Wassup Wes Welker?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 2:50 am

Still want to make your living going over the middle?

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 3:02 am

But Bri, he's such a tough motherfucker! He plays for the Patriots!!!!!!

RACK. Bwahahah.

KC Scott · Post by **KC Scott** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 3:03 am

Wish I had video of the hits Bernard Pollard put on today - He took Fargas head off on a fumble and laid another shot on Zach Miller today that rocked him

peter dragon · Post by **peter dragon** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:20 am

nice hit..

too bad the NFL will take some cash for another cheap shot by the league leaders in classless play, the 2008 Pittsburgh Steelers.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:25 pm

peter dragon wrote:nice hit..

too bad the NFL will take some cash for another cheap shot by the league leaders in classless play, the 2008 Pittsburgh Steelers.

Cheap shot my ass. You've been listening to too many announcers. Or is it Bungles players? Quit pussying up the NFL.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:38 pm

I'm not surprised a flag came, and I fully expect a fine.

Not sure I see a penalty there, though.

BIG TIME lick?

Yep, I see that.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:29 pm

It was a great hit. Would have been sweeter if the ball actually came anywhere near the receiver. A penalty was called. Expect a fine. Pops and Bri -- in case you hadn't noticed, the game has changed. The league is trying to protect the players on offense. In today's game, not the 70s where you're both obviously stuck, it's a cheap shot. In today's game, you don't do that to someone who never came close to touching the ball and gave up on the play. To reiterate, the play was over. The DB knew that and he decided to dish out punishment anyway. Expect Goodell to act on this... when he's done with the Plaxico shooting, that is.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 4:04 pm

I noticed that Welker got up pretty fast and wasn't complaining. I'm sure he felt it pretty good, but rack him for toughness.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 4:25 pm

5'9" buck eighty five receivers going over the middle against the Steelers D is a receipe for disaster...that hit was brutal but certainly not a cheap shot....

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:22 pm

I think that if you can see that a hit is unnecessary, and you can hold up, you should do so. Football is a tough sport, but it is still a sport.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:30 pm

PSUFAN wrote:I think that if you can see that a hit is unnecessary, and you can hold up, you should do so. Football is a tough sport, but it is still a sport.

That's a nice way of not committing yourself. The question on the floor is whether or not Clark was in a position to see that his hit was "unnecessary" or if he was simply doing what any good player should do by playing hard to the whistle.

BTW Ucant, there's a way for players to "give up" on a play. And that's to go to the ground. I didn't see Welker doing that. What I saw was Welker trying to locate a tipped ball.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:55 pm

That last slow mo angle makes me agree with BSmack. He was still looking for the ball and the DB timed it perfectly, hit with his shoulders not his helmet.

Good hit, good play. Football is a violent sport, that's why a lot of guys play it, they enjoy the controlled violence of it. I know I wish I had taken the opportunity to continue my playing past high school and engage in controlled violence. It was fun.

Quit trying to make pussies out of people that aren't pussies. Welker can take it.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:08 pm

BSmack wrote:BTW Ucant, there's a way for players to "give up" on a play. And that's to go to the ground. I didn't see Welker doing that. What I saw was Welker trying to locate a tipped ball.

The only thing Welker was looking for his cleats and some missing teeth. The fact of the matter is, a penalty was called on the play. Argue all you want, it was cheap shot as defined by the current rules. Whether or not Clark saw the ball was uncatchable is irrelevant. You can't do that to a receiver without a ball in the vicinity. Great hit. Good for him. Expect a fairly handsome fine and no suspension...

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:14 pm

Tom In VA wrote:Welker can take it.

Is that why he didn't catch another ball the rest of the game?

I hope you're right and that he can indeed "take it", 'cause I'm damn sure gonna' need him next week when the FFL playoffs start.

Fucking priorities.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:24 pm

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:Argue all you want.

Okay.

DB's try to time things. If they can't position themselves to intercept or deflect the pass, they try and time so they can separate receivers from the ball at the moment they touch the ball. Often, this causes collisions, even though the ball is rendered uncatchable by being tipped, overthrown, underthrown, etc.. etc..

Happens all the time. The problem here is that it happened at such velocity the force of the collision shook Welker up. That's the only reason it was called in my opinion. The ball actually hit Welker in the back, the momentum of the ball could have appeared to Clark to be such that it was still catchable. He goes into headhunter mode, lowers his shoulders, and boom. The DB takes a decision to go ball or go man, in an instant, based on what he ANTICIPATES. Clark took the decision to play the man as he couldn't get into position to play the ball based on what he ANTICIPATED.

Good hit, good play. By real football standards Clark did his job.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:34 pm

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:
BSmack wrote:BTW Ucant, there's a way for players to "give up" on a play. And that's to go to the ground. I didn't see Welker doing that. What I saw was Welker trying to locate a tipped ball.
The only thing Welker was looking for his cleats and some missing teeth.

He lost his teeth and cleats BEFORE he was hit? Watch the replay. You can see Welker turning his head in the direction of the tip trying to locate the ball.

