But purposely hitting an injured leg is increasing the chances of them being taken out for the day. That's not really much different than what Williams did.
Pushing on the injury when getting up might be better, but still won't necessarily get in their head.
That's obvious, but if you tear someone's ligaments in their knee bad enough or mess up their shoulder enough their career could be done too. We can't sit here saying that going for concussions is wrong but going for stuff that could put them on another kind of disability is just fine.
I'd prefer it if everyone just lined up and played football and may the best man win, no need to try and injure people because you intend to beat them by outplaying them.
I'm saying that I have more of a problem with targeting the head than anything else.
This is a very, very interesting read. I have a lot of respect for Tarkenton and I don't think he gets the recognition for the sports accolades he has achieved. That being said, there was one time that he said something in the past few years (I can't remember what) that made me scratch my head. So his certainly isn't an opinion that means a lot. But he does seem like the first former player to come out and really say, "No, this isn't ok at all. I'm glad punishments have happened, and the people deserve them." It also makes me really glad to hear a football player say this, because even if he is in the majority, at least I know I'm not completely alone in my opinion. Also, his comment about Butkus is awesome.
In much lighter news, Adam Rank of NFL.com did a list of guys who did things that were 'Totally Not Bubba' to 'Totally Bubba' (not clutch to clutch) in honor of what Bubba Watson did over the weekend. Least clutch was Billy Cundiff, most clutch was Eli Manning. No surprise there. But the description for Eli...I can't stop laughing.
Eli Manning
Does Manning just blindly heave the ball into the air for his receiver to make a play? Sure he does, but look at the results. Much like how Watson brags about never taking a lesson or watching his swing on video tape, you get the feeling Eli takes the same preparation.
As the resident Giants fan, I somewhat agree. Sometimes when he tosses one up, I want to cover my eyes. I will say this though, I get less nervous towards the ends of the half and the ends of the game because he keeps his cool and makes plays when it counts. You can't agrue with the results.
There may be a trade today....Looks like my Giants are trading the 32nd pick in Round 5 to the Bengals for LB Keith Rivers (former 1st rd pick). I was a excited since it fills a need, then I saw that he is in last year of his contract. Now I don't know how I feel.
Well, the Eagles get 3 teams coming off their bye, including 2 playoff teams. They also play the Falcons (another playoff team) as both teams come off their bye. Kinda sucks, but the two playoff teams (Pittsburgh and Detroit) are in Week 5 and 6, so it's not that terrible. Those teams, aside from extra prep time, probably won't have the same kind of benefit that a team with a bye in week 9 has just because it's less likely that they will be as tired/injured. And Reid doesn't lose after the bye, so I'm not upset about Atlanta coming off theirs.
Let me shed a tear for ya...have you seen the last 11 games on the Giants schedule? As if struggling the latter part of the last few seasons weren't bad enough. Defending the title starts in a few months.
Well the way the schedules are designed, the worst teams from the previous year are supposed to have the easiest schedules. So it makes sense that crappy teams wouldn't make the playoffs even if they have an easy schedule. But giving the easiest schedule to last year's AFC champion just seems ridiculous.
I don't care about strength of schedule. The Giants are supposed to have the hardest, and the Pats the easiest, and they don't look all that much harder/easier to me. There's always going to be some team that just bombs (like the Colts) and some team that just is way more dominant than anyone thought (49ers).
I completely agree, these are professional football teams, and each one is coming to win each week. You got to belive the Pats 'easy schedule' will have teams gunning for them. Circling that date on their calendar.
To me, strength of schedule is a figure that really carries no weight
Can we really say how strong any of the schedules are for sure at this point, considering we have no idea how well any of the teams are actually going to play this season?
In reply to exitnine, #24239: In reply to InsaneCynic, #24241:
The teams are not chosen at all, but determined by division and standing from the previous season. The Pats luck out that they get the NFC West and AFC South along with the Dolphins and Bills. That's 7 teams among the worst 12 from last season. And the Giants pull in Green Bay and San Fran compared to the Eagles getting Detroit and the Cardinals. But the way the schedule is made is completely human influenced - the fact that 6 times during the season the Eagles will have a day fewer to prepare for their opponents is something that could be avoided (3 bye weeks, 1 team coming off a Thursday game, and 2 times the Eagles come off Monday night games [and both of those are against the Cowboys]). I'm not all that bothered by it, because it just means the Eagles will be tested. If they can make it through all of this and make the playoffs, I will like their chances a lot better. But if they fold and collapse, well, now we know what the team is made of. Better to know the terrible truth than believe a lie.
Still, though, there are 31 teams coming off bye weeks that aren't the Eagles. The Eagles play 4 of those teams, leaving 31 other teams to get 27 bye week teams? How does that happen?
