Saints are dirty

Forget Favre

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
9,115
Reaction score
1,807
The Saints defensive agenda was clear - abuse #4 at any cost. Anybody talking about last night's game today agrees that #4 took a beating. The hits are part of the game. The obvious attempts to take advantage of opportunities to inflict the most extreme measure of contact isn't. It's cheap & the Saints lost a lot of respect in the process, from myself & many other fans.
I doubt that the Saints lost any respect from their own fans.
And they certainly didn't lose any respect from me.
The D-fense did their job.
:icon_smile:
 

Hauschild

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
10
Now I'm not going to sit here and cry over the loss. Favre played great this year and proved a lot of people wrong. It was a bad throw no doubt and a dumb one on that. Anyone that hangs the game on him is either very ignorant, or a dumb homer who doesn't understand the game.
But there was a lot more damaging things that were done in that game that contribnuted to the Viks loss than the last INT. Yes his throw hurt and contributed to it, but there were much worse things that happened.

The thing that really angers me is how cheap the Saints were. There were a lot of shots that were designed to hurt the guy and thats flat out wrong. I'm all for hitting the qb and trying to make him here foot steps, but not the way NO did. You had a guy intentionaly go at his knees and no flag. I thought the Brady Rule was suppossed to keep that from happening. THis state would have been in an uproar if it was #12 getting that abuse.
I thought going into the game that if NO wind I would hope the beat the Colts, but not anymore. I cant root for a dirty team, which is what you all did last night.

I agree, but as far as dirty hits, all NFL lineman are taught to hurt the opposing QB - especially Favre because he is the lifeblood of the Vikings offense.

Plus, Favre stood in that pocket and refused to hit the deck like Manning would do because he knew he needed that extra second for a receiver to break open. THAT, my friends, is what leaders are made of!
 

Forget Favre

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
9,115
Reaction score
1,807
Plus, Favre stood in that pocket and refused to hit the deck like Manning would do because he knew he needed that extra second for a receiver to break open. THAT, my friends, is what leaders are made of!
Last time I checked it's MVP Manning not losing MVP Fail who is going to the Superbowl.

As well as Drew Brees who showed that he is the better QB against Fart and the Vikes.
He didn't throw it away like a fool. He got them into FG range the way a winning and better QB would do.
 

OneHotelFoxtrot

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
285
Reaction score
18
Dang I'm going to start taking angryguy with me in social situations. Since he seems to know what NFL player's intentions are, think of what he could me tell me about my friends!?!?:viksux:
 

Hauschild

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
10
Last time I checked it's MVP Manning not losing MVP Fail who is going to the Superbowl.

As well as Drew Brees who showed that he is the better QB against Fart and the Vikes.
He didn't throw it away like a fool. He got them into FG range the way a winning and better QB would do.

So, you're basically claiming that either Manning or Brees will be the goat in the Super Bowl because only one of them will win, which by your reasoning means one of them will be great and one will be a loser. Or, to put it in Layman's terms in the Arizona-Green Bay game, Warner is God and Rodgers is a freakin' basket-case.

You're thought processes and analysis is terribly simple - and that's not a good thing.
 

ThinkICare

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 24, 2009
Messages
711
Reaction score
15
It's funny how BF supporters want Packer fans to admit Saints players were dirty, but WE'RE the whiners for pointing out 2 bad calls that proved to contribute greatly to the Cards winning. If you noticed BF fans, the saints had around 9 penalties called on them and the vikes got 5. Don't quote me on those exact numbers, but I'm pretty sure they're exact. Hilarious, they actually did call the Saints on a few hits. Karma was present when there was a roughing the passer call that shouldn't have been called, but then one that should've been called where they injured his ankle. BF supporters, keep acting like you're above packer fans, see where it gets ya.
 

ThinkICare

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 24, 2009
Messages
711
Reaction score
15
So, you're basically claiming that either Manning or Brees will be the goat in the Super Bowl because only one of them will win, which by your reasoning means one of them will be great and one will be a loser. Or, to put it in Layman's terms in the Arizona-Green Bay game, Warner is God and Rodgers is a freakin' basket-case.

You're thought processes and analysis is terribly simple - and that's not a good thing.

