Thread: NFL Quarterbacks

Yeah it's lame, plus they get lots of bad calls just out of caution. it'll be a little better w/in the next few years, but never back to the old days.

I believe that you need to protect your Qb's in the league. there aren't enough good ones around. that being said some of the calls are ridiculous.

Those rules are awefully dumb sometimes. I think if a guy comes in and pushes a QB down with his hands there should be no flag, but if hes coming in head hunting thats different. However they do treat them like babies. Hell they are bult better than most punters and punters can take a hit after they kick the ball.

Yeah, I am so sick of seeing refs treat the QB's like they are precious little 6-year old girls.

I have seen numerous times this year a QB take a "hit" from a Defensive Lineman (who is probably 6'5 320lbs) and not go down, and in fact barely even flinch. Then I watch the replay to see the lineman had to "baby" him by being completely afraid of getting a personal foul. Of course then the QB "gets away" and throws a TD.

I forget which game it was, but yesterday someone barely pushed the QB after he threw the ball, the QB didn't even fall down, and the defensive guy got a "roughing the passer" penalty (15 yards). Even the announcer said it was B.S. (in a nice way of course). The ref should have been fired on the spot for that dumbass call.

Anyone else think the strict rules led to Mathias Kiwanuka letting Vince Young go as opposed to slamming his ass into the turf?

Originally Posted by the nut

Anyone else think the strict rules led to Mathias Kiwanuka letting Vince Young go as opposed to slamming his ass into the turf?

exactly, this is the downside of rules being called differently everytime. there is no clearcut rule in the league anymore its now discretionary from the refs. kind of like in basketball how guys get ejected for argueing a call without really doing anything

That is exactly why he let him go.

Is the QB a football player? Yes.

So why does he need to be protected anymore than anyone else? Do we have unnessecary roughness calls for people who hit WRs when they make a catch over the middle? nope. Why are they any different? They are completely explosed like that, but they still take the hit.

it is bull shit. a lot of those calls are gay.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

That is exactly why he let him go.

Maybe, but if he heard no whistle, he should have wrapped him up.

Aggressive mistakes are generally better than passive ones.

Originally Posted by Decker

Maybe, but if he heard no whistle, he should have wrapped him up.

Aggressive mistakes are generally better than passive ones.

I believe he thought the ball had been released, not that the play had ended, thus no whistle.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

I believe he thought the ball had been released, not that the play had ended, thus no whistle.

Correct!

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

I believe he thought the ball had been released, not that the play had ended, thus no whistle.

I've never heard an excuse like that before. Is that what he really said?

He put his head down to tackle Young and did not know if the ball was thrown.

“I thought he had thrown the ball,” Kiwanuka said. “He had started his passing motion when I put my head down to drive through him. At that point I thought it was going to be a 15-yard penalty for roughing the passer if I drove him to the ground. Obviously, I made a mistake that cost us the game.”
http://www.giants.com/news/eisen/sto...story_id=23322

Maybe next time he'll keep his head up when tackling. What a dumbass.

Originally Posted by Decker

I've never heard an excuse like that before. Is that what he really said?

He put his head down to tackle Young and did not know if the ball was thrown.

“I thought he had thrown the ball,” Kiwanuka said. “He had started his passing motion when I put my head down to drive through him. At that point I thought it was going to be a 15-yard penalty for roughing the passer if I drove him to the ground. Obviously, I made a mistake that cost us the game.”
http://www.giants.com/news/eisen/sto...story_id=23322

Maybe next time he'll keep his head up when tackling. What a dumbass.

Yes, keep your head up so the top of your helmet hit the bottom QB's facemask and that's 15 yards.

Next time, just crack the fucker, and let the refs throw the flag. At least he keeps his pride.

Originally Posted by the nut

Yes, keep your head up so the top of your helmet hit the bottom QB's facemask and that's 15 yards.

Next time, just crack the fucker, and let the refs throw the flag. At least he keeps his pride.

Keeping the head up is textbook tackling. Also, the guy would have seen that Young had the damn ball in his hands. The kid made a mistake in proper technique. Why did that kid make the conclusion that Young had thrown the ball if he couldn't see what Young was doing? This was all the player's fault and should not be blamed on a rule.

I agree to the extent that a mistake made should be an aggressive mistake.

Why stop with protecting the QB? Let's also bring back the clothesline, the horsecollar, crackback blocking, blocking below the waste on kickoffs and punts, clipping etc.

Let's face it, the QB position is unique. Besides the obvious commercial reasons for protecting a QB, no one else on the field of play has, at a minimum, 3 players coming after his ass on every single play and no other player opens his body to contact the way a throwing quarterback does. Incidental hits and hits after a pass is released on prone (throwing) QBs are devestating.

Originally Posted by Decker

Keeping the head up is textbook tackling. Also, the guy would have seen that Young had the damn ball in his hands. The kid made a mistake in proper technique. Why did that kid make the conclusion that Young had thrown the ball if he couldn't see what Young was doing? This was all the player's fault and should not be blamed on a rule.

