Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread

Options
1…207208210212213…349

Comments

  • Options
    #6272
    Son Of A Vidic
    Registered Users Posts: 32,370 ✭✭✭✭Son Of A Vidic


    Chucky the tree wrote: »
    Nobody is taught to cut block anymore? Come on. You have no idea what is natural for him, if he's been coached to cut block guys in the open field then what he did was natural. Safety doesn't come into it either. Plenty of OL cut block people in open play, definitive safety concerns to talk about, but until it's banned any player is perfectly entitled to do it.


    What are you talking about cut blocks for? Surely you do realise that was not a cut block? Anyone who's has been trained to cut block properly, knows you aim for the upper thighs and below the hip. You come out of your stance and drive your shoulder towards the outer thigh/ below hip of your opponent and push through it. You are not supposed to go to ground with it, but if you do lose some balance which can happen. The you use your hands to stop yourself going to ground.

    5hfSTw.jpg

    7wN9Sm.jpg

    7yG4tx.jpg


    That tackle was not a cut block. You never,ever target the knees or below them and you are not supposed to go to ground if at all possible. The idiot in question, clearly dropped and targeted the lower legs. The ideal cut block is used by an OL coming out of his stance at the line of scrimmage.

    You say I have no idea what comes naturally to him? The guy wasn't even looking at him and a good shoulder tackle would have laid him out on his back. And anyone I've discussed it with who's played AF or Rugby has agreed with me on that.

    A proper cut block at the line of scrimmage or open play is a thing of beauty. But let's call that what it is and that is, it was an incredibly stupid and dangerous tackle that could have ended a career.


  • Options
    #6273
    TO.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,094 ✭✭✭TO.


    Chucky the tree wrote: »
    Nobody is taught to cut block anymore? Come on. You have no idea what is natural for him, if he's been coached to cut block guys in the open field then what he did was natural. Safety doesn't come into it either. Plenty of OL cut block people in open play, definitive safety concerns to talk about, but until it's banned any player is perfectly entitled to do it.

    I know how to cut block and coach folk on how to cut block and that is 100% not a proper cut block Looney attempted. It is a rubbish attempt of cut blocking someone and his technique is all wrong. In fact most coaches would give him a bollocking for doing it so badly. Having said that there is no rule in place to stop players doing what Looney did and bad technique and badly timed attempts at what is supposed to be a cut block have been around for donkeys years.

    To add to this from a coaching perspective you tell guys not to go low like that for many reasons including smashing a guys knee, or making a dogs dinner of it and not actually blocking or bringing down your man and cutting fresh air. Also the guy attempting the poor cut block could do damage to himself if the other guys knee hits him in the neck or the side of the head even with a helmet on.

    I will say its hard to say Looney was being malicious though. Bad technique for the most part can look really bad on a players part. Did he intend to do damage to Williams or did he just perform a bad attempt of a cut block and get it completely wrong? Who knows other than Looney.


  • Options
    #6274
    BizzyC
    Registered Users Posts: 3,010 ✭✭✭BizzyC


    That looks malicious to me.
    The main purpose of teaching proper cut block technique is so players can do it without causing injuries to themselves or others.

    One of the first pieces of information on it I was taught and something I always relay to people I'm teaching, is that you have to drive through the legs, not towards the ground.

    Driving towards the ground pins the players foot to the floor while your weight comes through the leg, it's a very easy way to injure someone badly.
    Furthermore as you can see in that block, Looney is exposing the crown and back of his head to a collision.

    I refuse to believe that an NFL caliber lineman went through school and college without being taught proper technique. Had this been an instant reaction type of hit you may chalk it up to poor execution, but he lined this up. He had all the time in the world to execute a proper cut block.
    Either he's unable to execute properly, in which case he shouldn't be on that field, or he did it intentionally.


  • Options
    #6275
    Chucky the tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    It might not have been perfect, but I still consider it a cut block.

    http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/09000d5d81821ec8/Cut-block-demo


    About 50 seconds into the video they show two examples of cut blocks. Both aren't text book at all. Especially the second one, he basically launches himself head first at his lower leg. But I would still consider them to be cut blocks. In the NFL I'm not sure technique on cut blocking is worked on much. In most games you'll just see guys launch themselves at the lower leg and they will nearly always end up on the ground when it's an open field cut block.


