View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:02 am



Reply to topic  [ 507 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next
 Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 11 
Author Message
Practice Squad
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:30 pm
Posts: 12
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
I thought this Thread was about our game against Arizona, so what the heck do any of Aaron's antics last night have to do with it?

I'm sure there's some spare bandwidth on the Packer's Forum for a point that has been sufficiently beat to death. :wallbang:


Mon Nov 21, 2016 7:15 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am
Posts: 567
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Trkn10 wrote:
I thought this Thread was about our game against Arizona, so what the heck do any of Aaron's antics last night have to do with it?

I'm sure there's some spare bandwidth on the Packer's Forum for a point that has been sufficiently beat to death. :wallbang:

awww....i think the win has re-energized the fan base some..so there's some pi$$ and vinegar flying about.
it had gotten pretty morgue-like the past 2weeks. to the point where the other games didn't even have a thread going in the nfl section.
but it's probably already time to start talking about the lions due to the short week.


Mon Nov 21, 2016 7:40 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 1223
Location: St. Paul, MN
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Nunin wrote:
Purple Reign wrote:

Not according to the rule book - that is just your personal opinion.

the rule speaks directly to intent. there is no other way to interpet it. so, when a qb dives to the ground before taking a hit so that he doesn't have to take a hit his intent is to be down without contact....giving himself up.
-
the only reason the head first vs feet first rule is there is because RBs and WRs will sometimes dive to gain yards...NOT to surrender. so they need to be downed by contact.
the feet first rule was put in to protect QBs from getting hurt as well as where to mark the ball when sliding on a wet field....but a qb sliding vs a qb diving is the same exact thing in terms of what the QB's intent is.....'i surrender'
To try to say it's within the spirit of the rule to deek the defenders the way it's being suggested is unfair and unsportsmanlike.
if it ever happens it will happen one time...and following that every QB who dives will experience contact.
-
you can have the last word


I can only go by what's spelled out in the rule. It specifically mentions sliding feet first. If they meant it to apply to any slide, then they wouldn't state feet first. So are you saying only RBs and WRs dive to gain yards, and if a QB dives it is only to give himself up? You can't be serious. The rule doesn't mention anything specific to a position, it applies to all positions.


Mon Nov 21, 2016 8:17 pm
Profile
Packers Suck

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm
Posts: 2993
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Nunin wrote:
Jordysghost wrote:
Nunin wrote:
speaking figuratively i was


I hear you, but I think its more then just a statistical possibility at this point, but again, the injuries to the secondary are just getting overwhelming.

of course you do because you are a packer fan and there is a certain amount of emotionally fixed deniability that comes with being a fan....but to an outsider who can just look at it from an analytical perspective,the past 4 games have been the worst defensive performance since before the lombardi era. the injuries are still piling up.

if the vikes hadn't pulled Bradford outta their azzes...they'd be in the exact same boat on the other side of the ball.

packers fans believe that with rodgers, they always have a chance. which is true to a point, just not when they have to score 40+ to win.



Yea, and that is the point, the secondary injuries are to much to deal with unless we get Sheilds and Randall back quickly, not to mention the guys who got hurt last night, our O line being decimated certainly isnt helping the situation either.

But what you dont realize, is in 2010 we had 15 starters on IR, not to mention even more injured, and there was a point that year where we were mathematically less likely to make the playoffs then we are now, that year turned out alright.

We will always have a chance with Rodgers, the hope is that we either get enough guys back or guys step up enough so that we dont need 40 points to win, the Giants had the 32nd ranked Defense and a 9- 7 record on their way to a SB win in 2011.

