Does the QB carnage justify the rules?

[oldunclemark]

We all whine about roughing the passer calls and how just touching a scared QB's hair is a 15-yard

penalty these days. But maybe we should tie those complaints to the present day.

At the end of this year...Houston, Arizona and Cleveland are dragging in illegal aliens and homeless guys off the street to play QB in the final week because their entire QB roster has been terminated. Dallas and Carolina

are playing QBs who, in some small respect, have a broken back. Andrew Luck has been hit 6,000 times and who

knows what's wrong will Phillip Rivers. He wont say.

Are the sissy pants, girly man roughing the QB rules totally justified in light of the signal caller

slaughter we have seen in the NFL this season?

Your thoughts....

[Girlzarefanstoo]

As much as they annoy me when my team is being penalized for touching a QB with a pinky finger a hair too late ;-)  Yes.

 

The QB position takes a rare talent and we just don't produce them as fast as we produce linemen or cornerbacks or.... A great QB can't "make" a team alone, but a great team without a QB isn't going anywhere.  

 

We fans want to see great QBs.  Even with the rules they're hit a lot, very hard and can be lost at any point.  The game is better with good offense to watch.

 

IMHO

[GoDeep]

Got to protect these guys. But it is hard for me to understand my real feelings on it. When Luck gets breathed on I think there should be a flag. Others I seem to think, "well, they are football players ".

[chad72]

Style of QB play matters more. Not everyone can take the punishment like a Luck or Wilson while being mobile and can be judicious like them to know when they can push it. There in lies the difference, IMO

[crazycolt1]

I don't have a problem with the rules set up to protect the QB. The NFL is a business and the owners do pay a lot of money to the QBs. In a business sense all owners want to protect their investments. With only 32 starting QBs in the league and only a handful considered top tier it's easy to understand why the rules are there. The fans don't want their teams QB being injured either. With the lack of quality offensive linemen it becomes essential to get, keep and develop as many as possible.

[oldunclemark]

As much as they annoy me when my team is being penalized for touching a QB with a pinky finger a hair too late ;-)  Yes.

 

The QB position takes a rare talent and we just don't produce them as fast as we produce linemen or cornerbacks or.... A great QB can't "make" a team alone, but a great team without a QB isn't going anywhere.  

 

We fans want to see great QBs.  Even with the rules they're hit a lot, very hard and can be lost at any point.  The game is better with good offense to watch.

 

IMHO

Is the QB survival rate higher now than it was 15-20 years ago?

Have the rules worked?

QBs have gotten physically larger....

But I honestly don't recall if Joe Montana and John Elway got KO'd from games on a regular basis

[HtownColt]

The calls are fine when they aren't playing superstar QBs.

But when they are playing Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Brees etc. is when the phantom b.s calls start flying in and mess up crucial part of games

[amfootball]

We all whine about roughing the passer calls and how just touching a scared QB's hair is a 15-yard

penalty these days. But maybe we should tie those complaints to the present day.

At the end of this year...Houston, Arizona and Cleveland are dragging in illegal aliens and homeless guys off the street to play QB in the final week because their entire QB roster has been terminated. Dallas and Carolina

are playing QBs who, in some small respect, have a broken back. Andrew Luck has been hit 6,000 times and who

knows what's wrong will Phillip Rivers. He wont say.

Are the sissy pants, girly man roughing the QB rules totally justified in light of the signal caller

slaughter we have seen in the NFL this season?

Your thoughts....

Not sure I follow your reasoning here Mark. Houston benched Fitz, right? Then when he came back he was injured on a scramble. Hoyer was benched not injured. Newton injured his back in a car accident not on the field.

[Girlzarefanstoo]

Style of QB play matters more. Not everyone can take the punishment like a Luck or Wilson while being mobile and can be judicious like them to know when they can push it. There in lies the difference, IMO

One of the reasons I don't really ever want a "running qb" is even if a single hit doesn't take them out they suffer long term wear and tear.  The hits add up even to a pocket qb (see: Rivers)  

[crazycolt1]

The calls are fine when they aren't playing superstar QBs.

But when they are playing Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Brees etc. is when the phantom b.s calls start flying in and mess up crucial part of games

If you were an owner wouldn't you want your most expensive investment protected even if it was on the phantom side as you call it? Not liking it hasn't kept the game from being the most popular. Before these rules were made most fans wanted something done to protect the QB. There were also other rule changes made to protect other players other than the QB. Chop blocks, head slaps, the changes on kickoffs are just a few. Head injuries and other career ending injuries seem to be down. The human body was not designed to play football and any rule changes made is OK by me.

[crazycolt1]

We all whine about roughing the passer calls and how just touching a scared QB's hair is a 15-yard

penalty these days. But maybe we should tie those complaints to the present day.

At the end of this year...Houston, Arizona and Cleveland are dragging in illegal aliens and homeless guys off the street to play QB in the final week because their entire QB roster has been terminated. Dallas and Carolina

are playing QBs who, in some small respect, have a broken back. Andrew Luck has been hit 6,000 times and who

knows what's wrong will Phillip Rivers. He wont say.

Are the sissy pants, girly man roughing the QB rules totally justified in light of the signal caller

slaughter we have seen in the NFL this season?

Your thoughts....

Sissy pants, girly man? The rule changes were made to protect high dollar investments. The NFL has changed to where talent is at a high premium, not  brawn. The days of the defenses out to hurt other players are over. You change with the times or get left behind? The what they call the good old days are way over rated.

[oldunclemark]

Not sure I follow your reasoning here Mark. Houston benched Fitz, right? Then when he came back he was injured on a scramble. Hoyer was benched not injured. Newton injured his back in a car accident not on the field.

. Not true. Fitzgerald is hurt...he was KO'd for the year....Hoyer was hit and hurt. He's not available Sunday

....Newton missed the season opener due to injury and has been limited all year. ...

Foles is DOA...RG3...was jacked up.....Vick was knocked out...Alex Smith is down....I could go on..

the question is: Do the injuries justify the rules. What do you think..?

Did tghat happen 20 years ago because I dodnt eremember a higher dstruictuion rate than we have now

[Girlzarefanstoo]

Is the QB survival rate higher now than it was 15-20 years ago?

Have the rules worked?

QBs have gotten physically larger....

But I honestly don't recall if Joe Montana and John Elway got KO'd from games on a regular basis

I have no idea how you would research that, but it would be interesting.

 

However, you can't really even compare eras well on things that are the same.  How can you "know" what was prevented?  If we could see into an alternative universe perhaps, but we can't.  What if a single hit took out Brady or Manning?  How different would the landscape be?  

 

My feeling is a single penalty/play vs a man's career isn't too much.  Same with the CBs hitting receivers.  I hate the ticky-tack calls, but if they learn to play clean some of the great receivers might last a few years longer.    

[21isSuperman]

I don't think it's the fault of the league, but rather a flaw in the game.  I read somewhere that Vince Lombardi thought football was nearly a perfect game, but it had one flaw and that was it had too much attention on the QB.  It's no secret that the NFL is a QB-driven league and having a franchise QB is very important to success in the NFL.  So for the NFL to protect a team's (theoretical) most important asset isn't necessarily bad on the part of the league, but more of how the game is structured.  The QB is the centre of attention, so you have to protect them.  It can get a little annoying or frustrating, but I think it's the right thing to do.  With that said, I think a lot of the onus falls on the refs.  Refs need to be able to make accurate, objective calls. 

 

One thing I really like about Luck is that even if a defender grabs his facemask, he doesn't go looking to the refs and complaining for a flag.  Let the refs do their jobs and you just worry about your own job.  That prevents some of those weaker calls some QBs get when they complain to the refs

[crazycolt1]

I don't think it's the fault of the league, but rather a flaw in the game.  I read somewhere that Vince Lombardi thought football was nearly a perfect game, but it had one flaw and that was it had too much attention on the QB.  It's no secret that the NFL is a QB-driven league and having a franchise QB is very important to success in the NFL.  So for the NFL to protect a team's (theoretical) most important asset isn't necessarily bad on the part of the league, but more of how the game is structured.  The QB is the centre of attention, so you have to protect them.  It can get a little annoying or frustrating, but I think it's the right thing to do.  With that said, I think a lot of the onus falls on the refs.  Refs need to be able to make accurate, objective calls. 

