http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/column...
Well...I for one looked at the hit and it was clearly intended to injure the player.
If we're going to penalize players for ripping down signs shouldnt we really be looking at plays and tactics that hurt other players intentionally?
Then top it off with Denver's history of this.... plus their "slap" on the wrist for their salary cap violations during their SB run are they the new Raiders?
Shanahan is a clown. He put together a video montage of other team''s offensive linemen throwing similar blocks (including Steelers and Bengals Players--Bill Cohwer(sp?) was more outspoken about it then Marvin Lewis).
The block isn''t illegal--it''s part of the game, the difference is in the intent. That wasn''t a block, it was an intent to take an opponent''s player out of the game. The incident occured some fifteen yards away from the ball.
Many of the players that played for Shanahan don''t even blame Foster (the guy who did it), they blame the coaches, because they propogate that style of play.
I know hate the Broncos and Mike Shanahan even more than I hate Bellicheck and the Patriots, and Billick and the Ravens. Overrated coaches.
Edit: Obviously, I''m biased 
Many of the players that played for Shanahan don''t even blame Foster (the guy who did it), they blame the coaches, because they propogate that style of play.
no if its a trend amongst different players on the same team then its obviously a policy and something taught and encouraged by the Coaching staff...You cant blame the guy for wanting to stay on the team and earn a living.
Denver''s been doing this for years. Here is a list of players Denver lineman have been responsible for hurting in just the past two years.
Maa Tanuvasa
Paul Spicer
Jamal Williams
Tony Williams
Not to mention in this article Shanahan never even denies they do these blocks on purpose. He simply says ''Well other people do them to''. That''s not the point other teams may use the occasional chop block but not many other teams use it as the basis for their entire blocking scheme. In case you can''t tell i''m still bitter about the Donkeys cheap shotting Jamal Williams last year.
If we''re going to penalize players for ripping down signs shouldnt we really be looking at plays and tactics that hurt other players intentionally?
Absolutely.
Absolutely we should punish players that perpetrate aggressive fouls outside the bounds of the game. But to cast the light on the Broncos or Shanahan alone is a bit too selective.
Having grown up in California -- Los Angeles County specifically -- I reject entirely the contention that the Broncos are the new Raiders. Since we lost the raiders to Oakland, crime is down, air pollution is down, Hollywood and Burbank are (respectively) producing better movies and television, we have a democratic mayor, home ownership is up, In-n-Out locations are propagating around the Southland, etc. etc. The list goes on and on. 
Life is good.
It''s pretty common knowledge that the Broncs have the dirtiest O-line in the NFL. They are small, quick, and dirty. Why do you think that any halfway decent running back is successful behind them? I could go for a hundo behind them.
I am not intending to defend all blocks or every action by the Denver Broncos, but this block was determined to be within the stated rules. It was legal.
While it was not necessarily in the ""run of play"" (for lack of a better expression), it was not a violation. Going after a punter, or a QB after an interception, is common within the NFL and NCAA. Asking a player -- be he professional or college (is there a difference?) -- to make a determination in mid-play as to whether a LEGAL block or hit is necessary, is unreasonable. And, I think, the other teams would agree with that statement.
Perhaps it isn''t that you object to the action of legally hitting targets of opportunity, its that you object to the Broncos'' success at it?
To reiterate: If it is a foul, it should be called. If it is an excessive foul, it should be penalized and the perp. fined. If we need to change the rules to better protect the players, then let''s do it. But to criticize a player for a legal hit I think is akin to collateral damage. Your missive is more appropriately targeted at the league officials that favor action over safety.
Flame inducing comment: While we''re at it, why don''t we eliminate all the astroturf. It isn''t necessary to the game and it causes a great deal of injuries.
Flame inducing comment: While we''re at it, why don''t we eliminate all the astroturf. It isn''t necessary to the game and it causes a great deal of injuries.
I agree with this.
I am not intending to defend all blocks or every action by the Denver Broncos, but this block was determined to be within the stated rules. It was legal.
While it was not necessarily in the ""run of play"" (for lack of a better expression), it was not a violation. Going after a punter, or a QB after an interception, is common within the NFL and NCAA. Asking a player -- be he professional or college (is there a difference?) -- to make a determination in mid-play as to whether a LEGAL block or hit is necessary, is unreasonable. And, I think, the other teams would agree with that statement.
Perhaps it isn''t that you object to the action of legally hitting targets of opportunity, its that you object to the Broncos'' success at it?
To reiterate: If it is a foul, it should be called. If it is an excessive foul, it should be penalized and the perp. fined. If we need to change the rules to better protect the players, then let''s do it. But to criticize a player for a legal hit I think is akin to collateral damage. Your missive is more appropriately targeted at the league officials that favor action over safety.
