Barbs aimed at Brees are way off target (2 Viewers)

Previous Next
mt15 said:
Usually I would just agree with this, but after reading that all these former QBs are jumping on the same bandwagon, I'm a little perplexed about it. Jim Miller, Steve Young and Trent Dilfer have all come down on the side of Brooks in this matter, and been critical of Brees, instead of just criticizing the rule.

What I don't get is why is this hit the one to generate all the outrage? It was a dirty hit, if you watch the way Brooks took hold of Drew's helmet and twisted it while slamming him to the ground. You could easily make the argument that there was intent to injure. After years of calling far less forceful hits to the head of QBs, why pick this hit to make a federal case out of? I truly don't get it.
Click to expand...

steve young i get because he used to play for the '49ers. but trent dilfer, no excuse for him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sleepingbunch said:
I don't think he keeps his job. ESPN expects everyone to hold the company line. I hope he does get to stick around, though. Great article.
Click to expand...
He'll be fine, the article got over 500 comments and countless more clicks because it drew attention from both sides of the argument - ultimately that's all ESPN really cares about and thus why they generate controversy when they can, to get more attention and drive up traffic for ad revenue.
 
I keep wondering what caused the bleeding in his mouth. I hope it was just a case of him biting his tongue and not the force of the blow to his neck that caused internal bleeding. He must have had some residual effects. I just hope it wasn't anything too serious. Not for the sake of the Saints as a team or for my sake as a fan, but for his sake as a human being.
 
Made the mistake of taking a peek at the comments. Good thing ESPN moved to facebook comments to clean up the trolling... wait... what?
 
It's really quite simple. For many this play represents the difference between what would have been allowed a decade ago and what is allowed now. It represents a change in the league. Yes the rule has been around but would they have called it? So the realization is setting in that this ain't their mama's league anymore. Sprinkle in a little left over hatred from the bounty saga and voila, you have the lashing out at Brees and the Saints.
 
The comments there are unreal. 99% of the people posting there would not have gotten up after that hit and 0% (including Kap) would have gotten up and completed TWO scoring drives to win the game! To say that Brees is anything but a tough championship NFL QB is just unreal.
 
I went to read the article on the fine on Brooks' fine on PFT, and it's amazing how much hate there is for Brees and the Saints. I don't care though. The more people hate us the more we win, and vice-versa..
 
kevinh said:
I hate when people use that word just to try to shut people up. It's lost all meaning. If you don't think ESPN has an axe to grind with the Saints, I'd like to visit where you've been vacationing for the last year and a half.
Click to expand...

or what he´s smoking................
 
Mackenzie said:
It's really quite simple. For many this play represents the difference between what would have been allowed a decade ago and what is allowed now. It represents a change in the league. Yes the rule has been around but would they have called it? So the realization is setting in that this ain't their mama's league anymore. Sprinkle in a little left over hatred from the bounty saga and voila, you have the lashing out at Brees and the Saints.
Click to expand...

This is part of the mythology that's sprung up around this call that I can't stand. This has been called for decades. I remember in Saints games alone one against Steve Walsh (for us) and one for Randall Cunningham (against us) going back 20 years. I vividly remember Aikman getting this call at least twice (sadly I had to watch Cowboys games when I went to college); maybe that's why he agreed with the call. And I remember Young himself coming into a game as a backup in the late 80s and getting clotheslined accross the neck so hard it took him to his knees for a few minutes...oh and yeah it drew a flag. The thing is, it's not that it's never called, it's that it rarely happens anymore and you know why that is?? Because they flagged it out of existence....people were taught not to go high to the head and neck. This whole debate is stupid. It was a flag....it has always been a flag, it will always be a flag and it SHOULD be a flag.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Previous Next

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

    Share this page

     

    Twitter

    Back
    Top Bottom