"The Brady Protection Rules" (1 Viewer)

[Saints#34]

I really hate any rule that protects the Qb once he crosses the line of scrimmage. If a QB can run the ball, then he is fair game once he decides to do it. The whole QB slide thing is so absurd. Why is a QB any less suited to take a hit than a RB, who takes 15-30 of them a game?

He's upright, looking downfield with the ball and running. Defenses shouldn't have to back off from that, they should be able to attack the ball carrier like any other time.

I don't understand the hands to the helmet rules either. When was this a problem? Why can't you even graze a QBs helmet with your finger on accident without drawing a 15 yarder? I mean, theres a reason they wear the thing right? Aside from getting slammed head first into the turf, helmets can stand up pretty well to most hits, definitely to anything a hand can do.

Anyway, things like this are the reason that if the Saints ever left N.O. I would never, ever watch another game of NFL football. High school football is more physical than NFL, its faster paced, and there are fewer breaks and rests. I always laugh when I hear about how a player is "gassed." They get 2-3 minute breaks between every other play for commercials. I go to games, I see them standing around with their hands on their hips, bored and waiting for the go-ahead.

 

[CantonLegend]

this is my stance......despite playing 2 different positions, tom brady could only dream of playing the kind of football ray lewis does......ray lewis is leaps and bounds above brady in my mind and when the best players to ever play stand up and say something is wrong with the game, you know something is wrong

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSSnQrhUKpE&feature=player_embedded</EMBED>

 

[stevend]

this is my stance......despite playing 2 different positions, tom brady could only dream of playing the kind of football ray lewis does......ray lewis is leaps and bounds above brady in my mind and when the best players to ever play stand up and say something is wrong with the game, you know something is wrong

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSSnQrhUKpE&feature=player_embedded</EMBED>

Brady - 3 superbowl wins 4 appearances
Lewis - 1 superbowl win

But, I don't think this is Lewis/Brady thing.

It's more of a Ron Winter should have been fired years ago when Paul Tagliabue called him out. I think his stats are something like:

1. The crew that thows the most flags
2. 2nd or 3rd in not overturning challanges
3. 1st of 2nd in most booth initiated reviews

 

[Saint_Ward]

You are correct, there is a definately distinction between a glancing hit after the defender tried to swat the ball down and when he purposely goes for the QB. If the NFL wants the QB's to be pansies, then there should at least be a 5 and 15 yard variety like running into the kicker and roughing the kicker. But IMO a QB is as much of a football player as anyone else and if they can't take the hits then they are in the wrong line of work

^This

I think the Ravens game was a prime example of an Incidental "Brady rule". He was barely glanced.

And it's not that QB's can't get hit, just can't get hit in the knees. Just like a QB can't hit a LB (Vilma) in the knees. That's a 15 yarder too.

I also think the new no helmet to helmet contact gets abused a bit. A good shoulder to the head can look like a helmet to helmet from behind.

But the point as to why we protect QB's so much is simple. They are by FAR the most valuable player on the team. With a good QB, you can win. With out, you can't. It's as simple as Drew Brees vs Jamarcus Russell. We pay Drew one of our higher if not highest salary, and the number 2 QB makes a little over a million a year. Teams pay their starting QB's like they'll NEVER be off the field.

The league is dicated by what's a, best for the game and b, what the owners want.

None of us want to see all of the starting QB's out of the game. Just like none of us would really want to see scabs playing for a season.

 

[CantonLegend]

Brady - 3 superbowl wins 4 appearances
Lewis - 1 superbowl win

But, I don't think this is Lewis/Brady thing.

It's more of a Ron Winter should have been fired years ago when Paul Tagliabue called him out. I think his stats are something like:

1. The crew that thows the most flags
2. 2nd or 3rd in not overturning challanges
3. 1st of 2nd in most booth initiated reviews

lol comparing super bowl wins to talent of an individual player is pretty ignorant....im not taking a shot at you, just a shot at that argument as a whole

its used to argue so many things and theres really no way to refute that argument, but football is the biggest TEAM game in the world and comparing individual players is fine but dont use success as a team to compare individual players

by that argument adam vinatieri is better than ray lewis too......so is mike vrabel

 

[Pilz-E]

Did the league really suffer that much last year with no Brady? As far as I reemember, stadiums still sold out, people still tuned in, and the world kept on spinning. I think these new rules are stupid.

