#1 Bart Starr fan
Posts: 44
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline
|
[quote="Lynn G."]Bill, I present as evidence of my right to complain about the Harris hit ... Geez, Lynn, I never said you couldn't complain nabout the hit,. I think more than once I even sympathized with you. Warren Sapp hitting Chad Clifton about three seasons ago. There was a HUGE cry by Packer fans on the board I was a part of after that hit. Sapp should be fined, kicked out of the league, heck even jailed! Even after the league announced that it was a legal hit, the complaining continued because it was clearly a cheap shot and completely unneccesary. I agreed with my Packer fan friends that the hit was an example of a thug mentality. Okay, now while I am not someone still holding onto any animosity about the Sapp-Clifton affair, you brought it up so let's dissect how dissimilar the two are: Adrian Peterson was in the open field and was the ball carrier. Al Harris made a legitimate and legal hit on him and, as I said and if you need the evidence, I will try to find it in print although most of it was heard by me on various NFL broadcasts, the hit was a "normal" hit for a DB to lay on a bigger RB in the open field.Going high in such an instance would have almost certainly resulted in Peterson just running through Harris' tackle. If Harris doesn't make the tackle, Peterson may have likely scored a TD. OTOH.. The Clifton-Sapp play involved a blind side (but legal) block on a offensive lineman after an interception which took part on the other side of the football field. Sapp laid a legal block on Clifton but a) Clifton was not a ball carrier and was nowhere near the interception so could never have presented a threat to tackle the man who made the interception, which was why, supposedly, Sapp made the block. If Sapp just nudges him or even gets between him and the DB who made the pick, that would have been sufficient to prevent Clifton from making the tackle..which is stupid to say because Clifton was so far removed from the action that he wasn't even reacting to the INT. It was too far away. So, you're comparing two very different scenarios both of which were legal hits, but in very different circumstances. Sapp's blindside block was almost 100 percent unnecessary to the play's success. It was viewed by many commentators at the time as what usually happens during an INT, i.e. aa defender gets to play blocker and go head hunting for an offensive combatant. Again, this is legal. But it was viewed as cheap because a) it was blind side and b) it was so totally not relevant to the play, since the return was at the other north-south end of the field (again, the distance from the play is why Clifton was more or less just standing there and not looking to get blocked) In Peterson's case, Harris came at him from the side and no way did he not see him, plus Peterson was the ball carrier and Harris job was to tackle him. Fast forward and they were still talking about it two years later. Yes, well some Packer fans are ignorant and thick-headed. So are some Viking fans who still bemoan the missed Gary Anderson FG, the dropped pass by Darrin Nelson, etc etc etc. Fans are just like that. I'm still venting two weeks later and I believe I have the right to do so. The hit by Harris might have been legal, but I don't believe it was necessary. How coincidental that the hit was on the Viking's best weapon.[/quote] Vent all you want, but please define "unnecessary." Honestly, you can't. You can theorize all you want that Harris is such a good tackler that he could bring Peterson down by tackling him at the waist or shoulders. OTOH, he could also have tried to go high and risk a horse collar tackler and THAT could also have caused an injury and that tackle IS illegal. And it was not coincidental for the very reason that Peterson IS your best weapon. It's because he is such a powerful runner and so feared that Harris had to go low, or at least that is how the analysts reported it. I'm not dictating you can't be pissed as hell and vent all you want. I'm just yinging to your yanging. The Clifton-Sapp scenario is wholly non-analogous to the Harris-Peterson one except that fans of the injured player(s) both are pissed and want some vengeance. Fine, but legal yet harmful hits are part of football, as I think JC has stated in this thread. So, that's all I'll say except that yeah, Harris does play at the border of "legal" sometimes and has a deserved reputation for mugging WRs. But in this case, it was just an unfortunate thing. Now, I'm sorry if I'm coming across like you're not entitled to rant and rave, 'cause you are. I'm just rebutting to the substance of your post. If you think it was a cheap shot, well, that's your view. But I've seen lots of hits like that in my years of watching football and to me it was a good low tackle of a RB who has proven impossble to stop one-on-one in the open field.
|
Printable Version
RE:The Packers - 
Momma needs a new pair of shoooooooooes.
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread