Hard Hits Debate

[Shaka]

Hello people,

My name is Shaka. I joined a few days ago and have mainly only posted in my Welcome Thread. I wanted to bring something up that has probably already been discussed before but hopefully I can bring a few different topics into the debate. It's about the NFL fining hard hits.

Now... I am not going to toot my horn that I coach high school football but I will say that it allows me to be exposed to other high school, college and professional coaches. I can tell you in my time as a coach and through seminars and meetings I have learned one very clear rule to the game of football.

"It's a collision sport, not a contact sport".

I have coached with and talked with many coaches who reward their players for bone crushing hits, forced fumbles and what we call "Impact plays". I have to imagine on the professional level where every step counts and millions and billions are on the line... it's stressed even more so.

So where does that bring us in today's game? Many of the offensive minded coaches and players agree with fines and suspensions as punishment for "illegal hits" while defensive players claim we're inching closer to flag football. The NFL claims they want to protect their players but haven't shown their colors clearly when you take in account their terrible retirement treatment and their millions in profits through the selling of "illegal" hits in their NFL Images department. In fact... it often takes a signature player to get injured for a rule to be set into place like for example the Tom Brady rule that no longer allows a downed defensive player pursue the quarterback.

In my opinion... players should be taught how to tackle correctly and rewarded for doing so. It's also my opinion that players are being taught how to tackle incorrectly in order to cause "impact plays" and are rewarded for doing so.

So where do you compromise?

Barrett Rudd said "There's only one thing worse than the prospect of being suspended by the NFL for a violent hit: losing your job for missing tackles"

That's were the league is now. While players like James Harrison are being payed to force fumbles(14 forced fumbles in 39 games) and big hits others like Barrett Ruud is fighting to keep him job in Tampa Bay for what many fans consider "not making big tackles" or "just wrapping people up" which is otherwise known as "Not taking people's head off".

So while players in the NFL are encouraged to get faster and stronger, teams are encouraging them to also make more of an impact other than just a tackle, and everyone is making a profit on these "defensive plays"... where can you draw a line?

I have to imagine Bart Scott and Rex Ryan have if anything an unspoken agreement that Scott will continue headhunting. That's the game today.

Otherwise... you're asking the defense to "let up" even the slightest bit in a sport that pays offensive players better, pushes offensive players as it's stars, provides more penalties for the offense's advantage and in a sport that offensive players run their mouths any time they have a successful day(Terrell Owens, Chad Ochocinco, etc). It's just not going to happen.

That's the end of these entirely too long post.

Your thoughts?

 

[Dorado]

playing Texas HS football, i couldnt agree with you anymore :smile:

 

[Atlas]

I actually agree with the notion that adding hardshell helmets and facemasks to the game is what ultimately caused this conundrum we find the league in. Players have taken their coconut's for granted by allowed some padded plastic and bars over the face to make them feel at ease when cracking skulls. Somebody on radio (couple days ago) said that Rugby features the same kind of nasty collisions, scrums, tackles, etc...but yet nothing close to the amount of head and neck injuries as American Football. Why is this? Obviously, no head and face protection doesn't make somebody want to lead with their head when trying to take another person to the ground, on a field.

 

[Shaka]

I actually agree with the notion that adding hardshell helmets and facemasks to the game is what ultimately caused this conundrum we find the league in. Players have taken their coconut's for granted by allowed some padded plastic and bars over the face to make them feel at ease when cracking skulls. Somebody on radio (couple days ago) said that Rugby features the same kind of nasty collisions, scrums, tackles, etc...but yet nothing close to the amount of head and neck injuries as American Football. Why is this? Obviously, no head and face protection doesn't make somebody want to lead with their head when trying to take another person to the ground, on a field.

ESPN Radio talked about that a few days ago. Take away the facemask and you're done with these hits haha.

Good point.

 

[footballplaya52]

but they are used to it now. it would only cause more problems imo

 

[Oiler35]

Bill Simmons brought up a great point in his October mailbag:

"Q: Have any of the writers at ESPN actually played football? There is no way that this "too violent" issue has any legs without the constant hand-wringing by the ESPN writers. It looks like the rest of the offensive players will get to wear the same red shirts as the QB. This game is lost. You should add, "Take the OVER at all costs due to the fact that there will be poorer tackling and at least three personal foul calls for each team" to your gambling manifesto. No one tells teams, "Stop running crossing routes or seam patterns and your receivers won't get flattened." Complete ridiculousness. NFL is about to jump the shark.
-- Rob, Bentonville

SG: Agreed. I thought this week was mildly horrifying: The NFL changed the rules on the fly without telling the players ahead of time. Don't the players need a heads-up first? If I told my daughter, "If you hit your brother, you have to go to your room for 10 minutes" and made that the rule in our house, then she hit him and I locked her in her room for five hours, you would think I was a jerk and a bad parent. Wasn't that the NFL with this week's excessive fines? Now defensive players aren't allowed to crush receivers going over the middle? Really? (Note: Only Brandon Meriweather's cheap shot on Todd Heap was truly indefensible.) The whole thing reminds me of what happened after Janet Jackson's nipple popped out during the Super Bowl, and everyone overreacted."

AND

Some advice for Mr. Goodell: It's time to admit that your players have gotten too big and too fast. We knew this day was coming for 30 years. We're here. We have 260-pound linebackers who can run 4.6 40s, safeties who hit like Mack trucks and 375-pound offensive linemen who can wipe anyone out for a year if they fall on them the wrong way. This isn't about a style of play; it's about evolution. If you care about player safety as anything beyond an easy way to ingratiate yourself to media members who don't know any better, then stop worrying about the small picture (changing the rules on the fly during the season so it looks like you did something) and concentrate on the big picture (cutting back to 15 games, adding more byes and making sure your players still have their health benefits in April after you lock them out because the league and the players can't figure out how to split eleventy kajillion dollars in a fair way). And sorry for the tone, but this entire subject leaves me ... JACKED UP!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Shaka]

Bill Simmons brought up a great point in his October mailbag:

"Q: Have any of the writers at ESPN actually played football? There is no way that this "too violent" issue has any legs without the constant hand-wringing by the ESPN writers. It looks like the rest of the offensive players will get to wear the same red shirts as the QB. This game is lost. You should add, "Take the OVER at all costs due to the fact that there will be poorer tackling and at least three personal foul calls for each team" to your gambling manifesto. No one tells teams, "Stop running crossing routes or seam patterns and your receivers won't get flattened." Complete ridiculousness. NFL is about to jump the shark.
-- Rob, Bentonville

SG: Agreed. I thought this week was mildly horrifying: The NFL changed the rules on the fly without telling the players ahead of time. Don't the players need a heads-up first? If I told my daughter, "If you hit your brother, you have to go to your room for 10 minutes" and made that the rule in our house, then she hit him and I locked her in her room for five hours, you would think I was a jerk and a bad parent. Wasn't that the NFL with this week's excessive fines? Now defensive players aren't allowed to crush receivers going over the middle? Really? (Note: Only Brandon Meriweather's cheap shot on Todd Heap was truly indefensible.) The whole thing reminds me of what happened after Janet Jackson's nipple popped out during the Super Bowl, and everyone overreacted."

AND

Some advice for Mr. Goodell: It's time to admit that your players have gotten too big and too fast. We knew this day was coming for 30 years. We're here. We have 260-pound linebackers who can run 4.6 40s, safeties who hit like Mack trucks and 375-pound offensive linemen who can wipe anyone out for a year if they fall on them the wrong way. This isn't about a style of play; it's about evolution. If you care about player safety as anything beyond an easy way to ingratiate yourself to media members who don't know any better, then stop worrying about the small picture (changing the rules on the fly during the season so it looks like you did something) and concentrate on the big picture (cutting back to 15 games, adding more byes and making sure your players still have their health benefits in April after you lock them out because the league and the players can't figure out how to split eleventy kajillion dollars in a fair way). And sorry for the tone, but this entire subject leaves me ... JACKED UP!!!!!!!!!!

Great post. Pretty much sums up my opinion.