RE:The Packers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> General NFL Talk



Message

Cheesehead Craig -> RE:The Packers (11/20/2007 6:51:35 PM)

Very well Lynn, To remain consistent with your arguments, you must therefore come out and declare that any player that goes with this type of method of bringing someone down is a dirty player who is intentionally trying to hurt someone. I await your condemnation of all of these players, including the Vikings players who have done this.



David Moufang -> RE:The Packers (11/20/2007 6:55:57 PM)

[quote="Duane Sampson"][quote="David Moufang"]. Second, Peterson only had 45 yards when he got hurt. It was pretty clear that he wouldn't reach 100.[/quote] You obviously haven't seen Peterson play much if it was clear to you that he wouldn't get 100 yards. :lol:[/quote] Seriously. The way the game was going, with the Packers controlling the ball for more than two-thirds of the game (40min 40sec), you SERIOUSLY think he would have gotten to 100 yards? He was averaging 4.1 yards per carry, with only 11 carries to that point. At that rate, he'd have needed at least 13 more carries to reach 100 yards.



Tim Cady -> RE:The Packers (11/20/2007 7:02:04 PM)

[quote="#1 Bart Starr fan"]Lynn, One, so far it's just an investigation into whether or not it's true Two, if it is true, the allegations do not state anything such as the Packers said "Take Adrian Peterson out at all costs." Three, even a homer like Chad Hartman on KFAN today said that the "rule" that the Packers allegedly broke is stupid because this kind of thing happens a lot, i.e. incentives such as a RB telling his offensive line that if he "gets 100 yards that game, the steaks are on him, etc." Now, all that said, if the allegations are true, I say enforce the rules and fine them or whatever Gooddell thinks is appropriate but I also have to think that this goes on a lot more than this one occurence. And again, I want to stress something else: One, every NFL commentator I listened to on ESPN, FOX and a few more, said the hit was 100 percent clean and legal and MANY of the analysts said it wasn't even a cheap shot. In fact, most said that it is the normal place to hit a RB FOR DBs. Linebackers and DL men can go high because of their build. But no cornerback or safety is gonna go up high to take out a RB in the open field. Come on, Lynn, you watch enough football to know this is true. It was not a cheap hit. It was a legit open field tackle and if it happened to Ryan Grant or even Brett, I'd say the same thing. The only reason the hit made such a big news splash is it happened to a helluva runner. If it had been Cedric Benson, Rueben Droughns (sp?), or Ron Dayne, it would've gotten a big "eh," especially since the injury is not that severe. Look, I'm sorry it happened, but remember that allegedly it was the DBs who offered the incentive to the DL, not the other way around, so it's not like Harris would've benefited anyway unless you count paying HIMSELF his own money as an incentive. I respect you a lot, Lynn, but again, these are only allegations and while they be against the rules, per se, it's not making it profitable to do anything but play good hard football. Most analysts agreed it was a good clean and smart hit given Peterson was in the open field and is a very powerful runner and Harris is a small guy in comparison. Injuries suck but they are a part of football and the hit was legal. I understand you being upset AD got injured, but until the facts are known in this case, your comment seems unfair. And once more, the allegations say nothing about taking AD "out of the picture" just dong a good job of holding him down. If KA doesn't screw up AD's recovery, AD is going to give you Vike fans LOTS of great moments in the future and I hope he does. He appears to be a very special runner and I would love to see more of him (not so much against the Pack, though). ;)[/quote] You have Chad mixed up with his father Sid. Chad is far from being a homer. I didn't like the hit on Peterson anymore than anyone else, but when a guy is capable of breaking any play and looks like he might get away from you, you(Harris) try to get him down anyway you can which includes diving at his legs. I feel he didn't have to bring his helmet into the knees, but when he dove at Peterson from the side, the helmet comes with the body. I really can't say it was a clean hit like the announcers said right away, I also don't think it was a dirty hit either. It was unfortunate. Harris stood to lose money if it was true as reported the dbacks were offering money to the dline.



