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.
Thaumaturgist wrote:
Just giving you some grief Texas Vike!
Sorry Jordy! My rant wasn't warranted THIS time.
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).
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.
Thaumaturgist wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri
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.
Nunin wrote:
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.
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.
Vikings fan since Nov. 6, 1966. Annoying Packer fans since Nov. 7, 1966