The fact of the matter is, a penalty was called on the play. Argue all you want, it was cheap shot as defined by the current rules. Whether or not Clark saw the ball was uncatchable is irrelevant. You can't do that to a receiver without a ball in the vicinity. Great hit. Good for him. Expect a fairly handsome fine and no suspension...

So a ref blew a call. Like that's never happened before? At least Ed Hochuli was able to get the definition of a fumble right this time around.

Just the same, if a fine comes down, it will have been more than worth it. Knocking Welker out was the game's defining moment. The Pats wideouts as a whole all but went into witness protection after that hit. That's more than worth 20 thousand dollars. Look at it this way. A guy who lets Welker get away from that play clean isn't the kind of guy who is going to last very long in the NFL. And we both know it. But if you have any doubts, ask Rodney Harrison.

Cueball · Post by **Cueball** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:56 pm

Not sure what you are looking at Tom. The ball goes through Polomalu's hands at the 43 and lands on the ground at the 47. Welker gets lit up at the 50. Welker isn't looking for the ball either, he's looking ahead for hit he's about to receive.

RJ · Post by RJ » Mon Dec 01, 2008 7:01 pm

RACK the everloving fuck out of that beautiful hit.

KC Scrote wrote:Wish I had video of the hits Bernard Pollard put on today - He took Fargas head off on a fumble

Quite the accomplishment, considering everybody zero's in on Farglass and makes a highlight play blowing him the fuck up on the weekly. Holmes is the modern day RB version of Ed McCaffrey without the playmaking ability. Shit, my nephew just locked him down and decleated Huggy Jr. a few minutes ago.

Fuck that fragile pussy farglass......and fuck you cousin custard inhaling Cheftard goatpounders. My morning has now turned to shit knowing that your team plane didnt go JFK Jr.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 7:03 pm

Cueball wrote:Not sure what you are looking at Tom.

The last slow mo angle. It didn't hit him in the back. It flew passed him. My depth perception sucks.

But my take doesn't. :)

MuchoBulls · Post by **MuchoBulls** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 8:30 pm

Clean hit. A guy running that fast at the WR is not going to be able to stop on a dime. The hit was not delivered by the helmet, so there should have been no penalty.

Since B thought it was a clean hit, then this one should not have been flagged either:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn6iA9uuZQ4[/youtube]

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 8:43 pm

MuchoBulls wrote:Clean hit. A guy running that fast at the WR is not going to be able to stop on a dime. The hit was not delivered by the helmet, so there should have been no penalty.

Since B thought it was a clean hit, then this one should not have been flagged either:

It was hard to tell from your replay whether or not that hit on Moore was of the helmet to helmet variety. But I'll assume it wasn't and agree with you.

MuchoBulls · Post by **MuchoBulls** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:50 pm

Watching the game live I thought that is why they flagged him. I haven't seen a better reply than the one I posted, but he definitely lead with his shoulder.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 11:35 pm

ucant wrote:Expect a fine. Pops and Bri -- in case you hadn't noticed, the game has changed. The league is trying to protect the players on offense. In today's game, not the 70s where you're both obviously stuck, it's a cheap shot.

poptart wrote:I'm not surprised a flag came, and I fully expect a fine.

It's not realistic to think that a DB can "hold up" when he's already cocked, loaded and in the process of delivery.

It all happens *BANG* *BANG* and NOT in slow mo', like it is when we look at the replays of it 58 times.

The league doesn't like the way a hit like that "looks" ... so they've taken to penalizing and fining players when a hit like that happens.

I would bet that if you took a poll of PLAYERS, it would come out at least 90% saying that the hit was legit.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 12:10 am

BSmack wrote:
PSUFAN wrote:I think that if you can see that a hit is unnecessary, and you can hold up, you should do so. Football is a tough sport, but it is still a sport.
That's a nice way of not committing yourself.

I made a general comment about the issue. I really don't know if Clark could have held up. I think it was pretty close.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 2:43 am

Oh, I can't get enough of that hit. RACK IT.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:19 am

poptart wrote:I'm not surprised a flag came, and I fully expect a fine.

But you're also on record as stating you don't see a penalty. So, make up your mind. Welker had already slowed down and the ball was behind him. The play was in front of the defender, therefore he should have seen more than what Welker was looking at. There was time to avoid the collision. Whether is was carelessness or a conscious decision, that's not the point. The point is, it was unnecessary, hence the flag.

I bet if you polled current NFL players, 90% of them would think you're a colossal dumbfuck with your shit takes on their ~~sport~~ livelihood. I know Pops, it was a much better game when you used to strap on the leather helmet.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:56 am

Don't start your ridiculous bullshit again, ucunt.

I said I'm not sure I see a penalty.

I also said ...

The league doesn't like the way a hit like that "looks" ... so they've taken to penalizing and fining players when a hit like that happens.

If you can't understand my obvious take, who exactly is it that is the colossal dumbfuck?

You're crying because your little smurf got the living shit knocked out of him.

We get it.