Tim Cady -> RE:The Packers (11/20/2007 7:05:00 PM)

[quote="David Moufang"][quote="Duane Sampson"][quote="David Moufang"]. Second, Peterson only had 45 yards when he got hurt. It was pretty clear that he wouldn't reach 100.[/quote] You obviously haven't seen Peterson play much if it was clear to you that he wouldn't get 100 yards. :lol:[/quote] Seriously. The way the game was going, with the Packers controlling the ball for more than two-thirds of the game (40min 40sec), you SERIOUSLY think he would have gotten to 100 yards? He was averaging 4.1 yards per carry, with only 11 carries to that point. At that rate, he'd have needed at least 13 more carries to reach 100 yards.[/quote] Against San Diego he got 256 in the second half after being held to 40 in the first half. He was just getting lathered up and on pace(for him) for 300. :lol:



Lynn G. -> RE:The Packers (11/20/2007 7:08:41 PM)

[quote="Cheesehead Craig"]Very well Lynn, To remain consistent with your arguments, you must therefore come out and declare that any player that goes with this type of method of bringing someone down is a dirty player who is intentionally trying to hurt someone. I await your condemnation of all of these players, including the Vikings players who have done this.[/quote] Just as much as Packer fans condemned Packer players after the Sapp hit. I mean if we're going for fair - let's go for it.



Trekgeekscott -> RE:The Packers (11/20/2007 7:21:15 PM)

[quote="David Moufang"][quote="Duane Sampson"][quote="David Moufang"]. Second, Peterson only had 45 yards when he got hurt. It was pretty clear that he wouldn't reach 100.[/quote] You obviously haven't seen Peterson play much if it was clear to you that he wouldn't get 100 yards. :lol:[/quote] Seriously. The way the game was going, with the Packers controlling the ball for more than two-thirds of the game (40min 40sec), you SERIOUSLY think he would have gotten to 100 yards? He was averaging 4.1 yards per carry, with only 11 carries to that point. At that rate, he'd have needed at least 13 more carries to reach 100 yards.[/quote] You seriously haven't paid attention... the only reason that Peterson wouldn't have gotten to 100 yards if he remained in the game, was because the Vikes abandoned the run because of being so far behind. His YPC avg goes up as the game goes on. But we will never know how many yards he would have gotten now do we?



John Childress -> RE:The Packers (11/20/2007 7:27:40 PM)

Peterson Rush Att. 1-5 45 256 5.7 Rush Att. 6-10 45 253 5.6 Rush Att. 11-15 35 279 8.0



#1 Bart Starr fan -> RE:The Packers (11/20/2007 7:35:22 PM)

If one takes into consideration the allegations by the league about a "bounty" offered by the DBs to the OL, then it's 100 percent irrelevant about whether or not Peterson would or wouldn't get the bulk of his yardage after the hit by Harris, even if the allegations are true because the allegations state that it was the DBs who were trying to motivate the defensive line to hold him down, not the other way around. Harris paying Harris makes no sense as a motivation for the hit. It makes more sense that Harris is an "at all costs" defender who will use this kind of hit to take someone down and be sure about it. I sincerely don't think Harris did it to hurt Peterson beyond inflicting as much legal pain as possible and at the same time ensuring that he went down. Harris' rep as a jammer and someone who takes shots at people doesn't change the fact that it was a legal hit and a hit that, if you watch lots of other teams, you see DBs and safeties make in the open field all the time. Both Peterson and Childress affirmed in press conferences that neither of them thought the hit was a cheap shot. If neither the coach nor the player has a problem with it, and if none of the media do, while anyone here is free to be pissed about it and think it IS a cheap shot, I think the issue is moot. If you think Harris is a dirty player, which I can see why some would think that, that's fine. The NFL has always had "enforcers" just as the NBA has 'em. I neither condone nor endorse playing in such a way as to inflict injury on someone, but I do endorse a style of football where the idea is to punish the other player as much as legally possible. This is the football I grew up watching and, sadly, there are so many rules now to protect players that a real smash mouth approach to the sport is missing. IMO, a lot of injuries today are due to a) artifical turf and b) the sheer weight and size of the players. Plenty of players in the 60s and 70s got injured, but it's much worse today and the NFL keeps trying to make it safer and safer to play the game. Pretty soon, the QB will play under a new rule called "touch" football, I fear, or "flag" football, something I dread may actually evolve. And I state that even though I know Brett Favre gets his share of the calls and if the QB had to absorb more hits, Brett would potentially get killed. But I say, take the gloves off and let 'em play ball again...esp. with the WRs and DBs. The PI calls in this league are getting ridiculous, as are the roughing the passer calls. Going back to the original topic, I also think anyone who says that Peterson was unlikely to get to 100 yards after that point in the game is being stupidly myopic. Hell, Peterson could have broken two big runs in the 4th quarter alone and made 150 to 200 yards easy. However, the game unfolding as it did, it was fairly unlikely that the Vikings would win the game regardless of what Peterson did simply because the Packers' offense was chewing up the clock so thoroughly that there wasn't enough time left for the Vikings to score enough points to win, unless they found a way to shut the Packers' offense down, something they were more or less unable to do.



John Childress -> RE:The Packers (11/20/2007 7:44:03 PM)

Great post Bart



Lynn G. -> RE:The Packers (11/20/2007 7:47:04 PM)

Just a couple of responses: [quote="#1 Bart Starr fan"]If one takes into consideration the allegations by the league about a "bounty" offered by the DBs to the OL, then it's 100 percent irrelevant about whether or not Peterson would or wouldn't get the bulk of his yardage after the hit by Harris, even if the allegations are true because the allegations state that it was the DBs who were trying to motivate the defensive line to hold him down, not the other way around. Harris paying Harris makes no sense as a motivation for the hit. Someone else made this point earlier, but I still think it makes sense. No matter who made the challenge and who was offering the "bounty" the entire point is that there was a bounty put up in the first place which leads to a locker room atmosphere. There's no reason to assume that Harris wasn't motivated by the same mentality the DB's were trying to instill in their D Line. I seriously doubt that Harris would be part of placing that bounty out there and NOT have the same instincts himself in a "let's shut this down" atmosphere.
quote:

Both Peterson and Childress affirmed in press conferences that neither of them thought the hit was a cheap shot.
Which was exactly the correct thing to say. Players and coaches get absolutely skewered when they say the kinds of things that fans say (remember Coach Holmgren after Superbowl XL?) - so it was the correct statement for both to make. Doesn't make it true.



Cheesehead Craig -> RE:The Packers (11/20/2007 7:51:34 PM)

[quote="Lynn G."][quote="Cheesehead Craig"]Very well Lynn, To remain consistent with your arguments, you must therefore come out and declare that any player that goes with this type of method of bringing someone down is a dirty player who is intentionally trying to hurt someone. I await your condemnation of all of these players, including the Vikings players who have done this.[/quote] Just as much as Packer fans condemned Packer players after the Sapp hit. I mean if we're going for fair - let's go for it.[/quote] I'm not talking about what happened on another board years ago, I'm talking about YOU. I'm talking about RIGHT NOW and the statements you are making. You don't like that Peterson got hurt, fine, we all get it. But this constant complaining that Harris intentionally tried to hurt Peterson and end his career is garbage. Sure, go ahead and hide behind the "we don't know what was really in his head" argument. It's a bullshit argument and you know it and I'm tired of it. If you are going to continue the righteous indignation about this type of play then don't go being selective about when you use it. You keep bringing up other fans on another forum and then taking out on us what happened to you there. That is completely unfair. Go take it out on them, none of the Packer fans here have done anything to deserve this. I don't like that Peterson got hurt as he's fantastic to watch and I'm sorry for you that it happened, but injuries happen in football.



