- Joined
- Oct 24, 2003
- Messages
- 115,424
- Likes
- 68,113
What if the ball carrier cuts back or stops? Would Aaron Murray have stopped running so that he wouldn't have made the tackle?
I'd like to see Quinton Dial knock you the f*** out. Maybe knock some of the stupid out of you.
You act like the guys just play football and have no life's. They guys will have wife's and kids when they are in the nfl. If these kind of hits are allowed it will hurt someone. We are not saying to take out all the hitting. But helmet to helmet? It needs to be gone.Whatever dude. Go on thinking that hitting should be taken out of football. Just because you or me wouldn't want to take that hit doesn't mean it Aaron Murray should get immunity from those type of hits when he becomes a tackler after throwing an INT.
For the life of me I can't understand why people think it's the responsibility of the NFL to be a nanny that protects the players from themselves. They're grown men who are fully capable of weighing the risks of playing a violent game with the financial rewards that come along with it. If the money doesn't make it worth the risk, then they can earn a living another way. I know we're not specifically talking about a hit from an NFL game, but this is all a trickle down from Goodell's crusade to eliminate hitting from football.
You act like the guys just play football and have no lives. They guys will have wife's and kids when they are in the nfl. If these kind of hits are allowed it will hurt someone. We are not saying to take out all the hitting. But helmet to helmet? It needs to be gone.
Yes there are many risks to playing football. But the risks are greatly increased when helmet to helmet hits are legal. Leading with your helmet in anyway is a mistake because you can get paralyzed.I'm sorry, but there are obscene financial rewards for playing in the NFL. If the danger of the hitting is more than some guys can stomach, they have the option to make a living elsewhere.
By the way, people have been getting paralyzed playing football for as long as the game has been played. IMO that's a far worse fate than what concussions do to you. However, I never saw that as an impetus to dumb the game down for safety's sake. It was always viewed as an unfortunate byproduct of playing a dangerous game. The difference with the concussions is the lawsuits that have been laid on the NFL. Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with player safety and everything to do with money.
I've always considered the show The Deadliest Catch when thinking about what Goodell is trying to turn football into. Those guys go out there on the boats knowing they stand to make a huge sum of money for a few months work. They also go in knowing it is highly dangerous and that there is a chance they might not make it back alive. It's simple risk vs. reward.
eace2:
Yes there are many risks to playing football. But the risks are greatly increased when helmet to helmet hits are legal. Leading with your helmet in anyway is a mistake because you can get paralyzed.
Whatever dude. Go on thinking that hitting should be taken out of football. Just because you or me wouldn't want to take that hit doesn't mean it Aaron Murray should get immunity from those type of hits when he becomes a tackler after throwing an INT.
For the life of me I can't understand why people think it's the responsibility of the NFL to be a nanny that protects the players from themselves. They're grown men who are fully capable of weighing the risks of playing a violent game with the financial rewards that come along with it. If the money doesn't make it worth the risk, then they can earn a living another way. I know we're not specifically talking about a hit from an NFL game, but this is all a trickle down from Goodell's crusade to eliminate hitting from football.
Yet for some reason nobody gave a damn for nearly 100 years until the NFL had some of it's profits at stake. Once that happened they didn't hesitate to start dumbing down their game. Don't act like it's just helmet to helmet either. They've gotten to the point that you can't even hit receivers hard anymore. The "new" way to defend is to let the receiver catch the ball and then get him to the ground. You sure as hell can't try to hit him while he's "defenseless" and knock the ball out.
Gosh you're stupid as f***! No one thinks the penalty should be called cause he's a QB dumbass. It should be a penalty if it was an 800# OL getting hit. So please stop saying his position shouldn't get immunity. Maybe you've already been brain damaged from too many hits.
Yet for some reason nobody gave a damn for nearly 100 years until the NFL had some of it's profits at stake. Once that happened they didn't hesitate to start dumbing down their game. Don't act like it's just helmet to helmet either. They've gotten to the point that you can't even hit receivers hard anymore. The "new" way to defend is to let the receiver catch the ball and then get him to the ground. You sure as hell can't try to hit him while he's "defenseless" and knock the ball out.
Sure the NFL is not as physical as it once was. But really who cares? There are still big hits in the game there always will be. Also it's not like ratings are suffering. You act like they play flag football out there, why don't you play a game and see if the hit hard enough?
Actually in a lot of ways they are. Compared with 10 years ago the game is ridiculously tilted towards the offensive side of the ball. It seems like the days of getting to watch 14-10 type slugfests are gone. After Manning and the Colts started complaining about the Patriots being to physical several years ago, they all but put an end to lock down defense when the eliminated the corners ability to hand check receivers. Now, as they stop letting defenders hit receivers going over the middle for balls and put the QB's in an even more harcore safety bubble, the lean towards offense is probably only going to get worse.
Only because the commissioner of the NFL is the worlds biggest vagina. Big hits happen in football. If you can't take them then find a different line of work.
The hit wouldn't have looked that bad if he'd hit another player his own size. The main reason it looked bad was because Murray wasn't aware of his surroundings and got completely blindsided and laid out like a ragdoll someone almost twice his size while running towards the play. It wasn't the dirty play you'd like to think it was. Just one huge guy putting a big hit on somebody MUCH smaller than him.
Yeah, forget the fact that he got his brains jumbled on a cheapshot play. I imagine if it were your kid out there then you still wouldn't have a problem with it?
Good Lord. You're as bad as the 12 year old girls who threw a fit that we didn't get Gruden.
No, it was helmet to helmet and any person with a brain flags that play. I guarantee you that the ref will be reprimanded behind the scenes for missing that one.
I probably wouldn't be thrilled, but that's just something that comes along with what Murray has chosen to do with his life. Just like any of the occupational hazards that come with other jobs. Sometimes it sucks, but such is life.
Answer me this bleedorange. Could the Alabama defender have hit him somewhere else? Did he have to hit him helmet to helmet? The answer is obviously no and that is what makes it a cheap shot. There are many clean blocks in football. This was not one of them.
It was a cheapshot intended to knock him out of the game. He knew he had a free shot and took it and targeted his head. I guarantee you ass gets his knees taken out if that happens at the next level. He's lucky 2 UGA linemen didn't go after his knees. Kind of like the 2 Mizzou linemen that went after Fanning after he cheap shotted the Mizzou RB.
Alabama's Lamichael Fanning suplexes Missouri Runningback - YouTube