Hits on manning:
 

I for one was happy to see us getting to the QB even if it wasn't always a sack. Its a step in the right direction.

That said many of the talkshow hosts have said they expect fines against the skins for hits on Manning. Even though Manning is the NFLs golden boy, I didn't see any fineable hit given. THere was one that was very rough, but nothing illegal done.

When are fines handed out for the week, and when will we know.

Re: Hits on manning:
 

Not sure about the fines, but I was happy to see the hits as well. Unfortunately, the Colts adjust to it in the second half and we did not

Re: Hits on manning:
 

You mean you can make adjustments at half time? Someone should tell our coaching staff that!

Re: Hits on manning:
 

[quote=Daseal;233724]That said many of the talkshow hosts have said they expect fines against the skins for hits on Manning. Even though Manning is the NFLs golden boy, I didn't see any fineable hit given. THere was one that was very rough, but nothing illegal done.[/quote]

I disagree that the Daniels and Carter hit wasn't illegal. They called roughing the passer on a much lesser hit on Brunell. Daniels and Carter damn near broke Manning's back.

When I first saw the hit, I thought it was bad, but not finable. Then I read a quote from Daniels in the Washington Post about it, and he said something like "we had him where we wanted him, but we let him off the hook". That sounds like some punk shit to me. He's basically saying "we can't defend him, so lets injure him". They probably will be fined if the NFL decides to look into it.

Re: Hits on manning:
 

[QUOTE=Daseal;233733]You mean you can make adjustments at half time? Someone should tell our coaching staff that![/QUOTE]

Joe Gibbs used to be the black belt master of that. but all we saw was more of the same. make me think it's just Brunell succumbing to his checking down habit.

Re: Hits on manning:
 

[QUOTE=Southpaw;233734]I disagree that the Daniels and Carter hit wasn't illegal. They called roughing the passer on a much lesser hit on Brunell. Daniels and Carter damn near broke Manning's back.[/QUOTE]

The hit that you are talking about was a clear cut case of a blow to the head of the QB, and even if it had been on a RB or WR it probably would have still been flagged for facemask. Freeny hit Brunell right in the bars which knocked his helmet a good 3 inches lower on his forehead than it was before.
The hit on Manning was more just a gang tackle where Daniels' arm got around Manning's neck. There were no hands to the face and Manning never got hit in the head.
The ref was in the same position for both hits, so I'm pretty sure he called them how he saw them.

Re: Hits on manning:
 

[quote=ArtMonkDrillz;233739]The hit on Manning was more just a gang tackle where Daniels' arm got around Manning's neck. There were no hands to the face and Manning never got hit in the head.
The ref was in the same position for both hits, so I'm pretty sure he called them how he saw them.[/quote]

I've never seen a play where the ball was gone, the quarterbacks helmet gets ripped off and nothing was called. And as I said, I didn't think much about the hit, until Daniels made it sound like they were intentionally trying to injure Manning.

Re: Hits on manning:
 

I was surprised they didn't call Daniels hit, but I guess they made up for it by calling a totally non-roughing call on Washington when he fell into Manning on accident.

Re: Hits on manning:
 

[quote=Southpaw;233734]I disagree that the Daniels and Carter hit wasn't illegal. They called roughing the passer on a much lesser hit on Brunell. Daniels and Carter damn near broke Manning's back.

When I first saw the hit, I thought it was bad, but not finable. Then I read a quote from Daniels in the Washington Post about it, and he said something like "we had him where we wanted him, but we let him off the hook". That sounds like some punk shit to me. He's basically saying "we can't defend him, so lets injure him". They probably will be fined if the NFL decides to look into it.[/quote]

I guess if you want to twist it that way, I took it as him saying they had the Colts down 14-13 at the half and they let the game get away in the 2nd half.

I really don't think he was trying to say that he was trying to hurt him. Daniels has never been known to be a dirty guy.

Look at the context of the quote, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the hit:

[quote]One lasting memory of this game will be of Manning's elegant passing after the assault he took in the second quarter when Redskins end Phillip Daniels bent him backwards over Andre Carter and ripped the helmet off his head. The torque in Manning's spine sprung him back so violently that he flew face-first -- a 180-degree flip -- into the turf. Once back on the sideline, he still had a dozen bits of artificial turf imbedded in his forehead. On one subsequent series of downs, he seemed to be taking a standing eight count.

"We had him where we wanted him," Daniels said, "but we let him off the hook."[/quote]

Re: Hits on manning:
 

[quote=Southpaw;233734]I disagree that the Daniels and Carter hit wasn't illegal. They called roughing the passer on a much lesser hit on Brunell. Daniels and Carter damn near broke Manning's back.

When I first saw the hit, I thought it was bad, but not finable. Then I read a quote from Daniels in the Washington Post about it, and he said something like "we had him where we wanted him, but we let him off the hook". That sounds like some punk shit to me. He's basically saying "we can't defend him, so lets injure him". They probably will be fined if the NFL decides to look into it.[/quote]
Your wrong about the quote it does not ask him about the hit at all. It was just inserted into that paragraph about the hit and never said anything about asking Daniels about the hit.
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/22/AR2006102201162_2.html]Manning's Hits Hurt - washingtonpost.com[/url]

Re: Hits on manning:
 

[quote=firstdown;233764]Your wrong about the quote it does not ask him about the hit at all. It was just inserted into that paragraph about the hit and never said anything about asking Daniels about the hit.
[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/22/AR2006102201162_2.html"]Manning's Hits Hurt - washingtonpost.com[/URL][/quote]


Thanks for the clarification, but Daniels was obviously referencing the hits they put on Manning, because it was the Daniels and Carter hit that put Manning in the "standing eight count". And if he was referencing the Colts in general and not Manning, I imagine he would have said "we had [B]them[/B] right where we wanted them" and not "we had[B] him [/B]right where we wanted him".

Re: Hits on manning:
 

then why no flag on manning when that pass hit his lineman?

Re: Hits on manning:
 

[quote=Southpaw;233787]Thanks for the clarification, but Daniels was obviously referencing the hits they put on Manning, because it was the Daniels and Carter hit that put Manning in the "standing eight count". And if he was referencing the Colts in general and not Manning, I imagine he would have said "we had [B]them[/B] right where we wanted them" and not "we had[B] him [/B]right where we wanted him".[/quote]
With his statement just inserted without knowing the question there is no way of knowing. Maybe the question was about containing Manning and then his statement would make sense. I fell the play its self was just one of those plays where everyone is going full speed and just happened. With his angle comming in on the Manning he probably had no idea he pitched the ball out to avoid the sack.

Re: Hits on manning:
 

[quote=Southpaw;233787]Thanks for the clarification, but Daniels was obviously referencing the hits they put on Manning, because it was the Daniels and Carter hit that put Manning in the "standing eight count". And if he was referencing the Colts in general and not Manning, I imagine he would have said "we had [B]them[/B] right where we wanted them" and not "we had[B] him [/B]right where we wanted him".[/quote]

Take it anyway you want I guess...

But I really don't think he was directly referencing the hit. The article may make it seem that way, but context is everything.

If you want to squabble about them or him, since Manning is basically their entire offense, saying him really isn't that out of place.

Re: Hits on manning:
 

This is ridiculous. The hit was completely legal. I mean the fact that he got twisted up was unfortunate but I mean what should they do put a red jersey on QB's now ?

Re: Hits on manning:
 

[quote=MonkFan4Life;233801]This is ridiculous. The hit was completely legal. I mean the fact that he got twisted up was unfortunate but I mean what should they do put a red jersey on QB's now ?[/quote]

It's funny that everyone think's there was nothing wrong with the hit because it was someone else's quarterback. A lot of people on this forum flipped out last season when Ramsey was clotheslined by Lance Briggs, even though it was technically a legal hit.

With the rules protecting the quarterback these days, you can't do much more than sneeze in a quarterbacks direction if he doesn't have the ball. Manning was folded in half, and had his helmet ripped off. The fact that it was a couple of Redskins that did it doesn't make it legal.

Re: Hits on manning:
 

I must say southpaw, grow a pair. Your bitching more then my brother the colts fan.

that being said Hurah for pressuring the QB im sorry that the line let 2 through and they hit manning within 2 secs if you look manning is going down and daniels is in mid tackle already. Now watch as the helmet flies off, a 10 i say. Dont get me wrong i am happy Manning didnt get hurt but he madea fine pretzel

Re: Hits on manning:
 

[quote=Redskin;233900]I must say southpaw, grow a pair. Your bitching more then my brother the colts fan.[/quote]

I couldn't care less that he got folded up since he wasn't seriously hurt. I'm just questioning the double standard that is applied to football rules, when it's a Redskin that breaks them.

Re: Hits on manning:
 

I for one would love to see Brunell hit like that....

Re: Hits on manning:
 

[quote=Daseal;233905]I for one would love to see Brunell hit like that....[/quote]
Why im standing firmly that a good piece of redskin fans are morons and im not even includeing southpaw in that

Re: Hits on manning:
 

[quote=Redskin;233906]Why im standing firmly that a good piece of redskin fans are morons and im not even includeing southpaw in that[/quote]

There's another good portion of fans that are parrots, firmly perched on Coach Gibbs' shoulder.

Re: Hits on manning:
 

[quote=Southpaw;233912]There's another good portion of fans that are parrots, firmly perched on Coach Gibbs' shoulder.[/quote]
Sense you are not one of the parrots pearched on Gibbs there are a few things we would like for you to have Gibbs to change. So please read all of our ideas and add a few yourself sense your in touch with the team and all.

Re: Hits on manning:
 

yeah the nfl protects qb's but they BABY Mannings it seems

Re: Hits on manning:
 

... often symbolizes sarcasm. Obviously it was missed.

Re: Hits on manning:
 

little too testy.

Re: Hits on manning:
 

legit hit.

Re: Hits on manning:
 

[quote=firstdown;233920]Sense you are not one of the parrots pearched on Gibbs there are a few things we would like for you to have Gibbs to change. So please read all of our ideas and add a few yourself sense your in touch with the team and all.[/quote]

I never claimed to be in touch with the team, but when the head coach says his erratic, happy feet quarterback had an "excellent" game, it makes many people(fans, analysts, players, etc.) question what he's seeing.

And as far as what Gibbs needs to change; I'm going to be one of his parrots for a moment and say "I don't know".

Re: Hits on manning:
 

southpaw, was Briggs fined for the hit on Ramsey? i don't think so, making it legal in eyes of the NFL

Re: Hits on manning:
 

[quote=dmek25;234253]southpaw, was Briggs fined for the hit on Ramsey? i don't think so, making it legal in eyes of the NFL[/quote]

I don't know if he was fined or not. My point was, when it happened to a Redskin, the majority of this forum flipped out and said it was illegal, should have been a penalty/fine, etc. When it's a Redskin making the hit, everything is fine.

Re: Hits on manning:
 

[quote=Southpaw;234247]I never claimed to be in touch with the team, but when the head coach says his erratic, happy feet quarterback had an "excellent" game, it makes many people(fans, analysts, players, etc.) question what he's seeing.

And as far as what Gibbs needs to change; I'm going to be one of his parrots for a moment and say "I don't know".[/quote]

He also said he was inconsistent.

I don't know why people cling to what Gibbs says in these pressers, because he basically says nothing. It's always a cat and mouse game he plays with the media, he gives an answer, they ask again, and he goes around and around until they think they have their answer. In the end he says the same things win or lose.

Re: Hits on manning:
 

[quote=Southpaw;233844]It's funny that everyone think's there was nothing wrong with the hit because it was someone else's quarterback. A lot of people on this forum flipped out last season when Ramsey was clotheslined by Lance Briggs, even though it was technically a legal hit.

With the rules protecting the quarterback these days, you can't do much more than sneeze in a quarterbacks direction if he doesn't have the ball. Manning was folded in half, and had his helmet ripped off. The fact that it was a couple of Redskins that did it doesn't make it legal.[/quote]

Okay well i wasn't here when everyone went crazy over the Ramsey hit. Now I'm guessing that you are saying that I'm saying it was legal just because the Skins were on the "winning" side of the hit. It honestly doesn't matter who did it I'm looking at the hit itself. It wasn't late. There were about 3 guys tackling the same guy. It happens all the time, you see running backs twisted up more than that. Peyton got sandwiched between some big guys who are all trying to tackle him. His legs got caught up and yes his helmet did come off but did someone grab his helmet ? I don't remember seeing that. Did any of those guys come in late ? It was unfortunate like I said that he got twisted up like that but it was not illegal. It looked bad and the thing is that folks look at how painful it must have been and are assuming roughing because it was a painful tackle, not illiegal though.

Re: Hits on manning:
 

[quote=dmek25;234253]southpaw, was Briggs fined for the hit on Ramsey? i don't think so, making it legal in eyes of the NFL[/quote]

Briggs wasn't fined.

Re: Hits on manning:
 

I think the major problem with the hit was that it pissed Peyton off, because he came back in the 2nd half and took us apart.

Re: Hits on manning:
 

How about the hit a Trent Green this year?

He is out of the pocket and running down field like a Running Back. To me, he is no longer a QB so light him up!

Re: Hits on manning:
 

[quote=dmek25;234253]southpaw, was Briggs fined for the hit on Ramsey? i don't think so, making it legal in eyes of the NFL[/quote]

Briggs wasn't fined...and as much as I liked Brunell getting to replace Ramsey...I was mad that there was no fine. It was a dirty hit missed by the officials and league.

Re: Hits on manning:
 

[quote=61cad;234324]How about the hit a Trent Green this year?

He is out of the pocket and running down field like a Running Back. To me, he is no longer a QB so light him up![/quote]

If he wasn't sliding, sure, blast him one. But sliding is the QB giving himself up and he's not a free target at that point.