PDA

View Full Version : A Passing Fancy = NFL Hypocrisy


Brett Cottrell
09-21-2011, 12:15 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ckWvIgnSKKs/TnoTAqNf0WI/AAAAAAABJto/lJnTZpyCU6Y/s1600/harrision.jpg.jpg

http://brettcottrell.blogspot.com/2011/09/passing-fancy-nfl-hypocrisy.html

A Passing Fancy = NFL Hypocrisy

James Harrison is right. The NFL’s hypocrisy regarding injuries is startling – kudos to Silverback for saying something about it. Harrison correctly notes the lack of protection for minority quarterbacks and defensive players’ knees, but that’s just the beginning: recent rule changes to increase scoring – i.e. more passing – have put more players in direct danger of having their heads torn off and, in Harrison’s case, their wallets raided.

Injuries are a part of football and can occur on any play, but some plays are more dangerous than others. For example, this year the NFL pushed back the kickoff to reduce injuries on kickoff returns. This idea passes the sniff test: since there’s a higher percentage of injuries on certain plays (kickoff returns), reduce the number of returns to decrease injuries.

But the NFL has taken the exact opposite path regarding the passing game. Passing plays have always been particularly dangerous, both to the receiver who is largely defenseless, and the quarterback who has to withstand the rush long enough to find the open receiver. It’s not an accident that there’s a penalty for hitting a defenseless receiver, but no such penalty for running backs.

The passing game has always been dangerous. Jack “The Assassin” Tatum and George Atkinson hospitalized their share of Steelers (ask Lynn Swann), and Mel Blount was known to body slam receivers head first. But the number of passing plays allowing for such hits was less because teams didn’t pass as much. A cursory search at Pro-Football-Reference.com proves what we all know anecdotally, that for three decades passing attempts are up and rushing attempts are down.

Following the NFL’s logic on kickoff returns, we should expect them to implement rules to discourage passing, but they’ve run the other way. In their quest to make a high-scoring, television-friendly product that more and more resembles a fantasy pinball machine, they are making the game more dangerous for quarterbacks and receivers. The way to deal with the problem isn’t to demonize defensive players like Harrison, but rather to implement rules designed to decrease the percentage of dangerous plays. They did it for kickoffs but I’m not expecting much for the passing game. As long as the NFL continues to elevate the importance of golden-armed quarterbacks, players like Harrison should watch their wallets.

tanda10506
09-21-2011, 01:31 PM
It is hypocracy, but they shouldn't be changing anything. How many people died in the nfl the last 15-20 years? How many players were paralyzed and how many of them were WR's and QB's? Leave the game alone, it's been "sissified" enough these last few years. Most WR's even thought the "cant hit a defensless player" rule was stupid and it was made to protect them. I can understand Harrison's frustration about the hypocracy and I know Harrison wants to play old school football, I just hope we dont get any "new rules". I understand player safety, I played in high school and college, but they are ruining the game trying to fix a problem that isn't there. And since when did "minority" QB's start getting less protection? Ben is not a "minority" and he gets the least of any QB. "Minority" QB's are often running with the ball past the line of scrimmage which makes them fall under ball carrier rules instead of QB rules, but I sure havent seen them get less "protection" then Ben. Its pathetic to bring up the race card where it doesnt apply.

Brett Cottrell
09-21-2011, 01:38 PM
The answer isn't more rules. Paradoxically, it's less. Get rid of the five yard chuck rule - teams will pass less.

Flyboy
09-21-2011, 01:46 PM
I agree Tanda.. Anyone who has actually been in the trenches knows a teammate is a teammate on the field. I've never seen or heard anyone complaining they got less protection at QB due to their race. Although an argument could be made that at the "QB" position, a minority player may get a little less recognition or be slightly downgraded until proven otherwise. i.e. Cam Newton, Michael Vick, Warren Moon, etc..

tony hipchest
09-21-2011, 03:06 PM
And since when did "minority" QB's start getting less protection? Ben is not a "minority" and he gets the least of any QB. "Minority" QB's are often running with the ball past the line of scrimmage which makes them fall under ball carrier rules instead of QB rules, but I sure havent seen them get less "protection" then Ben. Its pathetic to bring up the race card where it doesnt apply.james is talking about when he picked up vince young and pile drived him, embedding his head 6 inches into the turf.

the refs didnt so much as throw a flag.

tanda10506
09-21-2011, 03:25 PM
:rofl: That was hilarious. I agree that there should have been a flag, without a doubt. But it had nothing to do with race. Ben gets beat up more then any other QB and they never throw a flag, Cutler does too. There is a difference in which QB's get protection and which ones dont, but its not a racial difference. Goodels babys like Brady, Manning, and now Rodgers are untouchable, while the ones he hates or the ones deemed "tough" get little to no protection.

Brett Cottrell
09-21-2011, 03:34 PM
I'm pretty sure you get a roughing the passer call for farting in Foxborough.

solardave
09-21-2011, 03:47 PM
I'm pretty sure you get a roughing the passer call for farting in Foxborough.

I disagree. I'm pretty sure Brady has smelled his share of men's farts up close. Wouldn't that make him a minority?:thumbsup::chuckle:

Steeldude
09-21-2011, 06:02 PM
it's ridiculous to suggest QBs are protected based on race.

OX1947
09-21-2011, 07:20 PM
Minority QB's means anyone but Tom Brady and Peyton Manning.

Fire Arians
09-21-2011, 08:02 PM
I'm pretty sure you get a roughing the passer call for farting in Foxborough.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/306934_2402236693302_1172614625_2964062_416297698_ n.jpg

Brett Cottrell
09-21-2011, 09:16 PM
I love the Hochuli picture! It's pretty true, though.

Wallace108
09-21-2011, 11:32 PM
I don't agree with this premise:

But the NFL has taken the exact opposite path regarding the passing game. Passing plays have always been particularly dangerous, both to the receiver who is largely defenseless, and the quarterback who has to withstand the rush long enough to find the open receiver. It’s not an accident that there’s a penalty for hitting a defenseless receiver, but no such penalty for running backs.

Running backs, on average, have the shortest careers because they get hit the most. And other than punters and kickers, QBs have the longest careers.

ricardisimo
09-22-2011, 01:53 AM
I don't agree with this premise:



Running backs, on average, have the shortest careers because they get hit the most. And other than punters and kickers, QBs have the longest careers.
Because of their knees, which lose their stability and push even when they're not getting blown out disastrously, and the level of play required of their position demands fresh legs. These are still injuries, no matter what, but we have to assume the league has zero intention of protecting players from what is considered regular wear and tear.

And, to the author's point, running is not passing, and passing sells beer, so there will be no added protection for RBs.

Brett Cottrell
09-22-2011, 08:36 AM
Wallace108 Makes a good point, as does the immediate reply. It could be that the nfl worries less about knees than concussions and broken necks - Harrison would would likely agree.

Wallace108
09-22-2011, 09:54 AM
Because of their knees, which lose their stability and push even when they're not getting blown out disastrously, and the level of play required of their position demands fresh legs. These are still injuries, no matter what, but we have to assume the league has zero intention of protecting players from what is considered regular wear and tear.

And, to the author's point, running is not passing, and passing sells beer, so there will be no added protection for RBs.


I never played football, so I could be wrong ... but wouldn't the stress being put on receivers knees while running routes and making quit cuts be just as severe as the stress being put on running backs' knees? And actually, the average career for a receiver isn't that much longer than a running back. 2.81 years vs. 2.57 years. So as far as which is safter, running or passing, I think it's six of one and half a dozen of the other.

I agree that passing "sells more beer," but I can't agree that passing is more dangerous and results in more injuries.

Wallace108 Makes a good point, as does the immediate reply. It could be that the nfl worries less about knees than concussions and broken necks - Harrison would would likely agree.
I agree that they're more concerned about concussions than knee injuries (except for quarterbacks). Just look at the "illegal" chop blocks the Ravens were using against the Steelers. Technically, they weren't illegal because of where the defensive players were lined up. But if someone is taking out your knees, what difference does it make where the player lined up?

effyou515
09-22-2011, 03:25 PM
The answer isn't more rules. Paradoxically, it's less. Get rid of the five yard chuck rule - teams will pass less.

BINGO we got a winner.:thumbsup:

this is the rule that open up the passing game in the first place. but that won't happen.

:popcorn:

effyou515
09-22-2011, 03:27 PM
flag football anyone?:toofunny::rofl::sofunny:

effyou515
09-22-2011, 03:33 PM
How about widing the hash marks on the field like in college. that way you could roll the pocket more and the QB would still be close to the middle of the field when the attempts to throw a pass.

Steelerfreak58
09-22-2011, 04:08 PM
It is ARENA football now the only difference is they added 50 yards to the field.

Steeldude
09-26-2011, 04:02 AM
I never played football, so I could be wrong ... but wouldn't the stress being put on receivers knees while running routes and making quit cuts be just as severe as the stress being put on running backs' knees?

i think the amount of times RB cuts while being hit or while a player is leaning on them takes a bigger toll. RB's also tend to be heavier compared to their height. WRs don't get the ball as much either.