_________________
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011


Mon Nov 21, 2016 8:36 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am
Posts: 567
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Purple Reign wrote:
Nunin wrote:
Purple Reign wrote:

Not according to the rule book - that is just your personal opinion.

the rule speaks directly to intent. there is no other way to interpet it. so, when a qb dives to the ground before taking a hit so that he doesn't have to take a hit his intent is to be down without contact....giving himself up.
-
the only reason the head first vs feet first rule is there is because RBs and WRs will sometimes dive to gain yards...NOT to surrender. so they need to be downed by contact.
the feet first rule was put in to protect QBs from getting hurt as well as where to mark the ball when sliding on a wet field....but a qb sliding vs a qb diving is the same exact thing in terms of what the QB's intent is.....'i surrender'
To try to say it's within the spirit of the rule to deek the defenders the way it's being suggested is unfair and unsportsmanlike.
if it ever happens it will happen one time...and following that every QB who dives will experience contact.
-
you can have the last word


I can only go by what's spelled out in the rule. It specifically mentions sliding feet first. If they meant it to apply to any slide, then they wouldn't state feet first. So are you saying only RBs and WRs dive to gain yards, and if a QB dives it is only to give himself up? You can't be serious. The rule doesn't mention anything specific to a position, it applies to all positions.

last time for me ok?
the rule speaks to intent regardless of position.....stop pretending it is difficult for anyone who follows football, especially an nfl official, to understand the QBs intent when he hits the turf to avoid being hit.


Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:09 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am
Posts: 567
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Jordystoast wrote:
Nunin wrote:
Jordystoast wrote:

I hear you, but I think its more then just a statistical possibility at this point, but again, the injuries to the secondary are just getting overwhelming.

of course you do because you are a packer fan and there is a certain amount of emotionally fixed deniability that comes with being a fan....but to an outsider who can just look at it from an analytical perspective,the past 4 games have been the worst defensive performance since before the lombardi era. the injuries are still piling up.

if the vikes hadn't pulled Bradford outta their azzes...they'd be in the exact same boat on the other side of the ball.

packers fans believe that with rodgers, they always have a chance. which is true to a point, just not when they have to score 40+ to win.



Yea, and that is the point, the secondary injuries are to much to deal with unless we get Sheilds and Randall back quickly, not to mention the guys who got hurt last night, our O line being decimated certainly isnt helping the situation either.

But what you dont realize, is in 2010 we had 15 starters on IR, not to mention even more injured, and there was a point that year where we were mathematically less likely to make the playoffs then we are now, that year turned out alright.

We will always have a chance with Rodgers, the hope is that we either get enough guys back or guys step up enough so that we dont need 40 points to win, the Giants had the 32nd ranked Defense and a 9- 7 record on their way to a SB win in 2011.


mathematically and nostalgically, you are correct, but i still say the packers have too much to overcome this year cause i don't believe they will go 10-6 and i don't believe both the vikes and lions will go 9-7 or worse. but i understand your contrariness to my statement 'the packers season is toast'....you are a packer fan.....don't you guys have seattle still?


Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:18 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 1223
Location: St. Paul, MN
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Nunin wrote:
last time for me ok?
the rule speaks to intent regardless of position.....stop pretending it is difficult for anyone who follows football, especially an nfl official, to understand the QBs intent when he hits the turf to avoid being hit.


Last one for me too.

Bottom line - if Rodgers had immediately gotten up after his head first slide, he could have legally advanced the ball 'according to the rules'. Don't see how anyone can deny that. But since he waited, then the play was called dead as it should have been.

People may disagree with the rule and that's fine.. I'm not saying a ref can't understand the QB's intent, just stating the way the rule is written a feet first slide is different than a head first slide regardless of intent. What you are saying is that there is no difference between a feet first and head first slide and that just isn't the case.


Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:28 pm
Profile
Packers Suck

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 pm
Posts: 2993
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Yea, and that is the point, the secondary injuries are to much to deal with unless we get Sheilds and Randall back quickly, not to mention the guys who got hurt last night, our O line being decimated certainly isnt helping the situation either.