  • Options
    #6276
    Son Of A Vidic
    Registered Users Posts: 32,370 ✭✭✭✭Son Of A Vidic


    Chucky the tree wrote: »
    It might not have been perfect, but I still consider it a cut block.

    Boy I'm glad you're not coaching or playing then.
    BizzyC wrote: »
    I refuse to believe that an NFL caliber lineman went through school and college without being taught proper technique. Had this been an instant reaction type of hit you may chalk it up to poor execution, but he lined this up.

    Absolutely, he was totally lined up and had ample time to tackle correctly.Coming from the link I initially posted of it, this is what defensive great Willie McGinest thinks...
    He was 10 yards from the player, just put your shoulder pad to his chest if you want to get him. These are two big guys, just put your shoulder pad into his chest. Why drop down onto all fours into the mans knee. I really don't understand that, he was 10 yards from the player.

    I really don't get it. Kevin Williams is 10 yards away and he starts to drop, why? Just be a man and hit the guy in his chest. I don't really respect that. That right there could be taking away from the mans livelihood and his career.

    Heath Evans on the same show...
    Man up and hit the guy in his chest. Why is he going so low? On a scale of 1-10 of low tackles, that was a 10. It wasn't even close to waist level and I just think it was a weak move.

    Those guys certainly know it was not a cut block. But especially McGinest, the former DL and multiple Super Bowl Champion. Now there's a man that knows what he is talking about and he didn't know what it was or what the guy was doing. So with my limited knowledge and game experience, I tend to go with the experts.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6277
    Chucky the tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    Those guys never said it wasn't a cut block.


  • Options
    #6278
    Son Of A Vidic
    Registered Users Posts: 32,370 ✭✭✭✭Son Of A Vidic


    Chucky the tree wrote: »
    Those guys never said it wasn't a cut block.

    Don’t you realise that when I quoted what was said, that I actually took the time to listen to what was said, before I posted it? They also never mentioned a sniper being on the roof. So does that mean that a sniper on the roof was responsible?
    Chucky the tree wrote: »
    Those guys never said it wasn't mentioned a cut block.

    Fyp. These was no mention of a cut block because it wasn't a cut block.

    See here...
    Why drop down onto all fours into the mans knee. I really don't understand that, he was 10 yards from the player.

    Why didn't Willie mention cut blocking there? Answer: It wasn't a cut block.

    Where's the mention of bad technique there if it was a cut block? Answer: It wasn't a cut block.

    Willie and heath never mentioned cut blocking, because they were looking at a stupid, dangerous hit. Now if they thought it was a bad cut block, don't you think they would have mentioned it? Wouldn't they as pundits have highlighted the bad technique used or the bad choice of tackle selected? And perhaps even raised the issue of coaching? They didn't of course because they were looking at and talking about a bad dangerous tackle. They never mentioned cut blocking once because they weren't looking at one. You're the only person here that brought up the issue of cut blocking. Why? Well only you know the answer to that I suppose.


  • Options
    #6279
    TO.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,094 ✭✭✭TO.


    BizzyC wrote: »
    That looks malicious to me.
    The main purpose of teaching proper cut block technique is so players can do it without causing injuries to themselves or others.

    One of the first pieces of information on it I was taught and something I always relay to people I'm teaching, is that you have to drive through the legs, not towards the ground.

    Driving towards the ground pins the players foot to the floor while your weight comes through the leg, it's a very easy way to injure someone badly.
    Furthermore as you can see in that block, Looney is exposing the crown and back of his head to a collision.

    I refuse to believe that an NFL caliber lineman went through school and college without being taught proper technique. Had this been an instant reaction type of hit you may chalk it up to poor execution, but he lined this up. He had all the time in the world to execute a proper cut block.
    Either he's unable to execute properly, in which case he shouldn't be on that field, or he did it intentionally.