Flame inducing comment: While we''re at it, why don''t we eliminate all the astroturf. It isn''t necessary to the game and it causes a great deal of injuries.
The Rule will be changed in the offseason because of the actions of the Denver Broncos.
Think about that...
Its only legal because the NFL figures that if your not actively enganged in a prior block you would be able to avoid an obvious chop block from one person.
Now if your chop blocking someone from the blind side...while its a legal block because you''ve shifted direction and are no longer ""engaged"" its still an obviously dirty tactic.
That and the fact that the Broncos have a history pretty much will seal the deal on the Broncos fate this offseason.
With Parity and Salary Cap the League cannot afford this many IR''s during the season.
I''ll be glad when the Patriots smoke the Bronco''s in the playoffs.
The Rule will be changed in the offseason because of the actions of the Denver Broncos.
Think about that...
If they have been doing it for years (which I know they have), then I put all blame on the shoulders of the NFL. If it is something they don''t want in their game, they should have made it illegal (and thus fineable after the fact even if no penalty was assessed on the play). Gibbs (the coach that is pretty much responsible for the blocking style) is now at Atlanta, they too will be doing this once they get the system down unless the NFL outlaws it. The other teams that were notorious for these exact same blocks - the Redskins and the 49''ers were also coached by Gibbs.
This has been around for a long while. Something bad finally happened on Monday Night Football, and everyone is screaming ""oh those terrible Broncos,"" and supposedly now the NFL is going to address it in the offseason? If the NFL was really concerned, they would have stopped it back in the early 80''s.
Do I think it should be allowed? No. Do I think the Broncos'' are terrible scumbags for blocking that way? No. It''s currently legal, and if you look at the number of injuries that have resulted from that style of blocking versus all other injuries that result from playing NFL football, I would bet it is statistically irrevalent.
If those 4 players Stric9 listed are the only others hurt, then divide all those over the number of games the Broncos have used that style (I think it dates back to 1995), and then tell me that the blocking style is the most dangerous aspect of today''s NFL game. I just don''t buy it.
This very issue was discussed on this morning''s Sportcenter in the ""4 downs"" segment with Clayton and Salsbury. We are SO ahead of the curve!
This has been around for a long while. Something bad finally happened on Monday Night Football, and everyone is screaming ""oh those terrible Broncos,"" and supposedly now the NFL is going to address it in the offseason? If the NFL was really concerned, they would have stopped it back in the early 80''s.Do I think it should be allowed? No. Do I think the Broncos'' are terrible scumbags for blocking that way? No. It''s currently legal, and if you look at the number of injuries that have resulted from that style of blocking versus all other injuries that result from playing NFL football, I would bet it is statistically irrevalent.
Who cares about that far back...I''m talking here and now.. should the NFL had realized that this would result in more injuries on OL previous to this year yeah sure fine. But remember it wasnt until the last 6-7 years that anyone even really recognized the high value of OL. Sure Gibbs had a terrific OL back in the day but they (OL) were still amongst the lowest paid on the team. Nowadays OL go in the first round and garner huge contracts. With the increased value on your top skill positions and the higher skill and speed of the defense its more important than ever to protect your top players.
Top that with Salary cap and limited roster depth and expansion and what happened in the past means ZERO in todays modern game.
Fact is the Broncos have ended the season of 2 players in this fashion. 1 is an accident 2 is deliberate...
I mean its silly to argue the past with todays modern game.. Deacon Jones used to gouge the opponents eyes during the scrum..
The fact that it is legal at this time doesn''t make it right, how could a thinking person defend it with that argument? Intent to injure would be all that was requisite for a crime, much less a penalty. Those guys are lucky somebody''s D-Line doesn''t show up in the parking lot with ball bats and tire irons. A absolutely loathe Shanahan. But then I am a KC fan, so a part of that is instincive.
Maybe Dick Vermeil should cry about it 
Say what youo want about my Mom and kids, but you start talkin'' smack about Coach Vermeil and we''re thowin'' down.
Coach Vermeil should coach powder puff and cry with all the girls at each halftime.
This Donkeys are the biggest bunch of cheaters in the NFL. The problem is not only does their blocking scheme cause a larger amount of injuries, but it forces lineman to have to spend half of their attention attempting to avoid injuy. Further the Broncos also just got fined for violating the salary cap rules and I believe it was during the years that they won back to back superbowls. So if they basically cheated to get their rings shouldn''t they have to give them back? Not to mention last year when they played here they ''accidentaly'' forgot their dark jerseys on an 80 degree day so the home team who should have choice of jersey color had to play in dark jerseys. It''s these un-professional and un-sportsman like behaviors that makes Shanahan the most hated coach in the NFL.
Swampy, hold on a second. When somebody sacks a QB, they are attempting to bring him down hard. They are not just trying to sack him. They land on him. They twist him. They do what they can within the rules. Sometimes they arrive too late and receive a penalty.
If it is outside the bounds of the rules, a penalty is called. If it is inside the bounds, the fans of the team of defense celebrate. Sometimes -- Raiders'' fans -- they celebrate regardless.
When the Broncos -- or any team -- crosses the line, I''ll be the first to back you up and say ""fine the motha!"" However, if it is a ""clean"" play pursuant to the rules then in effect, I may not salute the guy, but I am not going to accuse him of cheating or call his coach a clown.
I would tell him to watch his back however . . . Karma has a way of swinging back around . . . .
Your point is predicated on the fact that someone trying to sack a QB is trying to injure him, and you are wrong there. If someone hits a QB in a way more likely to injure him, but that way is technicaly legal due to some oversight or negligence on behalf of the league, he is still wrong. Not everyone sacking the QB is trying to do that, though so your point falls apart.
And as far as you defense of Shanahan goes, I could not disagree more, and it appears the majority of the guys in this thread do also. He promoptes cheap play under his watch, he''s a jerk IMO.
I have no problem with Shanahan. I''ve noticed that everyone in this thread who hates him happens to be the fan of a rival team. Fascinating...
I said that up front, Bag. I''m no fan of the Bengals, and I don''t know the name of the lineman whose season was ended. But I know a cheap shot when I see one.
I also know that if the announcers on Monday Night Football are willing to even talk some trash on air about a coach, that he''s got a bad rep.
Edit: Team and coach
Denver''s been doing this for years. Here is a list of players Denver lineman have been responsible for hurting in just the past two years.
Maa Tanuvasa
Paul Spicer
Jamal Williams
Tony Williams
Add Jacksonville''s DE Paul Spicer to the list.
Broken leg in Week 2 from Matt Lepsis. And a bad enough one to end up on season-ending IR (most simple fractures are good to go in 6 weeks)
to make a determination in mid-play as to whether a LEGAL block or hit is necessary, is unreasonable.
Ok, personally, this is bunk. For what these guys are paid, you''re damn right they ought to be required to be a) good sports and b) good role models. Damn skippy.
Second, the only professional sport I watch is NASCAR - truck, Busch and Cup - if you think requiring football players having to assess information about 21 other guys on the field and the flow the play and the correctness/rightness of their action is burdensome, watch NASCAR sometime.
This year, for better or worse, NASCAR have been harder on their drivers than ever.
These are guys going (often) close to 200 Miles Per Hour, with TWICE as many other folks on the field, and not having half of them being ""teammates"". If NASCAR determines that they pushed someone out of the way unduly, they get penalized, often in a way that takes them out of the race, effectively. If they lose their cool, they can get penalized in a way that takes them out of the Championship, effectively.
Hell, Dale Jr. recently used the F-word in a Victory Lane interview, accidentally, and non-confrontationally. He was at the top of the championship race, and they docked him a bunch of championship points, seriously messing with his race for the Cup. They did the same to two other lower league drivers that week too.
For a celebratory f-bomb.
Gimme a break, these overpaid, overadored adolescents that get payed to play a GAME can damn well pay more attention. If they can''t, maybe they need to find a new job. Or try doing it with LOWER visibility at 200 MPH with 42 opponents. Then we can talk about having to make split-second decisions about ""fair play"".
Bunch of f-bombing spoiled brats.
(Salt liberally.)
Not to mention that in many other professions, mine included, people are held to much more exacting standards for split second use of force decisions against people actively trying to hurt them or others. These guys are blocking for a running back, I think they can be held accountable for intentionally disabling another player.
I think dolling out firm spankings for these dirty boys would be a good place to start. I think Swampy can do it with the most authority.
Mine come in two varieties. ""Punishment"" and ""Recreational"".
The fact that it is legal at this time doesn''t make it right, how could a thinking person defend it with that argument?
Swampy, I consider myself to be a thinking person. And I am not saying it was ""right."" Far from it. I am simply suggesting that the Broncos are not cheating by engaging in this activity. I am saying that the anger for incidents like this one is more appropriately directed at the league.
These players are working for their paychecks and, I would imagine, most of them care little about whether they are rolemodels or not. They care about their crib and their women. Family too, probably. Oh, and that paycheck. If they are not going to be as aggressive as possible within the rules in effect on the day of the game, then their coaches will replace them. Somebody is always willing to act up to the legal line. Some people are willing to act beyond the legal line.
I imagine it''s similar in NASCAR. Be as aggressive as possible within the legal confines of the activity. Tune the car as close as you can to the limit of the rules. Push, rub, grind, etc. as close as you can within the rules. If you overtune the car beyond the rules, you deserve to be called a cheat. But the second you start encouraging the driver or the player to second guess himself while acting within the rules, you encourage injuries.
If you play not to get hurt or not to fail, you usually get hurt. You usually fail. So much of sports is a confidence game. As a participant, you need certainty. You need to feel confident about your abilities. Rules provide that certainty as the boundries of conduct on the field/track. They allow participants to feel confident about their abilities and capability to act within the rules. To require that players self-impose restrictions, doubts or restraints on themselves does not further the game or the competition.
The extension of much of the arugment in this thread is that the Broncos should restrain themselves from acting within the full bounds of the rules. I haven''t seen anybody here suggest that the other teams should do that in advance of a rules change. The playing field needs to be kept level for all teams. I am having a hard time seeing the Broncos as ""cheaters.""
But then I am a KC fan, so a part of that is instincive.
At this point I should probably mention that I was rooting for the Bengals -- being a USC grad and a fan of Palmer.
I imagine it''s similar in NASCAR. Be as aggressive as possible within the legal confines of the activity. Tune the car as close as you can to the limit of the rules. Push, rub, grind, etc. as close as you can within the rules. If you overtune the car beyond the rules, you deserve to be called a cheat. But the second you start encouraging the driver or the player to second guess himself while acting within the rules, you encourage injuries.If you play not to get hurt or not to fail, you usually get hurt. You usually fail. So much of sports is a confidence game. As a participant, you need certainty. You need to feel confident about your abilities. Rules provide that certainty as the boundries of conduct on the field/track. They allow participants to feel confident about their abilities and capability to act within the rules. To require that players self-impose restrictions, doubts or restraints on themselves does not further the game or the competition.
Actually, in racing, if you push the rules to the limit, you will likely end up in the garage or trailer early.
If you think stock car racing is merely a bunch of dudes simulating rush hour for 3 hours, I highly recommend checking it out. I used to think it would be boring like baseball, but there is more to it than it seems from the outside.
Another thing that makes drivers limit themselves in their aggressiveness was something that EA modeled(albeit poorly) in their 2003 sim - grudges. If a drivers is super-aggressive, he''ll quickly find he has few allies on the track, and there are a lot of times where you really need to work WITH other drivers. In fact, every race is an exercise in working WITH the guys you are racing AGAINST. You HAVE to ""play nice"" or you could find yourself not playing at all.
Yes, certain tracks lend themselves to beating and banging, yes, there''s often use of the chrome horn to convince a slower driver to let you pass, but typically the guys that push the line find themselves the worse for wear in the long run.
Check out NASCAR if you''re not a fan. I think you''ve got some misconceptions about the comparability in pushing the limits of the rules that just don''t hold up long-term when you have to have a certain level of mutual trust with the other 42 guys on the track.
The extension of much of the arugment in this thread is that the Broncos should restrain themselves from acting within the full bounds of the rules. I haven''t seen anybody here suggest that the other teams should do that in advance of a rules change. The playing field needs to be kept level for all teams. I am having a hard time seeing the Broncos as ""cheaters.""
I never called them cheaters...not once. They arent cheating as they are acting in full compliance with league rules.
What they are trying to do is injure the opponent through a dirty tactic. You can even chop block or take someones legs out in a clean way. The way they do it is far from clean. They seize an oppurtonity to injure the opposing player.
Thats wrong.
Players get hurt through hard hits or people flying around or getting caught up under someone else who gets pushed a certain way.
What they did on Monday night is neither of those it was clearly a cheap shot.
Ray Lewis hits people hard...and they feel it. But he isnt a cheap player. Thats the difference.
I am having a hard time seeing the Broncos as ""cheaters.""
I don''t think the discussion here is regarding whether or not the Broncos are ""cheaters""; they aren''t breaking any rules, they obviously aren''t. It''s a bad rule, you shouldn''t be able to chop block from behind--regardless. The point is, some coaches not only fail to discourage, but in many cases *encourage* this dangerous behavior--this is what Shanahan and his coaches are being accused of, and all evidence seems to be point to it being a sound accusation.
Even Foster admits that those blocks are in the Broncos'' gameplan, what doesn''t make sense is that the other 31 some odd teams that are in the NFL--many with succesful ground attacks--aren''t consistently injuring defensive players through blindside chop blocks.
They aren''t cheating, they''re exploiting a rule that needs to be fixed--and I''ll bet you some jelly beans that buy next year, chop blocking from the blindside will be illegal, no matter where on the field you are.
Pages