But what you dont realize, is in 2010 we had 15 starters on IR,

mathematically and nostalgically, you are correct, but i still say the packers have too much to overcome this year cause i don't believe they will go 10-6 and i don't believe both the vikes and lions will go 9-7 or worse. but i understand your contrariness to my statement 'the packers season is toast'....you are a packer fan.....don't you guys have seattle still?[/quote]

I see no reason to think if the Packers sweep the rest of their division that 9- 7 for the Lions and Vikes is unattainable, a given? Of course not. But the Vikings werent exactly stellar prior to yesterday and the Lions are the Lions, again you guys play the Packers and eachother so if the Packers can get their #### together it is not unattainable.

Yea we have Seattle left, if we were to have our dbs back by that game id have no doubt we 'Could win' but that is a big if. Right now the secondary is the only reason we are losing games. You guys have the Cowboys left, fortunatly for us.

You know, i remember a thread in a Bears forum in 2010 joking about how the Packers were technically not mathematically eliminated yet. I dont ever count out the Packers, in the McCarthy era they have proven to be rather resiliant.

_________________
"Follow my lead today, whos goona be the big dog with me?" - Aaron Rodgers, February 6th, 2011


Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:45 pm
Profile
Fenrir
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Posts: 10512
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
I'd tell my defense if Rodgers slides again to slam a shoulder pad into the small of his back or his ribs. Maybe then he'll decide whether he wants to bend the rules or not. Of course then he'll cry for a flag because cake and eat it too.

The NFC north is open for the taking, minus the Bears.


Tue Nov 22, 2016 1:10 am
Profile
Fenrir
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Posts: 10512
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Cool of Griffen and Robison to come back to try help the guy. Linval gave zero #### about the guy :lol:

http://i.imgur.com/lH7K92i.gifv


Tue Nov 22, 2016 1:15 am
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 7:29 am
Posts: 542
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Trkn10 wrote:
I thought this Thread was about our game against Arizona, so what the heck do any of Aaron's antics last night have to do with it?

I'm sure there's some spare bandwidth on the Packer's Forum for a point that has been sufficiently beat to death. :wallbang:

It's because Jordy has a way of turning every damn thread into a packers thread. He baits, and we bite.


Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:53 am
Profile YIM
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
Posts: 3434
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
S197 wrote:
Cool of Griffen and Robison to come back to try help the guy. Linval gave zero #### about the guy :lol:

http://i.imgur.com/lH7K92i.gifv



What in Sam Hill was that guy thinking?

"We come from the land of ice and snow, where the midnight s---"

"Oh, looks like a good time to cross the railroad tracks!" :appl:


Tue Nov 22, 2016 9:00 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
Posts: 3434
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Thaumaturgist wrote:
Trkn10 wrote:
I thought this Thread was about our game against Arizona, so what the heck do any of Aaron's antics last night have to do with it?

I'm sure there's some spare bandwidth on the Packer's Forum for a point that has been sufficiently beat to death. :wallbang:

It's because Jordy has a way of turning every damn thread into a packers thread. He baits, and we bite.



Not this time. I'm the "guilty" party, but I think it's justified.

The discussion was initially centered on the 3 subsequent 15 yard personal foul penalties that we benefited from (and that caused Arians to literally have heart problems). In particular, the shot from Patrick Peterson on Bradford was legit, in my eyes, and I compared it to some plays I'd seen in the SNF game centered on Aaron Rodger's sliding head first and then trying to get back up to advance the ball when no one touched him. After seeing him talk to the refs, Collinsworth commented that he fully expected Rodgers to try to exploit the rule (if your slide doesn't come to a stop, you can get up again and advance the ball). I (and others) think that is BS. He's giving himself up, waving a white flag and using the NFL's recently made rules to protect QBs, only to deceive defenders.

As always, if one is not interested and doesn't want to read it, there are other threads. Alternatively, that "post reply" button is an option; initiating discourse on a topic more to one's liking is another option too. :v):


Tue Nov 22, 2016 9:11 am
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 7:29 am
Posts: 542
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Texas Vike wrote:
I'm the "guilty" party, but I think it's justified.

:nono:
Just giving you some grief Texas Vike!

