Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

The hit that could end Stewarts career... you make the call...

Zod

By Zod,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

PantherFanOne Newbie

PantherFanOne

Posted
Posted

Derek Anderson wants you to know he takes this sh!t real serious and puts his heart and soul into it each week.

 

 

Point well taken but at this stage in his career Derek Anderson is a backup QB,not one as  likely to win us important  games that have playoff implications as Cam Newton.To think otherwise would be foolish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Puddinhead Newbie

Puddinhead

Posted
Posted

The Saints are a generally dirty team, and obviously idk what the guy was thinking but I didn't think that play was dirty...

 

 

Funny thing is with the whole bounty allegations as the as the trigger the LA Times (that's "Los Angeles" LA, not "Louisiana" LA...LOL) did an investigative story based on a reasonable premise--if the Saints were a "generally dirty" team, then there should be a disproportionately high number of opposing players who were injured in their games.  Higher than were injured in games against the other "clean" teams in the league, for example.  So they did their research, and went back three or four years (can't remember exactly how many) on every team in the league's games (obviously LA football writers don't have a team to cover, so they have time on their hands) and figured out how many opposing players were injured versus each individual team.

 

The results?  Teams playing the Saints were injured at the second-lowest rate of all teams in the league.  Disproportionately low number of knee injuries, head injuries, etc.  Leaving the writer to question "If the Saints were the dirty team in the league actually paying players to go out and injure other teams' players, why did they actually injure so many fewer opponents than the vast bulk of the league's other teams did 'for free'?" 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tjmurray Newbie

tjmurray

Posted
Posted

legal hit, idk how tolbert does it but when he trucks someone he gets real low avoiding hits like this

normally, Jonathan does the same thing. I see some comments saying this is what db's are taught. I think it is more a case of a db making a business decision and not having the heart to take Stew on straight up. If that was DeAngelo he would have tried to tackle him high and blow him up because DeAngelo isnt a physical back. He saw #28 coming full speed & he bitched up and went low. Was it dirty? No.... I just wish Stew could have gotten a little lower... Terribly unfortunate...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Puddinhead Newbie

Puddinhead

Posted
Posted

Link?

 

Link???  Jesus, the article was published at the time of the allegations, almost two seasons ago now.  I'd love to say I could dredge it up for you, but it's not like I saved it after reading it or anything.  I'll see if The Google can do that Hoo-doo That It Do, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

OK....Lucky night in Searchworld.  No link to the Times' own site, but I did find the LA Times article, reproduced in of all places the American Enterprise Institute's website.  Which makes sense now that I see that the piece was actually written as an op-ed for the Times by the AEI's Director of Economic Policy Studies and an AEI economist and research fellow, not by a Times sportswriter as I'd thought at the time.  Which makes the statistical basis seem even more valid to me.

 

http://www.aei.org/article/ecomomics/the-saints-aint-sinners/

 

You may have to copy and paste the address since I brain-farted and typed rather than embedded the link.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Puddinhead Newbie

Puddinhead

Posted
Posted

The one thing I would like to factor is is opportunity. During that time period New Orleans had Brees and their high powered offense, and their defense probably spent less time on the field than say Denver who caused the most injuries. 

 

I did happen to notice one team in particular that happened to injure both more players overall and offensively than the average team did over that time span....LOL

 

 

Oh, and "opportunity"?  Really?  The defense didn't have a chance to injure players because they weren't on the field often enough?  C'mon, man....Brees and the Saints offense scored so fast that season that the defense may have actually been on the field more often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ImagineDAT_1963 Newbie

ImagineDAT_1963

Posted
Posted

Come on guys this is petty as hell! Seriously!?? No way was Lewis trying to hurt Stewart. Look how huge Stewart is would you tackle him high??? Oh yeah we tried tackling marshawn lynch high a few years back and the world knows how that turned out. Tracy porter being tossed to the end zone lol. I know you're upset about the loss but please stop reaching

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Darth Biscuit Mentor

Darth Biscuit

Posted
Posted

I cant say if it was intentional or not, but honestly, this is to be expected as the new way of tackling now that Goodale fines players who make helmet contact...

I think that there have been many injuries this year that were attributed to players having to make quick decisions where to tackle and that they impulsively aim for the lower half of the body to avoid fines and game deciding penalties.

In the NFL's quest to limit player injury, they have actually made the problem worse due to unforseen consequences.

Agreed. Low hits are a natural consequence of telling players not to hit high.

Same thing with the Gronk injury.

Sent from my XT1080 using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Darth Biscuit Mentor

Darth Biscuit

Posted
Posted
Funny thing is with the whole bounty allegations as the as the trigger the LA Times (that's "Los Angeles" LA, not "Louisiana" LA...LOL) did an investigative story based on a reasonable premise--if the Saints were a "generally dirty" team, then there should be a disproportionately high number of opposing players who were injured in their games. Higher than were injured in games against the other "clean" teams in the league, for example. So they did their research, and went back three or four years (can't remember exactly how many) on every team in the league's games (obviously LA football writers don't have a team to cover, so they have time on their hands) and figured out how many opposing players were injured versus each individual team. The results? Teams playing the Saints were injured at the second-lowest rate of all teams in the league. Disproportionately low number of knee injuries, head injuries, etc. Leaving the writer to question "If the Saints were the dirty team in the league actually paying players to go out and injure other teams' players, why did they actually injure so many fewer opponents than the vast bulk of the league's other teams did 'for free'?"
Just now saw this... You can justify your teams actions all you want with stats and such, the fact remains that Greg Williams was a dirty coach, Payton and mgmt allowed it and the Saints players bought into it. fug man, Williams admitted it. Argue otherwise all you wish, the Saints organization is dirty. Cue up the YouTube clip of Fujita hitting Steve Smith... All the "proof" I need. Sent from my XT1080 using CarolinaHuddle mobile app
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...