or penalized if they don't slow themselves down before they get to the QB. Just makes it easier on them.
The Gray Hood
Footballguy
you've got a lot of nerve hopping online to whine about this stuff after that call on wilfork.but I'll bet you were quick to jump online and cry about that one, too, right.....?
Werewolf Moderator Fan
Footballguy
/thread
The Great Snook
Footballguy
Oh you poor Bills fan. Please allow me to retort. The tuck rule wasn't made for Brady. It was already a rule and it was properly applied. Now it may be a stupid rule (and I don't think I can argue against that), but it is a rule. Now what you call whining is actually a sign of an intelligent quarterback. If he can get a 15 yard penalty and a free first down because he is smart enough to point out to a ref when someone is lunging at his knees or slapping him in the head then he should do it. Now, I do agree that most of the rules to protect the quarterback seem to be applied arbitrarily. When is the QB in the grasp? Do they call it differently if it was Big Ben vs. Doug Flutie? Yes they do.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
I would love to see some statistics on QB injuries compared to the rest of the league.
People always talk and talk about how the QB is "vulnerable" there in the pocket, but that seems like pure theorycraft to me. Ok, so Tom Brady got hit low and had a major injury. When was the last time it happened before that?
How many QBs have been injured this year? The only two semi-major ones I can think of are Mcnabb and Hasselbeck and both of those happened on plays where they were running, not in the pocket.
I mean, it seems like a lineman getting his leg rolled up on is a 100x more common injury than a QB getting hit low or the laughable handslap to the head of a QB, so should it be a 15 yard penalty if you fall on a lineman's leg? A lot of these guys getting roughing the passer called on them have just as little control coming out of a block as someone does falling on a lineman's leg, so why is that not a penalty when it causes 20x as many injuries as any of these ridiculous roughing the passer calls?
Also, it would seem if they really want to make protecting the QBs a priority they need to make it two hand touch on the QB once they cross the line of scrimmage, because most of them seem to get hurt on running plays even though they're getting hit a lot less on running plays than they are on passing plays.
Running backs, linemen, DBs, LBs. They all get hurt far more often than QBs. So why are QBs getting extra protection again?
People always talk and talk about how the QB is "vulnerable" there in the pocket, but that seems like pure theorycraft to me. Ok, so Tom Brady got hit low and had a major injury. When was the last time it happened before that?
How many QBs have been injured this year? The only two semi-major ones I can think of are Mcnabb and Hasselbeck and both of those happened on plays where they were running, not in the pocket.
I mean, it seems like a lineman getting his leg rolled up on is a 100x more common injury than a QB getting hit low or the laughable handslap to the head of a QB, so should it be a 15 yard penalty if you fall on a lineman's leg? A lot of these guys getting roughing the passer called on them have just as little control coming out of a block as someone does falling on a lineman's leg, so why is that not a penalty when it causes 20x as many injuries as any of these ridiculous roughing the passer calls?
Also, it would seem if they really want to make protecting the QBs a priority they need to make it two hand touch on the QB once they cross the line of scrimmage, because most of them seem to get hurt on running plays even though they're getting hit a lot less on running plays than they are on passing plays.
Running backs, linemen, DBs, LBs. They all get hurt far more often than QBs. So why are QBs getting extra protection again?
Last edited by a moderator:
The Gray Hood
Footballguy
........so......let me see if I can try to understand this.........wish me luck.......you're complaining that there are too many rules protecting the qb, and to back this up you cite the fact that qb's aren't getting hurt......?uh....yeah.
encaitar
Footballguy
Yes they need to protect QBs. They are often times the face of the franchise and good QBs do bring a better product to the football field. However, it doesn't need to be where it is now. The league already had rules making it illegal to intentionally go for a QBs knees, hit him late, or hit his helmet with your helmet or shoulder pad. The new rule outlawing any low contact(even when blocked) and any blows to the head(even grazing the side of their helmet) are ridiculous.
NE_REVIVAL
Footballguy
Hell No!
We need more Jamarcus Russells, Jason Campbells, Kyle Bollers, Harringtons, Leafs, Grossmans, etc etc.
No, no, certainly we need more not less diving at QBs knees
We need more Jamarcus Russells, Jason Campbells, Kyle Bollers, Harringtons, Leafs, Grossmans, etc etc.
No, no, certainly we need more not less diving at QBs knees
Last edited by a moderator:
Chaka
Footballguy
There are 5 offensive lineman to every QB, they also weigh three plus bills which is tough on even the strongest ligaments. I would expect to see more injuries there.
Chaka
Footballguy
Tuck rule might be the worst call in NFL history. However it occurred in 2001 in Brady's 15th game as a starter. Are you suggesting that the league decided at that time that Brady was going to be the poster boy of the NFL?Seems like a big reach BILLy boy.
Similar threads