:rofl:
Sorry Jordy! My rant wasn't warranted THIS time. :rock:


Tue Nov 22, 2016 9:20 am
Profile YIM
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3225
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
That personal foul called against Peterson for knocking Bradford down was TERRIBLE. That was among the worst calls I've ever seen. The other two seemed like clear penalties given the rules.


Tue Nov 22, 2016 9:55 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
Posts: 3434
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
fiestavike wrote:
That personal foul called against Peterson for knocking Bradford down was TERRIBLE. That was among the worst calls I've ever seen. The other two seemed like clear penalties given the rules.



That was my read in the game day thread too.


Tue Nov 22, 2016 10:20 am
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am
Posts: 567
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Texas Vike wrote:
fiestavike wrote:
That personal foul called against Peterson for knocking Bradford down was TERRIBLE. That was among the worst calls I've ever seen. The other two seemed like clear penalties given the rules.



That was my read in the game day thread too.

agree
bad call
smart play


Tue Nov 22, 2016 10:23 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
Posts: 3434
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Thaumaturgist wrote:
Texas Vike wrote:
I'm the "guilty" party, but I think it's justified.

:nono:
Just giving you some grief Texas Vike!

:rofl:
Sorry Jordy! My rant wasn't warranted THIS time. :rock:


:thumbsup:

Believe me, there have been times when I've been frustrated by Packer related topics dominating discussion here. But this time it only happened to be that onerous team that provided an example that was contextually relevant. The Seattle game provided another--Wilson caught a TD. Teams are getting resourceful with trick plays that incorporate their QBs in unconventional roles that sometimes raise new questions about rules that are meant to protect them. I find it an interesting topic. My general sentiment is that QBs are fair game for hits when they a) try to exploit rules meant to protect them (as Rodgers appeared to intend to do) or b) line up as WRs (Bradford and R Wilson).


Tue Nov 22, 2016 10:26 am
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 7:29 am
Posts: 542
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Texas Vike wrote:
Believe me, there have been times when I've been frustrated by Packer related topics dominating discussion here. But this time it only happened to be that onerous team that provided an example that was contextually relevant. The Seattle game provided another--Wilson caught a TD. Teams are getting resourceful with trick plays that incorporate their QBs in unconventional roles that sometimes raise new questions about rules that are meant to protect them. I find it an interesting topic. My general sentiment is that QBs are fair game for hits when they a) try to exploit rules meant to protect them (as Rodgers appeared to intend to do) or b) line up as WRs (Bradford and R Wilson).

Reading back through, I agree it was relevant to the topic that was being discussed. I feel like if you're going to have a QB lined up as a WR, then your team and him better be prepared to handle him getting knocked around. I was at the game, and I don't remember them showing that specific play on replay, but maybe I missed it, and I haven't gotten around to re-watching the whole game yet so I'll have to defer to other peoples judgement on it for now. I personally think more and more teams are going to start smacking the QB when they enter these non traditional rules. I haven't liked the wildcat for just this reason, IMHO, it opens your QB up to being hit harder than necessary. It may be different if you had a QB that wasn't injury prone, and elusive. That could be a real threat, but the team would need to decide if it's worth the risk of injury.


Tue Nov 22, 2016 11:38 am
Profile YIM
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
Posts: 3434
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Thaumaturgist wrote:
Texas Vike wrote:
Believe me, there have been times when I've been frustrated by Packer related topics dominating discussion here. But this time it only happened to be that onerous team that provided an example that was contextually relevant. The Seattle game provided another--Wilson caught a TD. Teams are getting resourceful with trick plays that incorporate their QBs in unconventional roles that sometimes raise new questions about rules that are meant to protect them. I find it an interesting topic. My general sentiment is that QBs are fair game for hits when they a) try to exploit rules meant to protect them (as Rodgers appeared to intend to do) or b) line up as WRs (Bradford and R Wilson).