Lynn G. -> RE:The Packers (11/20/2007 7:52:57 PM)

Craig, If you think fans on that board are the only ones who hated the Sapp hit, then you're deceiving yourself. My comment had nothing to do with that board.



#1 Bart Starr fan -> RE:The Packers (11/20/2007 7:56:46 PM)

[quote="Lynn G."]Just a couple of responses: [quote="#1 Bart Starr fan"]If one takes into consideration the allegations by the league about a "bounty" offered by the DBs to the OL, then it's 100 percent irrelevant about whether or not Peterson would or wouldn't get the bulk of his yardage after the hit by Harris, even if the allegations are true because the allegations state that it was the DBs who were trying to motivate the defensive line to hold him down, not the other way around. Harris paying Harris makes no sense as a motivation for the hit. Someone else made this point earlier, but I still think it makes sense. No matter who made the challenge and who was offering the "bounty" the entire point is that there was a bounty put up in the first place which leads to a locker room atmosphere. There's no reason to assume that Harris wasn't motivated by the same mentality the DB's were trying to instill in their D Line. I seriously doubt that Harris would be part of placing that bounty out there and NOT have the same instincts himself in a "let's shut this down" atmosphere.
quote:

Both Peterson and Childress affirmed in press conferences that neither of them thought the hit was a cheap shot.
Which was exactly the correct thing to say. Players and coaches get absolutely skewered when they say the kinds of things that fans say (remember Coach Holmgren after Superbowl XL?) - so it was the correct statement for both to make. Doesn't make it true. That's a good point, but there's a lot of grey area in there, too. Childress could have just said "You saw the same game I did...what do you think?" which I've heard other coaches say when they don't want to look as stupid as Sherman did when he went after Sapp (after the Clifton hit). OTOH, I've heard lots of players bad mouth opponents after the game, and damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. Did you hear what Kitna said about the Giants after their game? He reiterated that the Giants didn't "win" the game, but instead that the Lions "lost" it and as far as he was concerned, the Lions were the better club. So, some players do let 'er rip. Perhaps Peterson has more class than that or perhaps he sincerely believed what he said. As you yourself wrote (IIRC) in an earlier post, Lynn, we can't know intention, only guess at it. Maybe Peterson was toeing the party line, maybe he believed that Harris hit was clean. We'lll never know the truth.



Lynn G. -> RE:The Packers (11/20/2007 8:11:36 PM)

quote:

Did you hear what Kitna said about the Giants after their game?
Yep, and he's being (rightly) made fun of. Players just can't say that kind of thing without expecting to get pasted on all the talk shows. Luckily for us fans - we can say pretty much whatever we want. And I agree that it's entirely possible that both Peterson and Childress truly believe the hit was clean. And even (left unsaid) that they know better than I do.



Todd M -> RE:The Packers (11/20/2007 9:00:55 PM)

I just plain ol just don't see other DB's doing this. Easy E said that Winfield does it all the time. Don't see that either. I'm looking for it though. Regardless of who does anything like this I don't like it. There should be an attempt to make a tackle. You're not allowed to throw a leg out and trip someone why are you allowed to use your whole body that way? I'm looking at this like I would when you get a new car and suddenly everywhere you look you see that car. I want to see other CB's making no effort to tackle and using their bodies to take out a players knees.



Trekgeekscott -> RE:The Packers (11/20/2007 9:14:16 PM)

You aren't supposed to block people that way either. And it isn't good technique most of the time either. Most of the time the ball carrier can just jump you or cut and there you are flailing on the ground while the back is 30 yards downfield. It is just slightly better technique than the shoulderblock tackle.



