Cardinals @ Vikings Game Day Discussion Thread -- Week 11

[Trkn10]

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.

[Nunin]

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.

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.

[Purple Reign]

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.

[Jordysghost]

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.

[Nunin]

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.

[Nunin]

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?

[Purple Reign]

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.

[Jordysghost]

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.

[S197]

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.

[S197]

Cool of Griffen and Robison to come back to try help the guy. Linval gave zero #### about the guy

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

[Thaumaturgist]

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.

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

[Texas Vike]

Cool of Griffen and Robison to come back to try help the guy. Linval gave zero #### about the guy

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!"

[Texas Vike]

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.

[Thaumaturgist]

I'm the "guilty" party, but I think it's justified.

Just giving you some grief Texas Vike!


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

[fiestavike]

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.