 

[mid-city fan]

Let us not forget that it was one of these "Tom Brady" rules ("The tuck rule") that saved Drew Brees from having a costly turnover in the Detroit game.

Once again, the "Tuck Rule" was added to the Rule Book in 1999, and it was the standard "unofficial" interpretation that was used by NFL officials for many years before that. The rule was designed to obviate the need to judge the passer's intent.

Tom Brady didn't start his first game until the 2001 season. How can an interpretation that was around for many years and a rule that was codified in 1999 be called a "Tom Brady" rule...just because he was involved in one of the more visible and controversial applications of the rule int he 2001 playoffs?

 

[SweetT]

I don't mind the rule. I just think it's stupid that NFL QB rules revolve around Tom Brady. There were several QB's who've had knee injuries lately before him, including Carson Palmer in 2007, and noone changed the rules for him.

Agreed x 100 billion trillion to the umptinth power. I am the biggest Tom Brady hater and proud of it.

 

[AceTW]

^This

I think the Ravens game was a prime example of an Incidental "Brady rule". He was barely glanced.

And it's not that QB's can't get hit, just can't get hit in the knees. Just like a QB can't hit a LB (Vilma) in the knees. That's a 15 yarder too.

I also think the new no helmet to helmet contact gets abused a bit. A good shoulder to the head can look like a helmet to helmet from behind.

I'm not going to disagree, but I am going to invite discussion on your points.

QBs can't get hit in the knees or the head. (Apparently at all, intentional or not)

If a QB hits a LB in the knees, it's intentional 99.999999999999999% of the time.

And I fully understand the no helmet to helmet rule, and calling it gets very MUCH abused. I mean, when you're moving in on a tackle, are you supposed to shift yourself sideways or turn your back on the player to avoid the helmet rule?

 

[mid-city fan]

I also think the new no helmet to helmet contact gets abused a bit. A good shoulder to the head can look like a helmet to helmet from behind.

Under the new rule, initial defender contact with the helmet, shoulder, and forearm to the head or neck area are all illegal hits against defenseless players.

 

[stevend]

lol comparing super bowl wins to talent of an individual player is pretty ignorant....im not taking a shot at you, just a shot at that argument as a whole

I don't disagree. But to compare Brady to Ray Lewis because of a penalty called is pretty ignorant....im not taking a shot at you, just a shot at that argument as a whole

 

[CantonLegend]

I don't disagree. But to compare Brady to Ray Lewis because of a penalty called is pretty ignorant....im not taking a shot at you, just a shot at that argument as a whole

lol thats ok....i was talking about the argument that more super bowl rings equates to better individual play......not your argument

w/e tho.......good post

 

[Galbreath34]

a) I honestly believe that if a non "superstar" had gotten his knee twisted out of joint, this year's new rules would've never been put in place. That kinda irks me. (Yes, I know it's supposition on my part, but I really believe it's true.)

You didn't see this rule after Culpepper or Palmer, so it's not really much supposition. Although, some argument can be made that it was the cumulative effect of all of their injuries too.

b) The wildly inconsistent nature of the rules as to how they're called on the field tells me that these rules are simply not 'good'.

There is wild inconsistency in calling holding and other penalties too, but I agree that as with clarifying pass intereference rules, these need more clarification because of the great impact they have on the game.

I almost like Whitlock's idea of 15 yard Roughing the Brady and 5 yard running into the Brady as one way to push the gray area ones into non-automatic 1st downs with huge yardage.