 

One thing I really like about Luck is that even if a defender grabs his facemask, he doesn't go looking to the refs and complaining for a flag.  Let the refs do their jobs and you just worry about your own job.  That prevents some of those weaker calls some QBs get when they complain to the refs

I know a lot of fans don't want more instant replay but it wouldn't make me mad to have the refs take a second look at some of these hits on the QB and other players before automatically thinking it's a foul. Nothings worse than a bad call.

[DougDew]

QB carnage is what happens when the sport deemphasizes the run game and favors the passing game. The QB is involved in more plays, and even is relied upon to run the ball.

Give me the old three yards a cloud of dust type of sport again.

The rules are the result in the changes in the game, and they are probably needed in order to have competent offenses. These days, incompetent QB play makes games really hard to watch. Not entertaining at all.

Yes, protect the starting QB, or go back to making the RB more important.

[crazycolt1]

QB carnage is what happens when the sport deemphasizes the run game and favors the passing game. The QB is involved in more plays, and even is relied upon to run the ball.

Give me the old three yards a cloud of dust type of sport again.

The rules are the result in the changes in the game, and they are probably needed in order to have competent offenses. These days, incompetent QB play makes games really hard to watch. Not entertaining at all.

Yes, protect the starting QB, or go back to making the RB more important.

I think one thing that made the RB less of a main thing on offenses is how high the contracts got. It was hard to justify paying one player a high dollar amount and gamble that player is an injury away from not doing you any good. With multi RBs you keep them fresh and healthy. We have seen the results of high dollar RBs and how they were used and abused because of the money they made.

[amfootball]

. Not true. Fitzgerald is hurt...he was KO'd for the year....Hoyer was hit and hurt. He's not available Sunday

....Newton missed the season opener due to injury and has been limited all year. ...

Foles is DOA...RG3...was jacked up.....Vick was knocked out...Alex Smith is down....I could go on..

the question is: Do the injuries justify the rules. What do you think..?

Did tghat happen 20 years ago because I dodnt eremember a higher dstruictuion rate than we have now

I don't see any of the injures as a result of penalized hits though or some flaw in the rules. Some of them were freak - like RGs ankle dislocation, no one touched him. Fitz was scrambling and got tripped, Smith had a spleen injury that did not manifest until days later. I just think that is part of the sport. I don't recall any egregious hits that caused injury at least to QBs anyways.

[Superman]

It's really not about the financial investment.

Playing QB requires a player to leave his body vulnerable in a lot of ways. He has to plant his feet to throw accurately, leaving his knees open to hits. He has to leave his ribs open. He can't look around and make sure no one is getting ready to hit him. He has to keep his head up and focus on where he's throwing the ball, so he can't protect his head and face from the hands of defenders. And so on.

The rules that protect the QB are in place because the QB is the most vulnerable player on the field.

Some of them are tickytack, like the roughing call Luck got against the Browns on third down, but there have been tens of late hits on Luck that weren't called this season, at least four in the Pittsburgh game. I think it balances out, for the most part.

[Synthetic]

Are the sissy pants, girly man roughing the QB rules totally justified in light of the signal caller

slaughter we have seen in the NFL this season?

 

 

 

Given how over paid these millionaire jocks are on the field to throw a dumb ball back and forth, that's the least concern.

 

Hell, none of the "elite" golden boys like being touched either. When Manning sees the sack coming, he's infamous for going down to get out of taking the hit (but if it's Jim Everett, we make fun of him over the "phantom sack")

 

As long as you have a game centered around men slamming their bodies into one another and trying to literally kill each other with concussions, no matter how much you change rules and add penalties, it's not going to fix anything.

[BloodyChamp]

The rules are responsible for the injuries. To much damage control eventually has the opposite of the desired results.

[oldunclemark]

Its interesting that there is such a wide spectrum or opinion..

From 'the rules are responsible for the injuries" to "its not going to fix anything"...to "its a flaw in the game"

...

[GoPats]

It's really not about the financial investment.

Playing QB requires a player to leave his body vulnerable in a lot of ways. He has to plant his feet to throw accurately, leaving his knees open to hits. He has to leave his ribs open. He can't look around and make sure no one is getting ready to hit him. He has to keep his head up and focus on where he's throwing the ball, so he can't protect his head and face from the hands of defenders. And so on.

The rules that protect the QB are in place because the QB is the most vulnerable player on the field.

Some of them are tickytack, like the roughing call Luck got against the Browns on third down, but there have been tens of late hits on Luck that weren't called this season, at least four in the Pittsburgh game. I think it balances out, for the most part.

 

Good points as usual.

 

I'd only add that the NFL can't take any further QB attrition. It's thin enough already -- it often seems like there aren't 32 men on the entire planet who are qualified to play NFL football at a high level. When I hear about future league expansion, the dilution of talent is almost always the first thing that pops into my head. 

[BOTT]

Good points as usual.

 

I'd only add that the NFL can't take any further QB attrition. It's thin enough already -- it often seems like there aren't 32 men on the entire planet who are qualified to play NFL football at a high level. When I hear about future league expansion, the dilution of talent is almost always the first thing that pops into my head.

The nfl really needs a developmental league

[Superman]

Good points as usual.

 

I'd only add that the NFL can't take any further QB attrition. It's thin enough already -- it often seems like there aren't 32 men on the entire planet who are qualified to play NFL football at a high level. When I hear about future league expansion, the dilution of talent is almost always the first thing that pops into my head. 

 

Yeah, obviously, they don't want QBs to sustain significant injuries. I just disagree with the idea that these rules are in place just to promote big offensive numbers and make it impossible to play defense. QBs can't play the position and worry about protecting their knees, their ribs, their heads...

 

Same for defenseless players when the ball is in the air. You can't extend to catch the ball and protect your head and your ribs and your knees. Those rules extend to DBs, also, it's just not very often that a DB is trying to catch the ball and taking a major hit from a defender.

 

And there's really no reason for anyone to be brutalized in order to play football. Some people have this idea that the game isn't as good if guys aren't getting carried off on stretchers. I think that's madness.

 

There is a grey area on this stuff, and sometimes flags seem tickytack. But I think making the game safer is a noble cause, not something to resent.

[GoPats]

The nfl really needs a developmental league

 

They do indeed. I think it would be popular enough to sustain... I know I'd at least watch games if there was a "minor league" NFL team near me. 

 

Yeah, obviously, they don't want QBs to sustain significant injuries. I just disagree with the idea that these rules are in place just to promote big offensive numbers and make it impossible to play defense. QBs can't play the position and worry about protecting their knees, their ribs, their heads...

 

Same for defenseless players when the ball is in the air. You can't extend to catch the ball and protect your head and your ribs and your knees. Those rules extend to DBs, also, it's just not very often that a DB is trying to catch the ball and taking a major hit from a defender.

 

And there's really no reason for anyone to be brutalized in order to play football. Some people have this idea that the game isn't as good if guys aren't getting carried off on stretchers. I think that's madness.

 

There is a grey area on this stuff, and sometimes flags seem tickytack. But I think making the game safer is a noble cause, not something to resent.

 

I guess it's a lot of factors...

 

Consider that since 1995, there have been four teams added (Jaguars, Panthers, Texans, and Ravens/Browns, depending on how you look at that whole situation). So that's four more "jobs" if you're a quarterback, which doesn't sound like much, but considering there were only 28 of them prior to then, it's a pretty big jump. Without looking at any lists, I'd say you could probably lump a lot more than just four QBs who've started at some point this season into a "not good" bucket. 

[oldunclemark]

I don't see any of the injures as a result of penalized hits though or some flaw in the rules. Some of them were freak - like RGs ankle dislocation, no one touched him. Fitz was scrambling and got tripped, Smith had a spleen injury that did not manifest until days later. I just think that is part of the sport. I don't recall any egregious hits that caused injury at least to QBs anyways.

I like the word egregious..don't actually know what it means but I like it!

Its not those hits. The21st century QB rules keep QBs from taking normal hits..that others take.

The 'sliding' rules, for example..that have kept Russell Wilson from getting killed on his scrambles..

Its cumulative hits that QBs are spared

[amfootball]

I like the word egregious..don't actually know what it means but I like it!

Its not those hits. The21st century QB rules keep QBs from taking normal hits..that others take.

The 'sliding' rules, for example..that have kept Russell Wilson from getting killed on his scrambles..

Its cumulative hits that QBs are spared

lol. Glad I could expand vocab for you. Egregious means conspicuously bad; flagrant.

[oldunclemark]

I thought it had something to do with omlets!