Reading back through, I agree it was relevant to the topic that was being discussed. I feel like if you're going to have a QB lined up as a WR, then your team and him better be prepared to handle him getting knocked around. I was at the game, and I don't remember them showing that specific play on replay, but maybe I missed it, and I haven't gotten around to re-watching the whole game yet so I'll have to defer to other peoples judgement on it for now. I personally think more and more teams are going to start smacking the QB when they enter these non traditional rules. I haven't liked the wildcat for just this reason, IMHO, it opens your QB up to being hit harder than necessary. It may be different if you had a QB that wasn't injury prone, and elusive. That could be a real threat, but the team would need to decide if it's worth the risk of injury.


I think Bradford just needs to be aware that he may need to step out of bonds or swallow his pride and lay on the ground! I don't think we're going to send him out for a pass like SEA did with Wilson. I liked the flea flicker type play we did with him that resulted in the PI call on Thielen.


Tue Nov 22, 2016 11:46 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:03 am
Posts: 3225
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Texas Vike wrote:
I liked the flea flicker type play we did with him that resulted in the PI call on Thielen.


He was wide open. Thielen is a seriously good WR at this point, not just the token "white grinder". This guy can legitimately play WR. He and Diggs could be a great tandem, and Patterson and Treadwell could fulfill some other roles effectively. That's a good young corps.


Tue Nov 22, 2016 11:55 am
Profile
All Pro Elite Player

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 1223
Location: St. Paul, MN
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Texas Vike wrote:
The discussion was initially centered on the 3 subsequent 15 yard personal foul penalties that we benefited from (and that caused Arians to literally have heart problems). In particular, the shot from Patrick Peterson on Bradford was legit, in my eyes, and I compared it to some plays I'd seen in the SNF game centered on Aaron Rodger's sliding head first and then trying to get back up to advance the ball when no one touched him. After seeing him talk to the refs, Collinsworth commented that he fully expected Rodgers to try to exploit the rule (if your slide doesn't come to a stop, you can get up again and advance the ball). I (and others) think that is BS. He's giving himself up, waving a white flag and using the NFL's recently made rules to protect QBs, only to deceive defenders.



But sliding head first (by itself) is not giving himself up according to the rules. The rule does not protect him from being hit when sliding head first. What you are saying is that the defense is too stupid to know the difference between a head first slide and a feet first slide. :lol:


Tue Nov 22, 2016 12:09 pm
Profile
Defensive Tackle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:48 am
Posts: 37200
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Purple Reign wrote:
But sliding head first (by itself) is not giving himself up according to the rules. The rule does not protect him from being hit when sliding head first.


A key part of the rule is "making no effort to advance". A runner can declare himself down by going to the ground head first. He doesn't have to go feet first. However, once he does that if he doesn't immediately try to advance the ball, the play is over. He can't play possum and then try to advance the ball.

The difference you seem to be focused on is how the defense is allowed to react to a runner. If a runner slides feet first, defenders have to treat him as they would a runner who is down by contact. However, sliding feet first isn;t the only way for the runner to give himself up/declare himself down.

This really isn't that complicated!


Tue Nov 22, 2016 1:14 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
Posts: 3434
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Purple Reign wrote:
Texas Vike wrote:
The discussion was initially centered on the 3 subsequent 15 yard personal foul penalties that we benefited from (and that caused Arians to literally have heart problems). In particular, the shot from Patrick Peterson on Bradford was legit, in my eyes, and I compared it to some plays I'd seen in the SNF game centered on Aaron Rodger's sliding head first and then trying to get back up to advance the ball when no one touched him. After seeing him talk to the refs, Collinsworth commented that he fully expected Rodgers to try to exploit the rule (if your slide doesn't come to a stop, you can get up again and advance the ball). I (and others) think that is BS. He's giving himself up, waving a white flag and using the NFL's recently made rules to protect QBs, only to deceive defenders.



But sliding head first (by itself) is not giving himself up according to the rules. The rule does not protect him from being hit when sliding head first. What you are saying is that the defense is too stupid to know the difference between a head first slide and a feet first slide. :lol:



I read through the argument you had upthread on the matter. I think Nunnin's position makes much more sense than yours. IMO, you are misinterpreting the first rule that you yourself cited. You seem to be poor at interpretation, since you have also interpreted incorrectly "what I'm saying".