    I agree with everything you said but the thing is there has been plenty of bad decisions made by players using horrible techniques in the NFL over the last decade nevermind the history of the sport. Rash moments using horrible technique are nothing new even if they know how to do it properly. You know as well as a I do from playing the sport we have all made some stupid errors ok granted none as stupid as Looney here but still going out of the box and performing moves we should know very well and getting them wrong.

    I have seen really badly attempted cut blocks 1st hand in the IAFL and High School and college games in the US that I was on the sideline for or at practices for and guys can and will get them wrong and attempt them thinking their way rather than the proper and most effective way is best. I have seen guys just drop to the floor with no attempt of contact at all. It happens that moment of madness were poor decisions and techniques reigns.

    I am not defending Looney here but its hard to say 100% it was a malicious act. By saying it was malicious you are basically saying Looney meant to hurt Williams. I just can't see a 2nd year player who has never played until this pre-season making such a malicious act ruining his career. Maybe I am wrong and he is the complete scumbag people are making him out to be.

    It wasn't a cut block that one thing is for sure but at the same time who knows what his intent was other than him.


  • Options
    #6280
    TO.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,094 ✭✭✭TO.


    Bucky Harris wrote: »
    Has anyone checked out the new NFL magazine called Gridiron?

    http://www.gridiron-magazine.com

    It's £3 and I was wondering if it was worth it?

    Digital only so far, but they're talking about the possibility of a print magazine in the future.

    I am guessing you have something to do with the Mag. Before spamming the forum with the same message and potentially getting yourself banned for doing so why not use the search function and you would see a thread was setup talking about your mag:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057010607


  • Options
    #6281
    Chucky the tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    Corvus Maximus wrote: »
    Don’t you realise that when I quoted what was said, that I actually took the time to listen to what was said, before I posted it? They also never mentioned a sniper being on the roof. So does that mean that a sniper on the roof was responsible?



    Fyp. These was no mention of a cut block because it wasn't a cut block.

    See here...



    Why didn't Willie mention cut blocking there? Answer: It wasn't a cut block.

    Where's the mention of bad technique there if it was a cut block? Answer: It wasn't a cut block.

    Willie and heath never mentioned cut blocking, because they were looking at a stupid, dangerous hit. Now if they thought it was a bad cut block, don't you think they would have mentioned it? Wouldn't they as pundits have highlighted the bad technique used or the bad choice of tackle selected? And perhaps even raised the issue of coaching? They didn't of course because they were looking at and talking about a bad dangerous tackle. They never mentioned cut blocking once because they weren't looking at one. You're the only person here that brought up the issue of cut blocking. Why? Well only you know the answer to that I suppose.


    If you think a sniper on the roof was responsible than fair enough. It was a cut block, a poorly used one though. When someone shanks a punt, it's still a punt despite the fact that a punter will never ever be coached to shank a punt. The same with tackles, every game defenders tackle players with terrible technique that has never been taught or coached, it's still a tackle though. I think from watching the play it's clear his aim is to cut Williams and take him to the ground.


    Williams himself said he "didn't like being cut after 11 years in the league" or something to that effect. If its not a cut block then what is it? A block where he cuts him? Or just a low block?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6282
    Son Of A Vidic
    Registered Users Posts: 32,370 ✭✭✭✭Son Of A Vidic


    Chucky the tree wrote: »
    If you think a sniper on the roof was responsible than fair enough.

    Huh? Looks like you missed my point.
    Chucky the tree wrote: »
    Williams himself said he "didn't like being cut after 11 years in the league" or something to that effect.

    This is what Williams said...
    "I didn’t see him at all," Williams said. "I was just running towards the ball. He might’ve peeled back and got me. I don’t know where he came from. He hit me pretty low. We’ll watch it and see if it was dirty or not."

    http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/107627/another-look-at-joe-looneys-low-block
    Chucky the tree wrote: »
    If its not a cut block then what is it? A block where he cuts him? Or just a low block?

    A peel back block gone wrong.

