NFL Thread

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh and everyone feel grateful for your tv listings. Nothing is more awful than when Washington and Baltimore are hogging Fox and CBS at the same time.
 
I mean I’ve got my streaks set haha for sure. I just am new to this nfl area and it’s quite uninteresting teams I’m forced to watch on tv.
 
We're actually stuck with the same two games in Utah too. Not sure why we didn't get 49ers-Chiefs
 
Last edited:
I guess today was the Travis/Ashley bowl. Team Travis comes out on top
 
The problem is, there’s nothing Clay could have done differently there. Well, unless the NFL creates some way for a defensive player to freeze time mid tackle roll off the QB, and then unfreeze time.

Hey! There it is! I found the solution!

Oh, and the drive before, Aaron Rodgers was superplexed. But that was ok. No penalty.

NFL sucks now.
 
There's nothing else to be done, honestly, I'm not going to complain about it. It's a dumb rule, it's upsetting fans, players, coaches, etc. It's not fun, it isn't protecting anyone from concussions, it's protecting QBs from not playing so the NFL doesn't lose out on viewership. After their decision to double-down on Clay making the wrong move last week (sorry, but he did everything he was supposed to last week to roll off of the QB, I'm not going to agree with you on that one, Headache), I truly think that they are focusing in on calling RTP on Clay Matthews every week if they can. It doesn't matter what the other team does, it really doesn't. The rule *can* be interpreted in a way that makes what Clay did this week an illegal hit. Just like the rule can be interpreted in a way that makes the hit against Rogers legal. If they can, I truly believe they will call it on Matthews every week this season. I don't think that's paranoia, or feeling that the refs are out to get the *Packers*. I think they're just trying very hard to make Matthews the poster boy for the new rule.
 
He continues to land on the quarterback without trying to roll off of him until after the fact.

It's a silly rule.

It shouldn't be a rule.

But it is - so jesus stop doing it.



Well I haven’t really looked at the rule but surely there’s a delineation between driving him into the ground and falling on him?

Surely it’s the referees fault.

Pls
 
The problem is, there’s nothing Clay could have done differently there. Well, unless the NFL creates some way for a defensive player to freeze time mid tackle roll off the QB, and then unfreeze time.

Hey! There it is! I found the solution!

Oh, and the drive before, Aaron Rodgers was superplexed. But that was ok. No penalty.

NFL sucks now.

The non call on Rodgers getting body slammed is startling when comparing it to Matthews getting called on the subsequent drive for essentially a proper form tackle on the QB.
The rule is stupid and the lack of enforcing the body slam rule (which is also a rule, just not brand new so maybe the refs forgot it) by the same crew shows just how f'ed up this league is right now.
 
Well I haven’t really looked at the rule but surely there’s a delineation between driving him into the ground and falling on him?

Surely it’s the referees fault.

Pls
It's the league's fault for having a silly rule.

And I readily admit that I have Clay Matthews.

So I don't really know if I have a point.

So there's that.
 
it's idiotic to say that he tore his ACL because of this rule.

if a guy tries to avoid face-masking his opponent and jams his finger into the guy's helmet and breaks it, nobody says it's the face-mask rule's fault that he broke his finger :rolleyes:
 
I disagree. When a tackling opponent runs out of natural, instinctive tackles to target, something awkward is bound to happen.
 
If you said “you can’t step on any of the white markings on the field if you’re a running back” and the running back takes a cut to avoid a white marking and blows out his knee, it’s the rule’s fault.
 
okay point taken in that example. but defenders have been hurt sacking the quarterback normally before this rule was in place countless times. who's to say he wouldn't have hit his knee on the turf even harder following through with the hit? what if he had followed through and it was the QB who suffered a season-ending injury as a result, would we be saying then that this pull-up rule is clearly necessary?

my point is there's so many variables in this scenario that it's basically impossible to say definitively "the rule is the reason he was injured".
 
True, but for what reason should we not believe the player when he says this happened because of the rule? Surely he is upset and wants someone to blame, I get that, but nonetheless, it’s hard to understand what he was thinking when making that tackle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom