Green Bay Packers Forum
2 Pages<12
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline nerdmann  
#16 Posted : Tuesday, September 24, 2013 8:48:12 AM(UTC)
sschind said: Go to Quoted Post
Let me guess, it was bullsh!t and we sh!t ourselves.


We shit ourselves repeatedly to be sure.

But the illegal hit on Finley's head went uncalled, and that cannot continue.
Online DoddPower  
#17 Posted : Tuesday, September 24, 2013 1:06:36 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
or threw it to the RB in the flat there and let let him fight for the first down.

I rather the Packers attack first downs than getting greedy so much. But then I'm also one of the people who says stay on the gas and put the game away.

If the RB wasn't there, I'd be okay with this being Jones fault. Since there's someone wide open and could most likely get the first down if the WR on the edge blocks... I think this is on Rodgers decision making.


The RB just doesn't look that open to me. I see a LB within range that would very likely close and lay the wood right as the RB caught the ball, if he caught it at all. I wouldn't expect that option to get a first down. Sure, the defender could miss, but Jones could have also had better position and caught the ball, but that didn't happen either. Overall, just a bad offensive play/good defensive play.
Offline sschind  
#18 Posted : Tuesday, September 24, 2013 1:09:43 PM(UTC)
nerdmann said: Go to Quoted Post
We sh!t ourselves repeatedly to be sure.

But the illegal hit on Finley's head went uncalled, and that cannot continue.


We see things very differently then as I didn't see anything wrong with the hit on Finley.
Offline nerdmann  
#19 Posted : Tuesday, September 24, 2013 2:29:18 PM(UTC)
sschind said: Go to Quoted Post
We see things very differently then as I didn't see anything wrong with the hit on Finley.


Even Pereira mentioned it. Defenseless player.

Three shots to the head in a row, uncalled. Lacy, Starks and Finley. Finally they did one against JJ iirc and it got called.
Offline steveishere  
#20 Posted : Tuesday, September 24, 2013 2:49:57 PM(UTC)
sschind said: Go to Quoted Post
We see things very differently then as I didn't see anything wrong with the hit on Finley.


You mean other than it being against the rules? You can't hit a receiver who is catching a pass in the head. It's as simple as that. The defender didn't hit Finley anywhere BUT his head.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
nerdmann on 9/24/2013(UTC)
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#21 Posted : Tuesday, September 24, 2013 2:52:43 PM(UTC)
sschind said: Go to Quoted Post
We see things very differently then as I didn't see anything wrong with the hit on Finley.


I don't think it was an intentional hit, but it was illegal by rule.

Cannot hit the head or neck area of a defenseless player with helment, shoulder or forearm.
Offline dhazer  
#22 Posted : Tuesday, September 24, 2013 5:30:10 PM(UTC)
People seem to forget how good the Bengal defense is, they haven't given up 300 yards passing in 17 straight games
thanks Post received 1 applause.
Zero2Cool on 9/25/2013(UTC)
Offline Dulak  
#23 Posted : Wednesday, September 25, 2013 12:21:54 AM(UTC)
dhazer said: Go to Quoted Post
People seem to forget how good the Bengal defense is, they haven't given up 300 yards passing in 17 straight games


hey dhazer havnt seen you post in awhile ... welcome back (or maybe Ive missed em).

ya that was a wacky game ... 0-14 ..... 30-14 ..... ends with 30-34 .... I mean come on.

I dont think we should feel so bad - the niners touted as the second coming this season have the same record as us. I mean seriously we heard more about them then the ravens whom won the superbowl.
Offline sschind  
#24 Posted : Wednesday, September 25, 2013 8:50:05 AM(UTC)
steveishere said: Go to Quoted Post
You mean other than it being against the rules? You can't hit a receiver who is catching a pass in the head. It's as simple as that. The defender didn't hit Finley anywhere BUT his head.


The ONLY other option would have been for him not to hit him at all them because they were going straight for each other. I can see the illegality in light of the defenseless receiver rule but I still don't think it was a bad hit. He didn't dive at him and he didn't lead with his helmet. He was leading with his shoulder (isn't that the way tackles are supposed to be made) and his shoulder hit Finley in the helmet. It was an illegal hit by definition of the rules but I don't think it was intentional and I don't think it was worthy of a fine. Yes it should have drawn a penalty because it was against the rules but it wasn't as bad as everyone is making it out to be.

This is exactly the kind of play that so many Packers fans who are bitching about it now would be defending it as perfectly fine if the roles were reversed. Not saying anyone here in particular but a lot of them would be and you know it.
Offline steveishere  
#25 Posted : Wednesday, September 25, 2013 9:00:00 AM(UTC)
sschind said: Go to Quoted Post
The ONLY other option would have been for him not to hit him at all them because they were going straight for each other. I can see the illegality in light of the defenseless receiver rule but I still don't think it was a bad hit. He didn't dive at him and he didn't lead with his helmet. He was leading with his shoulder (isn't that the way tackles are supposed to be made) and his shoulder hit Finley in the helmet. It was an illegal hit by definition of the rules but I don't think it was intentional and I don't think it was worthy of a fine. Yes it should have drawn a penalty because it was against the rules but it wasn't as bad as everyone is making it out to be.

This is exactly the kind of play that so many Packers fans who are bitching about it now would be defending it as perfectly fine if the roles were reversed. Not saying anyone here in particular but a lot of them would be and you know it.


I don't know it was a weird looking hit. Like he was just running by and his shoulder happened to hit Finley in the helmet. I think he just took a bad angle or something and didn't make contact where he wanted to. If he took a better angle he could have smashed Finley legally and it would have been a great hit but it didn't work out that way. I think his fine was less than is usual for those hits so they took some of that into account. I don't think anyone has said it was an intentional hit though so I don't know where that is coming from.
Offline Zero2Cool  
#26 Posted : Wednesday, September 25, 2013 9:07:45 AM(UTC)
There are millions of Packers fans, young, old, boy, girl, man, woman, hetero, homo, smart, stupid, etc ... there's always going to be a portion that fits any statement.


The hit was illegal and should have been flagged, per the rules according to former head of officiating, Mike Pereira.

Here's a break down of the play. I was surprised taunting wasn't called.
http://msn.foxsports.com...reira-week-3-live-092213
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error


Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Poppa San

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Poppa San

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / DakotaT

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / DakotaT


Tweeter