    NBC analyst Cris Collinsworth said this about the hit...
    "Joe Looney goes low for no apparent reason," Collinsworth said while watching a replay of the hit on Williams. "That's the dangers of playing the starters against backups. Sometimes they feel like they have to do a little extra just to compete. ... We've got that new rule this year about those peel-back blocks," Collinsworth continued. "When you're going back towards the defense's end zone, you're not allowed to block low.
    http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/23348127/was-low-hit-on-vikings-dt-kevin-williams-dirty
    The NFL banned peel-back blocks in the offseason. But the league won't discipline Looney because he wasn't moving toward his own goal line and hit Williams from the front, making it irrelevant that the block occurred 8 yards from the play.

    "It is the type of play, however, that after the season the competition committee will look at with respect to player safety," league spokesman Greg Aiello wrote in an e-mail to USA TODAY Sports.
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/vikings/2013/08/27/chad-greenway-injury-protection-knee-kevin-williams-joe-looney/2708759/
    Rules against illegal peel-back blocks prevent a player who is aligned in the tackle box at the snap from initiating contact "on the side and below the waist against an opponent if the blocker is moving toward his own end line and he approaches the opponent from behind or from the side."
    http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/107627/another-look-at-joe-looneys-low-block

    So as I was saying from the start, that stupid tackle was not a cut block. Hopefully you'll see it now for yourself. But regardless, I'm now done with this subject matter. Sorry for the thread clogging lads.


  • Options
    #6283
    Masked Man
    Registered Users Posts: 2,546 ✭✭✭Masked Man


    BREAKING: The NFL's nightmare scenario is over. Judge announced settlement between the league and the 4,500 players suing over head trauma.
    NFL will pay $765 million "to fund medical exams, concussion-related compensation, and a program of medical research'' for 4,500 plaintiffs.
    That is about $170,000 per player and/or player's estate.

    Seems pretty brutal for the players.


  • Options
    #6284
    Arawn
    Registered Users Posts: 3,158 ✭✭✭Arawn


    Masked Man wrote: »
    Seems pretty brutal for the players.

    I think the players that brought it forward were doing it more so for future players


  • Options
    #6285
    Hazys
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,510 ✭✭✭Hazys


    Masked Man wrote: »
    Seems pretty brutal for the players.

    The entire $765m isn't going directly to the players. It goes into setting up a program to look after players once they retire, like research into injuries, how to make the game safer and a fund to cover retired players medical costs. I presume the $765 is just the start and the NFL will continue to contribute to the fund.


  • Options
    #6286
    Hazys
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,510 ✭✭✭Hazys


    Arawn wrote: »
    I think the players that brought it forward were doing it more so for future players

    I don't think so, some were but most wanted to be compensated for their injuries they are suffering now as part of their career playing in the NFL, while a lot just wanted a payout (i wanted to post a link to a recently retired player who constantly complained about the new safety rules, recently retired and then joined the suit...but i cant remember who it was).


  • Options
    #6287
    Chucky the tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    Corvus Maximus wrote: »
    Huh? Looks like you missed my point.


    This is what Williams said...


    http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/107627/another-look-at-joe-looneys-low-block


    A peel back block gone wrong.

    NBC analyst Cris Collinsworth said this about the hit...


    http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/23348127/was-low-hit-on-vikings-dt-kevin-williams-dirty


    http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/vikings/2013/08/27/chad-greenway-injury-protection-knee-kevin-williams-joe-looney/2708759/


    http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/107627/another-look-at-joe-looneys-low-block

    So as I was saying from the start, that stupid tackle was not a cut block. Hopefully you'll see it now for yourself. But regardless, I'm now done with this subject matter. Sorry for the thread clogging lads.



    It's a peel back block but the NFL can't fine him because they deemed it wasn't a peel back block. Right.


  • Options
    #6288
    Hazys
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,510 ✭✭✭Hazys


    Hazys wrote: »
    The entire $765m isn't going directly to the players. It goes into setting up a program to look after players once they retire, like research into injuries, how to make the game safer and a fund to cover retired players medical costs. I presume the $765 is just the start and the NFL will continue to contribute to the fund.