Nixhex · Post by **Nixhex** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:35 pm

KC Scott wrote:Wish I had video of the hits Bernard Pollard put on today - He took Fargas head off on a fumble and laid another shot on Zach Miller today that rocked him

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:43 pm

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:The point is, it was unnecessary, hence the flag.

Only in hindsight could that hit be considered unnecessary. Which is why the defenseless receiver rule is bullshit.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Tue Dec 02, 2008 7:35 pm

I am neither crying nor upset. I am simply pointing out that today's game is very different from the one we grew up watching. It has turned from a sport into a business. For better or worse, the NFL is protecting its star players with rules designed to limit injuries caused by these types of hits. You can lament the direction the league has gone the last decade or so... ya know what, me too. An astute fan may even point out the hypocrisy of penalizing this type of hit that the league seems to market to expand its fanbase. However, in 2008, that play is an obvious penalty. Anyone who argues otherwise is ignorant to the current rules. Or in other words... a colossal dumbfuck.

KC Scott · Post by **KC Scott** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 12:54 am

RACK NIX

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:20 am

Rack Nix?

Oh hell yes. I totally missed that when this went to page 2.

My fave was the DJ hit... I was sitting there watching it with my daughter (who rivals her old man in all things Chiefs myopia... no idea where that came from)... and we were all like

"You got JACKED UP!"

Thing of beauty.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:10 pm

This just in...

NO FINE!

Even better is the Boston Herald piece on the hit.

Immediately after the game Clark was unapologetic beyond his concern for Welker’s health, saying he believed he had done nothing wrong, which he hadn’t. Rodney Harrison [stats] makes the same hit on Marvin Harrison, everyone from Portland to Providence is crowing, “That’s Patriot football!” Let the collision be in the other direction and it is dirty football.

No, it was not. It was hardnosed football. It was Steelers football dating back to the 1970s and a safety named Donnie Shell, who had the right name there. When Clark took off like a bullet, at a receiver who has been tormenting safeties like him for two years on just such shallow routes, what he saw was an open receiver and a pass in the air.

As he closed, he purposely turned his head away from making contact with Welker’s head and delivered a thunderous blow. Welcome to the NFL.

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/foot ... position=1

How the fuck does THAT taste UCant?

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Wed Dec 03, 2008 5:17 pm

One can safely assume by your glee over the "Boston Herald piece" that you are totally ignorant that Ron Borges is a confirmed Belichick/Patriots hater. I am not at all shocked by his "take" on situation. I bet he blew several copious loads into his Tony Dungy blow-up doll upon hearing the awesome news. As far as the ruling goes, I was always under the impression you couldn't take out a receiver on a ball 10 feet behind him that he's running away from. It doesn't matter that he had no chance to make a play on the ball whatsoever, the football hadn't hit the ground yet, therefore, you can unload on opposing players with extreme prejudice. Good to know. I don't know what's more shocking, this latest ruling or the fact that Light and Wilfork didn't get suspended for their cheap shots either. What's good for the goose, I guess...

jiminphilly · Post by **jiminphilly** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 6:26 pm

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:One can safely assume by your glee over the "Boston Herald piece" that you are totally ignorant that Ron Borges is a confirmed Belichick/Patriots hater.

You say that like it's a bad thing? Since when is the local media supposed to be a supporter/blind follower/ass kisser of the local team? We have one in Philly by the name of Howard Eskin and his credibility is beyond repair because of his almost daily asskissing of the Eagles and specifically Andy Reid.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Wed Dec 03, 2008 6:33 pm

jiminphilly wrote:You say that like it's a bad thing? Since when is the local media supposed to be a supporter/blind follower/ass kisser of the local team?

Borges is no better than a homer. His opinions are just as biased. Is this too difficult for you to comprehend, or should I use smaller words and/or sentences?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 7:15 pm

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:Ron Borges is a confirmed Belichick/Patriots hater.

So what? Every word he wrote was backed up by the NFL's NFL vice president of officiating, Mike Pereira.

Neely8 · Post by **Neely8** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 10:08 pm

I thought the hit was fine, but one question Bri.....

Do you really want to referrence a story from the Herald at all? Their credibility on anything around here is pretty weak. I mean after all the Patriots taped the Rams walk through according to them...

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 10:16 pm

Neely8 wrote:I thought the hit was fine, but one question Bri.....

Do you really want to referrence a story from the Herald at all? Their credibility on anything around here is pretty weak. I mean after all the Patriots taped the Rams walk through according to them...

What hell do I care what Bostonians think of the Herald? The guy turned a nice phrase that said what I wanted to say better than I could at the moment, so I quoted it and gave him credit for it. I could give a fuck if he or anyone else on that paper's staff loves or hates the Pats. The fact remains that Clark won't be fined.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Wed Dec 03, 2008 10:49 pm

BSmack wrote:The guy turned a nice phrase that said what I wanted to say better than I could at the moment, so I quoted it and gave him credit for it.

Actually, you quoted 3 separate paragraphs (not "a phrase") and didn't attribute ANY of them to its author. You said, "Boston Herald." Your citation skills, much like the rest of the garbage you post here, are seriously lacking.

So, which "phrase" were you enamored with? Care to narrow it down?