Head up or not, there would be no way he would have known whether or not the ball had been released as far into the tackle as he was. If his head was up when the motion occurred, he still would have been looking at the goal line behind Young, not at young himself.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

Head up or not, there would be no way he would have known whether or not the ball had been released as far into the tackle as he was. If his head was up when the motion occurred, he still would have been looking at the goal line behind Young, not at young himself.

Maybe it happened that way but I don't agree with that at all--If he were looking up he'd have known. Either he was looking down--poor tackling form--or he was leading with his head--an illegal use of the helmet in making a tackle--both excuses indicate improper tackling technique.

Assuming he couldn't see Young's throwing arm and the ball, he still decided that the ball was thrown so he let up fearing a penalty.

If he couldn't see if the ball was thrown or not, why'd he let up? He just assumed the ball was thrown? Based on what? He couldn't see what was going on and no whistle was blown. He just decided to stop playing.

I think I'd better get back to work. I have a boss circling my office and I'm plum out of buckshot.

Originally Posted by Decker

Maybe it happened that way but I don't agree with that at all--If he were looking up he'd have known. Either he was looking down--poor tackling form--or he was leading with his head--an illegal use of the helmet in making a tackle--both excuses indicate improper tackling technique.

Assuming he couldn't see Young's throwing arm and the ball, he still decided that the ball was thrown so he let up fearing a penalty.

If he couldn't see if the ball was thrown or not, why'd he let up? He just assumed the ball was thrown? Based on what? He couldn't see what was going on and no whistle was blown. He just decided to stop playing.

I think I'd better get back to work. I have a boss circling my office and I'm plum out of buckshot.

have you read any of this before you posted? he said when he got to him young was in his throwing motion. the tape confirms this. and you can have the best technique ever and yet still not see whether the guy throws the ball or not. there are so many variables involved in what your able to see even with perfect form. your post makes little sense to me. how can you see a mans arm when your head is burried in his chest or side upon impact???

the rule needs to be changed and clarified so this doesnt happen, and players are allowed to play football.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

have you read any of this before you posted? he said when he got to him young was in his throwing motion. the tape confirms this. and you can have the best technique ever and yet still not see whether the guy throws the ball or not. there are so many variables involved in what your able to see even with perfect form. your post makes little sense to me. how can you see a mans arm when your head is burried in his chest or side upon impact???

the rule needs to be changed and clarified so this doesnt happen, and players are allowed to play football.

Just what point are you trying to make?
Is it B/c some rook blew a play we should get rid of personal fouls against the quarterback?

"I thought he was throwing the ball," Kiwanuka said. "I thought he went into his passing motion. If I drive him in, at that point I thought it was going to be a 15-yard penalty. Obviously, I made a mistake that cost us the game."

Looks like the rookie blew it. He thought he was in a passing motion?--this kid never heard of a pump fake.

You do not understand the rules. If a player has his head buried in the chest of an opposing player during a tackle, that's a penalty too.


13. A tackler using his helmet to butt, spear, or ram an opponent. 14. Any player who uses the top of his helmet unnecessarily.
http://www.nfl.com/fans/rules/penaltysummaries

Also, if you cannot see a person's throwing arm upon a side impact I'd suggest a vision test.

Originally Posted by Decker

Just what point are you trying to make?
Is it B/c some rook blew a play we should get rid of personal fouls against the quarterback?

"I thought he was throwing the ball," Kiwanuka said. "I thought he went into his passing motion. If I drive him in, at that point I thought it was going to be a 15-yard penalty. Obviously, I made a mistake that cost us the game."

Looks like the rookie blew it. He thought he was in a passing motion?--this kid never heard of a pump fake.

You do not understand the rules. If a player has his head buried in the chest of an opposing player during a tackle, that's a penalty too.


13. A tackler using his helmet to butt, spear, or ram an opponent. 14. Any player who uses the top of his helmet unnecessarily.
http://www.nfl.com/fans/rules/penaltysummaries

Also, if you cannot see a person's throwing arm upon a side impact I'd suggest a vision test.

i dont think ive ever been as frustrated with a persons obviously obtuse and ridiculous remarks as i have reading your posts on this thread. if your face mask is in his chest, your helmet is in his chest yet he is not butting, spearing, or raming. yeah the rookie blew it. he didnt drive the guy to the ground because if young had released the ball and he drove him to the ground it would potentially have been a flag. and he didnt want to give up 15 yards and an automatic first down that would have potentially cost his team the game. the exact reason that everyone is calling for a rule clarification. as is there is ambiguity that makes players indecisive on how they should play the game.

Originally Posted by Decker

Just what point are you trying to make?
Is it B/c some rook blew a play we should get rid of personal fouls against the quarterback?

"I thought he was throwing the ball," Kiwanuka said. "I thought he went into his passing motion. If I drive him in, at that point I thought it was going to be a 15-yard penalty. Obviously, I made a mistake that cost us the game."

Looks like the rookie blew it. He thought he was in a passing motion?--this kid never heard of a pump fake.

You do not understand the rules. If a player has his head buried in the chest of an opposing player during a tackle, that's a penalty too.


13. A tackler using his helmet to butt, spear, or ram an opponent. 14. Any player who uses the top of his helmet unnecessarily.
http://www.nfl.com/fans/rules/penaltysummaries

Also, if you cannot see a person's throwing arm upon a side impact I'd suggest a vision test.

The guy had perfect tackling form, he just never finished it. IMO, the rule is just called too liberally and he was afraid to get the penalty. Late hit on the QB has been called a ton this year, this is what lead to him letting up. As for his tackling form...Try this. Get someone in a double leg takedown, as in wrestling, which has the same form as tackling. Head out to the side, arms wrapped around his waist. Now tell me what he is doing with the hand opposite the side you shot in on...It's not possible with good form. Now, try to do it with no peripheral vision because you are wearing a helmet. Even more difficult. No one is saying that they should stop calling roughing the passer or late hit, only that it is being called way too much for little reason.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

The guy had perfect tackling form, he just never finished it. IMO, the rule is just called too liberally and he was afraid to get the penalty. Late hit on the QB has been called a ton this year, this is what lead to him letting up. As for his tackling form...Try this. Get someone in a double leg takedown, as in wrestling, which has the same form as tackling. Head out to the side, arms wrapped around his waist. Now tell me what he is doing with the hand opposite the side you shot in on...It's not possible with good form. Now, try to do it with no peripheral vision because you are wearing a helmet. Even more difficult. No one is saying that they should stop calling roughing the passer or late hit, only that it is being called way too much for little reason.

I don't know, I always remember being told to drive the Riddell label on the helmet right into the person you are tackling. Do so would mean not being able to see the finish of the play.

With that said if he has him wrapped up and the ball has been thrown, then he continues with the tackle, he would have been called with unnecessary roughness. So I can understand his position. But he should have just finished the tackle, and deal with the repercussions later.

I would like to point out that I think it is his fault regardless of the rule.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

i dont think ive ever been as frustrated with a persons obviously obtuse and ridiculous remarks as i have reading your posts on this thread. if your face mask is in his chest, your helmet is in his chest yet he is not butting, spearing, or raming. yeah the rookie blew it. he didnt drive the guy to the ground because if young had released the ball and he drove him to the ground it would potentially have been a flag. and he didnt want to give up 15 yards and an automatic first down that would have potentially cost his team the game. the exact reason that everyone is calling for a rule clarification. as is there is ambiguity that makes players indecisive on how they should play the game.

Driving a player into the ground is also a penalty.

There is little ambiguity in the rule. What is in contention is that refs are making some errors in making the call. A sensible solution is to have that type of penalty subject to replay. Liken it to whether a catch is made inbounds. Officials blow that call routinely but the underlying rule doesn't need clarification.

The argument that the rookie was influenced by the big bad rule may be legitimate but it's weak. You say he didn't want to cost his team the game, well his chosen course of action did cost them the game.

What rule are we talking about anyway?

"obvious obtuse and ridiculous remarks"....kiss it buddy.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

The guy had perfect tackling form, he just never finished it. IMO, the rule is just called too liberally and he was afraid to get the penalty. Late hit on the QB has been called a ton this year, this is what lead to him letting up. As for his tackling form...Try this. Get someone in a double leg takedown, as in wrestling, which has the same form as tackling. Head out to the side, arms wrapped around his waist. Now tell me what he is doing with the hand opposite the side you shot in on...It's not possible with good form. Now, try to do it with no peripheral vision because you are wearing a helmet. Even more difficult. No one is saying that they should stop calling roughing the passer or late hit, only that it is being called way too much for little reason.

The football helmets I wore permitted peripheral vision to function. Maybe things have changed but I doubt it.

You either have a sack (hahahha), a broken tackle, a late hit, or are in the grasp. It is incumbent on the defender to know if the ball's been thrown or not in trying to sack the QB. There are exceptions to every rule--like being pushed into the opposing player by another player--but the rule is sound.

Dale, I understand what you're saying and I haven't seen the play itself since the weekend. I agree with you that the penalty rule is fine...it's the officials that are the weak link. Instant replay could fix the problem like it does for reviewing whether a ball is caught inbounds.

Does anyone have a video clip of this play that can be posted here?

Originally Posted by IainDaniel

......he should have just finished the tackle, and deal with the repercussions later.

Agreed. For tackling, you keep your head up, train your eyes on the breadbasket and drive your shoulder through the opponent as you wrap him up.


You never tackle with your helmet or facemask.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

...as is there is ambiguity that makes players indecisive on how they should play the game.

What is the ambiguity you are talking about and how would you fix it?