    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/08/29/highlights-of-the-concussion-settlement/

    4. Of the settlement amount, $675 million will be available for retired players “who present medical evidence of severe cognitive impairment, dementia, Alzheimer’s, ALS, or to their families.” The compensation for each player will be based on his diagnosis, his age, the length of his NFL career, and other factors. The decisions as to compensation will be made by independent doctors working with settlement administrators appointed by the court.


  • Options
    #6289
    matthew8
    Registered Users Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    So who has to pay this sum of money?


  • Options
    #6290
    Masked Man
    Registered Users Posts: 2,546 ✭✭✭Masked Man


    3. The $765 million payment by the NFL does not include attorneys’ fees, which will be determined separately.

    This is something I was worried about. Good to see the lawyers won't be getting a cut of the 765m.


  • Options
    #6291
    Son Of A Vidic
    Registered Users Posts: 32,370 ✭✭✭✭Son Of A Vidic


    Chucky the tree wrote: »
    It's a peel back block but the NFL can't fine him because they deemed it wasn't a peel back block. Right.

    Correct, everyone bar the NFL is now calling it a peel back block. Yet Looney won't get fined because all the NFL said was that it wasn't dangerous play. Some of their decision making as we all know, can be totally mystifying at times. The play was at best stupid and at worst dangerous. Viking officials are seething about this and were expecting further action by the League. The NFL are mindful of the recent high profile lower limb hits. But no doubt they'll sit on their arses and wait until the end of the season, before giving players some clarification.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6292
    Hazys
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,510 ✭✭✭Hazys


    matthew8 wrote: »
    So who has to pay this sum of money?

    The current NFL players.

    The $765 will be paid out over the next 20 years, so basically of the profits generated off the backs of the current and future NFL players.


  • Options
    #6293
    Son Of A Vidic
    Registered Users Posts: 32,370 ✭✭✭✭Son Of A Vidic


    Good to see the concussion class action case being settled. It could easily have become a legal shítfest and that would not have been good for Football.


  • Options
    #6294
    Chucky the tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    Aaron Curry has retired from the NFL at 27. What a bust, I remember he was considered probably the most "can't miss prospect".


  • Options
    #6295
    Arawn
    Registered Users Posts: 3,158 ✭✭✭Arawn


    Brian Banks got cut from the falcons.

    I'm amazed the man hasn't sued the state through their noses.


  • Options
    #6296
    mikemac1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    If he's made it this far hopefully he'll get on a practice squad somewhere


  • Options
    #6297
    Arawn
    Registered Users Posts: 3,158 ✭✭✭Arawn


    mikemac1 wrote: »
    If he's made it this far hopefully he'll get on a practice squad somewhere

    Yeah I really hope he does, but he should be a millionaire but he only looked for 100$ a day when he was released. Not even close to what he should of got.

    And he didn't sue yer one either. I would demand criminal charges against the **** who ruined my life and possible career


  • Options
    #6298
    Paully D
    Registered Users Posts: 28,710 ✭✭✭✭Paully D


    Arawn wrote: »
    Brian Banks got cut from the falcons.

    I'm amazed the man hasn't sued the state through their noses.

    Good news is that the team are trying to find him a career opportunity in Atlanta around the team if he so wishes.

    If nothing else he will make a fortune on the motivational speaker circuit. He apparently had veterans in tears yesterday after a speech in front of the team.


  • Options
    #6299
    Justin10
    Registered Users Posts: 3,188 ✭✭✭Justin10


    In a pure football sense, he must not be up to scratch at all if they wont put him on the practice squad.


  • Options
    #6300
    mikemac1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    Paully D wrote: »
    He apparently had veterans in tears yesterday after a speech in front of the team.

    Check out his hour long interview on the Rich Eisen podcast from last June. It covers everything.

    Because it's so long you'll hear what was not covered in any articles.

    http://richeisen.nfl.com/2013/06/25/rich-eisen-podcast-brian-banks/
    Or it's in iTunes


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6301
    Arawn
    Registered Users Posts: 3,158 ✭✭✭Arawn


    Rochey18 wrote: »
    In a pure football sense, he must not be up to scratch at all if they wont put him on the practice squad.

    I imagine going from high school to prison would severely stunt yer growth as a player


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement