Pack vs. Queens

  • 1hl&sinker
    On the St.Croix
    Posts: 2501
    #1721178

    In regards to Treadwell’s crackback, as an official at the HS level, that hit will draw flags at all levels in today’s game. That is the most basic of hits that is being ruled out of the game. As a Viking’s fan I’d love to cheer for it, but that’s a clear personal foul in today’s game. That’s why we saw three flags laying at LaQuon’s feet.

    I support the rule but sometimes the game should played without the toto’s. The officiating also must be consistant. I tuned in to the Pittsburg/kansas game and low and behold a chiefton gets blindsided right in front of a ref and no call and it was away from the play, which I feel the rule was to prevent or at least generated from. Sometimes I feel calls are called on tit for tat, kinda like evening things for not calling the rogers tackle.

    mplspug
    Palmetto, Florida
    Posts: 25026
    #1721181

    To those that are happy Rodgers got hurt. Just remember what goes around comes around. Do you ever think the reason the vikings have such bad luck is because they have a crooked owner??? I wasn’t happy when dalvin cook got hurt nor shouldve any real football fan been happy. I want the packers to win against the vikings at full strength.

    I’ll second that. You want your full line up to beat the other teams full line up. That’s the only way you know who truely is the better team.

    As for the blindsided hit, I’m glad they are calling that now. Yeah, I like seeing someone get nailed, however that is a human being. It’s a totally unnecessary play and with all the concussions that can become life long ailments, this is an easy one to get out of the game. If you can get into the position to blindsided a guy, just getting in his way will be effective in keeping him from making a play.

    If I am not mistaken, a blindsided hit in college earns you an ejection from the game. I think I saw that Saturday.

    haleysgold
    SE MN
    Posts: 1481
    #1721183

    So is it blindsided because he wasn’t looking? If he turned his head 30 degrees right, he’d have seen it coming. But he was intent on getting a blindside tackle of the guy with the ball.
    It was a clean hit imo.

    munchy
    NULL
    Posts: 4947
    #1721185

    I agree with Pug, that hit was totally unnecessary and just getting in front of him would have been the proper play.

    Mocha
    Park Rapids
    Posts: 1452
    #1721186

    Today was a win for the vikes but it was an empty win. I’d prefer a win against the pack with Rogers at the helm.Who knows how the game would have turned with him in play.It was a sloppy game by vikes first half and to only score field goals the last 3 possesions that lead to a score against a defense that was dropping like flies was dissapointing if not pitiful.

    As for ziggy being crooked well the league is crooked, heck their peddaling gambling for cripes sake.

    Couldn’t agree more!
    Except its not totally empty. It would have just been sweeter with Rogers in the whole game but it was a clean hit and thats the way the Rogers bounces …..I mean the ball bounces. LOL.
    Never like to see an injury but its part of the game. As far as Treadwell…. good legal hit IMHO. Can’t prevent every stubbed toe….if you know what I mean.

    DaveB
    Inver Grove Heights MN
    Posts: 4497
    #1721201

    Vikings win with a back up QB, without their best RB and WR (both were top 5 in the NFL when they went out) and all people can talk about is the poor Packers.

    biggill
    East Bethel, MN
    Posts: 11321
    #1721205

    Vikings win with a back up QB, without their best RB and WR (both were top 5 in the NFL when they went out) and all people can talk about is the poor Packers.

    I was just opening this thread to say that.

    Poor packers.

    mplspug
    Palmetto, Florida
    Posts: 25026
    #1721220

    So is it blindsided because he wasn’t looking? If he turned his head 30 degrees right, he’d have seen it coming. But he was intent on getting a blindside tackle of the guy with the ball.
    It was a clean hit imo.

    Blindsided, hitting a player in a vulnerable position, call it what you want. It’s along the same lines as targeting the head, chop blocks, etc.

    eyeguy507
    SE MN
    Posts: 5221
    #1721245

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>haleysgold wrote:</div>
    So is it blindsided because he wasn’t looking? If he turned his head 30 degrees right, he’d have seen it coming. But he was intent on getting a blindside tackle of the guy with the ball.
    It was a clean hit imo.

    Blindsided, hitting a player in a vulnerable position, call it what you want. It’s along the same lines as targeting the head, chop blocks, etc.

    “Put a jersey on”…put a jersey on!

    mplspug
    Palmetto, Florida
    Posts: 25026
    #1721249

    I retired a while ago, not from being blindsided though…thank God!

    DaveB
    Inver Grove Heights MN
    Posts: 4497
    #1721250

    I go back and forth on the Treadwell hit. Apparently, you cant hit them in the head of shoulder region, so you should aim for the knees and risk a concussion from a knee to the head? Is that any safer for the defender to take out his knees vs putting a shoulder into his chest? The only reason it was a blind side was that he had his head turned to the left, if he had been looking forward, then it would have been legal? I don’t see how you are suppose to block this guy and protect yourself if you are Treadwell. Plus, this wasn’t an away from the play cheap shot, this happened right where the action was.

    BigWerm
    SW Metro
    Posts: 11889
    #1721262

    I don’t see how you are suppose to block this guy and protect yourself if you are Treadwell

    He’s not supposed to light the guy up. I don’t agree with the rule in this scenario, but that was the correct call and Treadwell should have known better.

    Everyone should keep it down today, in respect to our friends from ‘Sconny, who are mourning many things. The death of their 2017 season, another year off Rodgers career w/out a SB, the inability of Ted Thompson to build a solid team around their QB, as well as the severe lack of depth on their roster, and probably a few years off their liver’s life expectancy. We will see how bad McCarthy is (imo) down the stretch as has to coach the majority of a season w/out a HOF QB for the first time.

    philtickelson
    Inactive
    Mahtomedi, MN
    Posts: 1678
    #1721263

    I go back and forth on the Treadwell hit. Apparently, you cant hit them in the head of shoulder region, so you should aim for the knees and risk a concussion from a knee to the head? Is that any safer for the defender to take out his knees vs putting a shoulder into his chest? The only reason it was a blind side was that he had his head turned to the left, if he had been looking forward, then it would have been legal? I don’t see how you are suppose to block this guy and protect yourself if you are Treadwell. Plus, this wasn’t an away from the play cheap shot, this happened right where the action was.

    Who is saying you should go for the knees? Hasn’t attacking someone’s knees has been frowned upon(and penalized) way longer than going after someone’s head in the NFL?

    The Treadwell hit was borderline to me, he actually did a decent job of trying to get in front of him from what I can see. He took the extra step back to hit him from the front vs the side/back.

    Tom Sawvell
    Inactive
    Posts: 9559
    #1721280

    As much of a putz that I think AR is, I still don’t like to see injuries like this even when a play is declared legal and clean. I wasn’t the hit that broke the collar bone, it was how he fell and tried to break his fall. Then I ask myself if Mathews would have pulled off on a tackle to a qb in a like situation and think we all know the answer. I conclude it is the mindset of the game.

    The NFL has all sorts of rules to follow that are supposed to protect players from all kinds of injury and I think its working for the most part but these players know the score when they walk out on the field knowing its a full contact sport. If something occurs that someone gets injured, well, schnit happens. That’s part of the risk that comes with being a pro.

    DaveB
    Inver Grove Heights MN
    Posts: 4497
    #1721282

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>DaveB wrote:</div>
    I go back and forth on the Treadwell hit. Apparently, you cant hit them in the head of shoulder region, so you should aim for the knees and risk a concussion from a knee to the head? Is that any safer for the defender to take out his knees vs putting a shoulder into his chest? The only reason it was a blind side was that he had his head turned to the left, if he had been looking forward, then it would have been legal? I don’t see how you are suppose to block this guy and protect yourself if you are Treadwell. Plus, this wasn’t an away from the play cheap shot, this happened right where the action was.

    Who is saying you should go for the knees? Hasn’t attacking someone’s knees has been frowned upon(and penalized) way longer than going after someone’s head in the NFL?

    The Treadwell hit was borderline to me, he actually did a decent job of trying to get in front of him from what I can see. He took the extra step back to hit him from the front vs the side/back.

    I thought I heard the announcers explain that the rule is that you cant hit a defenseless defender in the head or chest area. So I guess I don’t know how else you can legally stop a defenders momentum without getting a penalty. But so many rules favor the offense in the NFL, I guess we should give this one to the defense?

    mplspug
    Palmetto, Florida
    Posts: 25026
    #1721291

    I thought I heard the announcers explain that the rule is that you cant hit a defenseless defender in the head or chest area.

    ARTICLE 7. PLAYERS IN A DEFENSELESS POSTURE

    It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture.

    I think the operative word is unnecessary, which also becomes the discretion of the officials.

    I say it is a good call only because Treadwell appears to launch himself into the player. I also conceded that even if he doesn’t launch himself, the refs still may have called it, in which case I would say it was a BS call.

    mplspug
    Palmetto, Florida
    Posts: 25026
    #1721297

    My favorite replay from yesterday

    DaveB
    Inver Grove Heights MN
    Posts: 4497
    #1721308

    “1.forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if the initial contact is lower than the player’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him”

    This is the portion that the broadcasters said that he violated that I was referring to.