Refrain from telling other posters what they mean or what they are saying; it's bad form and does nothing to promote good dialogue.


Tue Nov 22, 2016 1:17 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Posts: 4407
Location: Watertown, NY
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
fiestavike wrote:
That personal foul called against Peterson for knocking Bradford down was TERRIBLE. That was among the worst calls I've ever seen. The other two seemed like clear penalties given the rules.



Maybe it wasnt a penalty but that was a scumbag play by Peterson if you ask me. Just to take a shot at a QB like that was just unnecessary and hurt your team. No less it completely took Peterson out of the play.

_________________
Image


Tue Nov 22, 2016 2:10 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am
Posts: 567
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
fiestavike wrote:
That personal foul called against Peterson for knocking Bradford down was TERRIBLE. That was among the worst calls I've ever seen. The other two seemed like clear penalties given the rules.



Maybe it wasnt a penalty but that was a scumbag play by Peterson if you ask me. Just to take a shot at a QB like that was just unnecessary and hurt your team. No less it completely took Peterson out of the play.


i think that's a bit of a misinterpretation of peterson's intent. the cards got burned on the fle flicker earlier and peterson was make sure to take that option off the table....i thought it was a heady play.


Tue Nov 22, 2016 2:13 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:02 am
Posts: 1626
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Nunin wrote:
Pondering Her Percy wrote:
fiestavike wrote:
That personal foul called against Peterson for knocking Bradford down was TERRIBLE. That was among the worst calls I've ever seen. The other two seemed like clear penalties given the rules.



Maybe it wasnt a penalty but that was a scumbag play by Peterson if you ask me. Just to take a shot at a QB like that was just unnecessary and hurt your team. No less it completely took Peterson out of the play.


i think that's a bit of a misinterpretation of peterson's intent. the cards got burned on the fle flicker earlier and peterson was make sure to take that option off the table....i thought it was a heady play.



I thought the flea flicker was AFTER that play? :confused:


Tue Nov 22, 2016 2:19 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:52 am
Posts: 3434
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
IrishViking wrote:

I thought the flea flicker was AFTER that play? :confused:


No, it was before.


Tue Nov 22, 2016 2:36 pm
Profile
Pro Bowl Elite Player

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:40 am
Posts: 567
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
IrishViking wrote:
Nunin wrote:
Pondering Her Percy wrote:


Maybe it wasnt a penalty but that was a scumbag play by Peterson if you ask me. Just to take a shot at a QB like that was just unnecessary and hurt your team. No less it completely took Peterson out of the play.


i think that's a bit of a misinterpretation of peterson's intent. the cards got burned on the fle flicker earlier and peterson was make sure to take that option off the table....i thought it was a heady play.



I thought the flea flicker was AFTER that play? :confused:

i honestly don't recall for sure


Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:06 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:23 pm
Posts: 3037
Location: Sebastian, FL
Post Re: Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 1
Texas Vike wrote:
Thaumaturgist wrote:
Texas Vike wrote:
I'm the "guilty" party, but I think it's justified.

:nono:
Just giving you some grief Texas Vike!

:rofl:
Sorry Jordy! My rant wasn't warranted THIS time. :rock:


:thumbsup:

Believe me, there have been times when I've been frustrated by Packer related topics dominating discussion here. But this time it only happened to be that onerous team that provided an example that was contextually relevant. The Seattle game provided another--Wilson caught a TD. Teams are getting resourceful with trick plays that incorporate their QBs in unconventional roles that sometimes raise new questions about rules that are meant to protect them. I find it an interesting topic. My general sentiment is that QBs are fair game for hits when they a) try to exploit rules meant to protect them (as Rodgers appeared to intend to do) or b) line up as WRs (Bradford and R Wilson).
Don't worry, I do it on Packer forums all the time. Turn a thread into something about he Vikings. :D

_________________
This space for rent.


Tue Nov 22, 2016 4:08 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 507 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 19 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.