The point is that it really is Roughing the Brady and not Roughing the QB. Kolb or Garrard can get bodyslammed, while Brady can't be grazed. That needs to stop. That kind of star-protection ruined the NBA for me in the post Bird/Johnson era. We had the Irvin push-offs in the NFL, but nothing quite like the Brady exceptions we have now. The fact that the league didn't fine Reed or Lewis should tell you just how well they know that they're getting it wrong now, so hopefully self-policing will kick in by the time we face the Pats.

d) I wonder how long it'll be before some hot-rod, bad attitude behemoth of a pass rusher gets called a couple of times for "touching the quarterback" and decides "Well, if I'm gonna get fined anyway, I might as well put a hurt on this pretty-boy." I see it coming.....

Penalties and fines are different things, and blatant roughing will get you fined and/or suspended. Dirty players are that way from the start, not after bad officiating. Most players even out of a sense of self preservation don't try to hurt anyone, because even the biggest lineman can easily have a dirty knee shot end their career and 99.9% of players aren't dumb enough to start that kind of war.

So I don't agree with your fears, but I do agree that we have hazy and undefined and one too-harsh penalty for incidental momentum over the roughing penalty we've had for years. I think really, they've just added the head/knee emphasis without really thinking that there needs to be more thought behind clarifying blocked into/continuation, QB ducks into a head hit, etc. I think it'll work its way out the same way PI has. It's still gray, but not as unbalanced as it was when the Pats could punch and kick Colts receivers and have it called good defense while a Redskin DB could brush a guy with his arm and have it called regularly. Adding definitions/emphases on head turned toward the ball, whether the contact altered a route or freedom to move hands, etc have really helped. I think the same is on the way for the NFL (see no fines for complaining about Roughing the Brady).

 

[AceTW]

You didn't see this rule after Culpepper or Palmer, so it's not really much supposition. Although, some argument can be made that it was the cumulative effect of all of their injuries too.


There is wild inconsistency in calling holding and other penalties too, but I agree that as with clarifying pass intereference rules, these need more clarification because of the great impact they have on the game.

I almost like Whitlock's idea of 15 yard Roughing the Brady and 5 yard running into the Brady as one way to push the gray area ones into non-automatic 1st downs with huge yardage.

The point is that it really is Roughing the Brady and not Roughing the QB. Kolb or Garrard can get bodyslammed, while Brady can't be grazed. That needs to stop. That kind of star-protection ruined the NBA for me in the post Bird/Johnson era. We had the Irvin push-offs in the NFL, but nothing quite like the Brady exceptions we have now. The fact that the league didn't fine Reed or Lewis should tell you just how well they know that they're getting it wrong now, so hopefully self-policing will kick in by the time we face the Pats.


Penalties and fines are different things, and blatant roughing will get you fined and/or suspended. Dirty players are that way from the start, not after bad officiating. Most players even out of a sense of self preservation don't try to hurt anyone, because even the biggest lineman can easily have a dirty knee shot end their career and 99.9% of players aren't dumb enough to start that kind of war.

So I don't agree with your fears, but I do agree that we have hazy and undefined and one too-harsh penalty for incidental momentum over the roughing penalty we've had for years. I think really, they've just added the head/knee emphasis without really thinking that there needs to be more thought behind clarifying blocked into/continuation, QB ducks into a head hit, etc. I think it'll work its way out the same way PI has. It's still gray, but not as unbalanced as it was when the Pats could punch and kick Colts receivers and have it called good defense while a Redskin DB could brush a guy with his arm and have it called regularly. Adding definitions/emphases on head turned toward the ball, whether the contact altered a route or freedom to move hands, etc have really helped. I think the same is on the way for the NFL (see no fines for complaining about Roughing the Brady).

Well commented, honestly. I do appreciate your insight on this. I still don't like the whole thing, but I guess I can hold onto a tad of hope that it will eventually "iron itself out". I won't hold my breath, but I'll hope.

 

[Jeff Miller]

Simple solution. All Quarterbacks uniforms should be changed to have pink colors on all areas they are no longer allowed to be hit.

I'll say this, rules like this make a lot more sense when you see Grant and Smith not playing to get the sack, but to knock the ball out instead.