    Jon Jordan
    Keymaster
    St. Paul, Mn
    Posts: 6047
    #1721309

    Bad karma? Maybe Packer Fans should stop calling the Vikings “Queens”?

    -J.

    Gitchi Gummi
    Posts: 3140
    #1721316

    Im betting on my Pack for the win

    I’d say Pack 56-3 sounds about right?

    Ok fine 42-3.

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>BigWerm wrote:</div>
    The Vikes will be up against Rodgers and the Refs as always

    The Pack won’t need any help from the Refs, the Purple guys will screw it up all on their own, but it is good to start lining up the excuses early…. )

    Get ready to eat crow Wisconsin 28 -14 vikes win

    Sucks to suck Pack!

    Attachments:
    1. packers.png

    philtickelson
    Inactive
    Mahtomedi, MN
    Posts: 1678
    #1721317

    I thought I heard the announcers explain that the rule is that you cant hit a defenseless defender in the head or chest area. So I guess I don’t know how else you can legally stop a defenders momentum without getting a penalty. But so many rules favor the offense in the NFL, I guess we should give this one to the defense?

    Ahhh, gotcha. it’s a tough call, Treadwell definitely was blocking an active defender, and made an effort to not do so completely from behind or the side.

    I guess if treadwell gets him with his hands instead of his shoulder and get’s them a few inches lower on the chest? I don’t know…

    Gitchi Gummi
    Posts: 3140
    #1721319

    Grim looking future for the Pack. They are a 4-5 win team without A Rodg. Meanwhile, the Vikes are on their 3rd string QB, without their best RB and one of their best WRs and without one of their better linemen yesterday and still got the job done.

    sticker
    StillwaterMN/Ottertail county
    Posts: 4418
    #1721322

    Well, it’s part of the game. The good news is with A-Rodg out I don’t have to waste anymore time watch football.

    Gitchi Gummi
    Posts: 3140
    #1721324

    Bad karma? Maybe Packer Fans should stop calling the Vikings “Queens”?

    -J.

    +1

    I think it helps them deal with their own insecurities

    Tom Sawvell
    Inactive
    Posts: 9559
    #1721330

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Jon Jordan wrote:</div>
    Bad karma? Maybe Packer Fans should stop calling the Vikings “Queens”?

    -J.

    +1

    I think it helps them deal with their own insecurities

    Who? The ched heads? lol

    And to be clear about yellow/gold comment earlier in this thread….the VIKINGS wear the purple and gold, the Puckers wear yellow and green.

    philtickelson
    Inactive
    Mahtomedi, MN
    Posts: 1678
    #1721333

    For better or worse the Pack are built around Rodgers. Most teams with a top-tier QB are.

    I was going to say that it’s tough to build a complete team when your QB is making 15% of your cap, but turns out the VIkings are spending just as much on QBs this year as the Packers are +/- $1 million or so.

    That’s insane! I was going to say that it is just tough to maneuver around the cap and you have to make sacrifices somewhere. Rodgers is a downright bargain, why is your defense always so bad?

    Mudshark
    LaCrosse WI
    Posts: 2973
    #1721334

    Bad karma? Maybe Packer Fans should stop calling the Vikings “Queens”?

    While I hate getting involved in these post’s I will say this….
    Maybe when the Viking fans quit calling the Packers the “fudge packers” or “Puckers” or stop referring to “Erin” Rodgers….
    BTW I have never referred to the team as the “queens”….
    I think it’s just silly…..

    reelman
    Inactive
    Posts: 157
    #1721343

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Jon Jordan wrote:</div>
    Bad karma? Maybe Packer Fans should stop calling the Vikings “Queens”?

    While I hate getting involved in these post’s I will say this….
    Maybe when the Viking fans quit calling the Packers the “fudge packers” or “Puckers” or stop referring to “Erin” Rodgers….
    BTW I have never referred to the team as the “queens”….
    I think it’s just silly…..

    Thought it was always Eryn?
    Any who it will never end; it’s part of the rivalry.
    Now if you had a goat as a mascot no one could call them “fudge packers” or “Puckers”. The flip side of that is? well who knows what would happen to the goat.

    Tom Sawvell
    Inactive
    Posts: 9559
    #1721350

    Be nice now…its just wrong to shame a goat.

    biggill
    East Bethel, MN
    Posts: 11321
    #1721352

    I think it’s just silly…..

    Yes it is. Some grown men like to push others buttons in good fun. If you don’t like it, don’t get involved.

Viewing 30 posts - 91 through 120 (of 251 total)

The topic ‘Pack vs. Queens’ is closed to new replies.