I didn't know a person could be multiple trains of thought, good to know.:happy0005:

Weren't you the one to claim that Manning will "choke" in the first game of the playoffs? Last time I checked, his team is in the SB and a contributing factor to the Vikes losing was BF throwing across his body to only have it intercepted by Tracy Porter. IDK if you'd call it choking, but his performance could be labeled as such more than Manning's 300 yd 3 TD performance.
 

FanOfTheGame

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Eh, looked pretty obvious to me that the Saints' strategy was to injure the QB and get him out of the game. I commented on that early in the game. Is that dirty? I'm not sure. I don't think the point is what the refs did or did not do rather it's what the Saints did. Don't matter. Although I have nothing against Favre like a lot of Pack fans, I'm glad the Vikings lost.
 

PackersRS

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
969
Location
Porto Alegre, Brazil
Eh, looked pretty obvious to me that the Saints' strategy was to injure the QB and get him out of the game. I commented on that early in the game. Is that dirty? I'm not sure. I don't think the point is what the refs did or did not do rather it's what the Saints did. Don't matter. Although I have nothing against Favre like a lot of Pack fans, I'm glad the Vikings lost.
Of course that was their strategy. It should've been ours with every old qb we faced.

It's football, not ballet... As long as it's not illegal, it's good.
 

ThinkICare

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 24, 2009
Messages
711
Reaction score
15
So, it's being whiny to complain about the refs, but okay to whine about the opposing teams players? Just trying to see if I got this right.
 

GB2009

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
55
Reaction score
5
I agree, but as far as dirty hits, all NFL lineman are taught to hurt the opposing QB - especially Favre because he is the lifeblood of the Vikings offense.

Plus, Favre stood in that pocket and refused to hit the deck like Manning would do because he knew he needed that extra second for a receiver to break open. THAT, my friends, is what leaders are made of!

What is Hausbaby doing here? Why don't you create a website... for all the Brett Favre lovers and Packer haters out there. Certainly you have a lot to say about Brett. Remember team effort. Sure it wasn't all Brett Favre. Even if he doesn't throw that interception, Longwell misses anyways. It's the curse of being a Viking. They choke. Either way Favre loses. I commend the guy for staying in there and taking a beating. I gained more respect for the guy. And once he retires and comes back to the Packers, then I'll cheer for the guy. It's hard to cheer for Brett when he plays for the Vikings. I guess my hatred for the Vikings rubbed off onto hating Brett.

He gave us a championship and threw away his share of opportunities. I liked how Dilfer summed the last drive of Brett Favre's career.

His words were something like this:
The last drive pretty much summed up his career. He showed his courage and love for the game by staying in the game. He gave us greatness in his throw to Sidney Rice. And then he gave us heartache.
 

ThinkICare

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 24, 2009
Messages
711
Reaction score
15
I see PackersRS, dang. I was just about to post a thread about all the missed calls that the saints should have gotten against the vikings, but lest I'm a Packers fan.
 

FanOfTheGame

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Of course that was their strategy. It should've been ours with every old qb we faced.

It's football, not ballet... As long as it's not illegal, it's good.

I'm not so sure about that. I don't think illegal necessarily equates to dirty or that legal necessarily equates to not dirty.

Take the "bounty" issue with the Packers a few years ago. I don't think there was anything dirty about that. It was just a way to motivate the defense. But it was against the NFL rules.

Also, there are many illegal hits which draw flags that we would all agree are not dirty. I think when the intention of a player or team is to injure another player it becomes dirty, whether it's legal or not.
 

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
25,353
Reaction score
4,083
Location
Milwaukee
What is Hausbaby doing here? Why don't you create a website... for all the Brett Favre lovers and Packer haters out there. Certainly you have a lot to say about Brett. Remember team effort. Sure it wasn't all Brett Favre. Even if he doesn't throw that interception, Longwell misses anyways. It's the curse of being a Viking. They choke. Either way Favre loses. I commend the guy for staying in there and taking a beating. I gained more respect for the guy. And once he retires and comes back to the Packers, then I'll cheer for the guy. It's hard to cheer for Brett when he plays for the Vikings. I guess my hatred for the Vikings rubbed off onto hating Brett.

He gave us a championship and threw away his share of opportunities. I liked how Dilfer summed the last drive of Brett Favre's career.

His words were something like this:
The last drive pretty much summed up his career. He showed his courage and love for the game by staying in the game. He gave us greatness in his throw to Sidney Rice. And then he gave us heartache.


there is one, its called officialbrettfavre.com
 

PackersRS

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
969
Location
Porto Alegre, Brazil
I'm not so sure about that. I don't think illegal necessarily equates to dirty or that legal necessarily equates to not dirty.

Take the "bounty" issue with the Packers a few years ago. I don't think there was anything dirty about that. It was just a way to motivate the defense. But it was against the NFL rules.

Also, there are many illegal hits which draw flags that we would all agree are not dirty. I think when the intention of a player or team is to injure another player it becomes dirty, whether it's legal or not.
Good point.

However, there's a reason certain tackling moves are illegal.

Because, regardless of the intention, some moves do have a greater possibility to harm players.

Horsecollar tackle is illegal, and even if the defender just wants to stop the play, he's being dirty in that instance.
 
OP
OP
angryguy77

angryguy77

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 16, 2008
Messages
382
Reaction score
2
Location
oshkosh
Anyone who can't admit that at least 3 times last night a Saints player used unnecessary roughness against #4 is in denial & lets their hate cloud their judgment.

#93 on the Saints deliberately led with the crown of his helmet into the facemask of a QB who'd just handed the ball off & barely had a moment to turn away from the play. Penalty called & deservedly so. Both commentators agreed with the officials.

Same player deliberately lifted the QB off his feet just as the entire weight of the defensive lineman was carried by momentum onto the falling QB. Penalty called & deservedly so. 1/2 of the two-man broadcast team validated the call.

On the Percy Harvin fumble play #4 attempted to fall onto the loose ball. As he's landing on the turf a Saints player goes to the turf towards the QB's legs, no where near where the ball is now bouncing to, yards away from #4, & tomahawks the now injured lower leg of #4. It went unnoticed but after watching the replays the more blatant the attempt to further injure a player on the ground it became. No penalty.

The play where a Saints player went low to the back of #4's legs while a Saints teammate was simultaneously making chest-level contact from the opposite direction was as cheap as they come. No penalty.

Justifying the hit from behind by saying the defender was blocked into that situation may satisfy some but most know better. These are some of the best athletes in the world. They have incredible body control & only drag out the excuse of being blocked into someone when it suits their argument.

Sharper's hit was clean, but unnecessary. That kind of hit on a defenseless WR is a penalty by rule in the NFL. Why a QB in the act of releasing a pass isn't in the same defenseless player category is perplexing.

The Saints defensive agenda was clear - abuse #4 at any cost. Anybody talking about last night's game today agrees that #4 took a beating. The hits are part of the game. The obvious attempts to take advantage of opportunities to inflict the most extreme measure of contact isn't. It's cheap & the Saints lost a lot of respect in the process, from myself & many other fans.

Doug it doesn't matter for most here. I'm sure they got some sort of ghoulish satisfaction out of the dirty plays. And they find a way to bring Rodgers into it as a way to justify what was happeing, which makes no sense to me because hits like that on any QB are wrong. But hate can change people and it can make them justify wrong actions because they feel he deserves whatever he gets.

But as the hypocrisy breeds by the day here, I would bet my life that next year when Rodgers gets hit bad there will be crying and gnashig of teeth (which may be justified if its cheap).

I didn't start this thread complaining that there were not flags on some of these hits, I just pointed out that NO got away with many cheap and felt that they were trying to injure him. I'm not saying thats why they won the game or anything like that. Stating reality isn't whining, but because most here have their reason clouded, they will see it differently I guess. But the whining label gets thrown because thats the only refute of the initial accusation.
 

Clay's Jock Strap

TRK's Hero
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
388
Reaction score
26
Location
Appleton
Good point.

However, there's a reason certain tackling moves are illegal.

Because, regardless of the intention, some moves do have a greater possibility to harm players.

Horsecollar tackle is illegal, and even if the defender just wants to stop the play, he's being dirty in that instance.
Yet pulling a guy down by his hair in a league that each and every year looks more like a collection of rock bands than football teams is still completely legal. I have never seen it happen but you'd think it would dawn on somebody that cares about player health and injuries that it is only a matter of time before someone does the caveman dragging cave woman maneuver and somebody ends up paying a price for their "fashion statement."
 

PackersRS

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
969
Location
Porto Alegre, Brazil
Yet pulling a guy down by his hair in a league that each and every year looks more like a collection of rock bands than football teams is still completely legal. I have never seen it happen but you'd think it would dawn on somebody that cares about player health and injuries that it is only a matter of time before someone does the caveman dragging cave woman maneuver and somebody ends up paying a price for their "fashion statement."
I've agreed with you and broaden the area of dirty plays to include both illegal hits and ill-intentioned hits...
 

ThinkICare

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 24, 2009
Messages
711
Reaction score
15
Angryguy, packer fans were just simply stating the reality that the refs in the cards-packers game blew 2 key calls. See how that works? Hope the view on at the top of your high horse is just amazing!

Of course the saints were gunning for Favre, he was one of the keys to the Vikings offense. BF supporters say it was obvious that the Saints were bad in their intentions to "hurt" Favre, Packer fans say it's obvious that the ref blew the call in the Packers-Cards game. Obviously you're biased in your view and say we're whining, so am I.I guess I and other Packer fans are so below you and other BF fans for actually trying to prove points, while you and other BF fans want to ignore them.


Hey, that's great, just stop with the "holier than thou" attitude. I know it will be difficult to let go of that feeling, since you're still coping with the Vikings loss, but realize that you yourself are being hypocritical when you say Packer fans don't want to acknowledge BF was "targeted" by Saints players. The same time, you've said things on here that basically says YOU don't want to acknowledge that maybe those 2 blown calls could have contributed to the Packers loss. It seems BF fans and Packer fans are at a crossroads. Nowhere to go from here really.


oh BTW forgot to mention, not that BF fans will care about this fact, since it actually helps prove a point that helps Packer fans, but I did start a thread that had ex-NFL referee Bill Carollo that did say those 2 calls in the Packer-Cards game were in fact missed calls. If you missed it, here it is http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/includes/news_items/40/news_items_more.php?id=2413&section_id=40

Not saying it was the sole reason we lost, but it did help.
 

FanOfTheGame

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Good point.

However, there's a reason certain tackling moves are illegal.

Because, regardless of the intention, some moves do have a greater possibility to harm players.

Horsecollar tackle is illegal, and even if the defender just wants to stop the play, he's being dirty in that instance.



Yet pulling a guy down by his hair in a league that each and every year looks more like a collection of rock bands than football teams is still completely legal. I have never seen it happen but you'd think it would dawn on somebody that cares about player health and injuries that it is only a matter of time before someone does the caveman dragging cave woman maneuver and somebody ends up paying a price for their "fashion statement."

I've agreed with you and broaden the area of dirty plays to include both illegal hits and ill-intentioned hits...


Hmmm, also good points.

Yes, a horsecollar is one of those penalties that just seem dirty regardless of the players intentions. Although some horsecollars seem much worse than others. And I also agree that if the league’s motivation for some of the rules is to prevent injury then pulling a guy down by his hair should also be illegal.

So it seems pretty reasonable to define dirty plays as both illegal hits (not illegal plays, but illegal hits/tackles) and ill-intentioned hits. But I think it becomes an issue when the dirty conduct occurs throughout an entire game. I wouldn’t define a team or player as playing dirty with one horsecollar, or one illegal hit/tackle in a game. But if a player continuously tackles by the horsecollar throughout a game or season, he becomes known as a dirty player. Also, if the team is playing with ill-intentions throughout an entire game I think the team is considered to have been playing dirty. The more games in which that team plays with ill-intentions the more it will be considered a dirty team.

So, I guess I have my answer. I think the Saints were playing dirty against the Vikings as their intentions were to injure a player and take him out of the game. But I don’t know that they are a dirty team.
 

charlotte

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Messages
49
Reaction score
4
here is the biggest point all y'all are missing - two days after the game.

HAS THE NFL ISSUED ANY FINES FOR ILLEGAL HITS COMMITTED DURING THE SAINTS/VIKINGS GAME?

Big fat short answer....NO.

They did after the Packers game because they were clearly cheap and illegal shots.

The NFL reviews every game for just this purpose. I would assume by the lack of fines issued that the NFL offices believed every hit to be legal.

Get it?
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top