David Moufang -> RE:The Packers (11/20/2007 9:47:25 PM)

[quote="Lynn G."]
quote:

Did you hear what Kitna said about the Giants after their game?
Yep, and he's being (rightly) made fun of. Players just can't say that kind of thing without expecting to get pasted on all the talk shows. Luckily for us fans - we can say pretty much whatever we want. And I agree that it's entirely possible that both Peterson and Childress truly believe the hit was clean. And even (left unsaid) that they know better than I do. Even if they don't think it was clean, bellyaching will get them nowhere fast. They know that above all else. They also knew (or SHOULD have known) that the Packers weren't going to let Peterson run all over them just because San Diego did. They were going to come out fighting.



Todd M -> RE:The Packers (11/20/2007 10:03:30 PM)

They also knew (or SHOULD have known) that the Packers weren't going to let Peterson run all over them just because San Diego did. They were going to come out fighting. Like San Diego did? How about like you guys did the first time we met? AD was getting almost 10 a clip. I know of a good way to keep a guy from doing it the second time. Al Harris shared it with me. ;)



David Moufang -> RE:The Packers (11/21/2007 12:51:06 AM)

[quote="Todd Mallett"]They also knew (or SHOULD have known) that the Packers weren't going to let Peterson run all over them just because San Diego did. They were going to come out fighting. Like San Diego did? How about like you guys did the first time we met? AD was getting almost 10 a clip.[/quote] But he was getting only 5.2 yds/c if you remove the long run he had (55 yds). Big difference. He got nearly half his yardage (112) on that one run.



Guest -> RE:The Packers (11/21/2007 1:07:28 AM)

yea, and if you remove Favrey's one single superbowl win he sucks even more... whats your stupid point again?



John Childress -> RE:The Packers (11/21/2007 3:36:33 AM)

The level of conversation is really hitting the toilet lately.



Cheesehead Craig -> RE:The Packers (11/21/2007 3:41:40 AM)

No kidding. It doesn't matter if Peterson would have run for 100 yards had he stayed in. The game was almost 2 weeks ago, let's move on. No letdown for the Pack on Thursday! Gotta stick it to the Lions and take home the division title! :beer:



Todd M -> RE:The Packers (11/21/2007 4:06:00 AM)

:roll:



LEATHERFACE47 -> RE:The Packers (11/21/2007 4:38:48 AM)

Seriously. The way the game was going, with the Packers controlling the ball for more than two-thirds of the game (40min 40sec), you SERIOUSLY think he would have gotten to 100 yards? YEP...........1 more run of 56 yards would have put him at 101, what's your point? I am almost now pulling (something i have never done) for GB to get to the superbowl.....I am going to have an almost insane orgasmic experience watching New England systematically dismantle GB....seeing Moss burn whoever they have covering him....seeing Brady throw for 400 yrds and put up 50 points...what I'd love to see is the score at 42-7 late in the fourth, 1:30 left and NE go for it on 4th and a foot at the GB 4 yard line, and then with the final score at 53 to 7, hear all the packer fans wailing at how "the refs stole the game". now i feel lots better



LEATHERFACE47 -> RE:The Packers (11/21/2007 4:46:59 AM)

But he was getting only 5.2 yds/c if you remove the long run he had (55 yds). Big difference. He got nearly half his yardage (112) on that one run. funny but if ryan grant had 120 yards on 30 carries with a long of 90, meaning 29 carries for 30 yards, so 1 yrd per carry avg, you'd say oh he had a great day. one other thing too, i wonder if ANY packer fan, if favre was scrambling, and he got hit low on the knee, and tore a ligament that knocked him out for 2 or 3 games, would say "good clean hit, only way to take him down"-----give me a damn break, all holy hell would break loose..........course that would never happen cuz he starts "the slide" if anyone is within 8 yards of him or flips the ball well past the LOS......funny how ANY injury to favre is considered a cheap shot, but an injury to anyone else is just "part of the game".. packer fans make me want to puke.



Page: <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode