Well I guess I would just point out the distinction between "can't" see you coming, and "didn't" see you coming. Clay was chasing after the ball and had a legitimate shot at the runner. Oh well. I'm disappointed Clay's dinged up because of it.
Printable View
I think it's the right way to play. You fuck the opponent up when you can.
I saw the play. Many times. I'll say it again. Clay didn't have his head on a swivel, and wasn't aware of downfield blockers. And he got lit up. Welcome to football.
But don't worry, our vanilla finesse team never lays the wood like this. Your sensibilities are safe.
I laugh when I read people writing about "soft" teams. One hit from an NFL team's smallest defensive back - anyone's smallest defensive back, any team - would lay any of us out (including you).
I'm also not sure how anyone judges "soft." How is that determined?
Your characterization is ridiculous. Clay is running laterally, in pursuit of a runner who is upfield. The cheapshot came from downfield, behind him. There is no way he can pursue the runner and have his head swiveling. He's focused on the runner, and is not an owl in any event.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixPZYFbpCCQ
This was a dirty cheap shot, and just barely legal.
After rewatching the play, it wasn't even legal. Barbre hit him from behind. The hit rotated MAtthews' body and made it look like he hit him from the side.
This sort of cheap shot can happen on open field runs, especially punt returns, where the pursuing would-be tackler is focused upfield and a blocker comes in from behind. Blaming the defender for not having his "head on a swivel" is just absurd. They have to focus on the runner and are completely vulnerable to a cheap shot Actually there is a rule against that cheap shot block, but I forget the name or how it applies.
Whether those hits are legal or not doesn't matter to me. They are cowardly, cheap plays against an unprotected opponent, like a sucker punch in a bar. Maybe they are part of the game sometimes, but it is nothing I want to see.
Peel-back blocks are illegal if they are below the waist
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/3/1...eel-back-block
"Essentially, it is now illegal to block an opponent from the blindside, at his waist or below, from anywhere on the field. "
You also can't hit um high if the blindside block is a "crackback" block. I always thought crackbacks involved hits by wide receivers on linebackers cutting back in to the middle.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ckback-blocks/
A Picture story:
http://i.usatoday.net/communitymanag...tonx-large.jpg
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...leYobGgkq5ZgvA
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/i...UzmoTzAq9a4oJQ
Why I respected a former GM and HC named Mike:
http://media.jsonline.com/images/104...%20Sherman.jpg
The result of Bad Karma:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...z2kZqY3q4NBG0l
Sapp 'the Sap'.
Well semantics aside, I still don't think it was dirty. Borderline maybe. But according to the rules, its legal. So cave man Clay that loves to flex his beastly muscles shouldn't be crying about a retread lineman putting him on his ass. just my opinion.
Huge difference between the hit on Clifton and that on Matthews. Clifton was half the field width away from the guy with the ball, not really doing anything.
Matthews was the lead guy with a shot at the ball carrier.
I don't see that as a cheap shot at all. Mathews' body was more or less facing toward the sideline, but he had his head turned way to the right looking up field. Barbre's head was in front of Matthews chest, and he clearly hit Matthews on the front of the shoulder because Matthews spun like a top, counterclockwise to land on his back, maybe even past, hitting the same should Barbre hit. If Barbre hit him from behind, Matthews would have gone down chest first, or been spun clockwise.
Matthews shouldn't whine about it.
I think this goes back to a Packer locker room of the past, when Clay embarrassed Barbre in front of his teammates by calling him a pussypants.
Don't be mean to people, Clay.
How can anyone say it's not a dirty hit? He could have easily just shoved him lightly and had the same result. Instead he went out of his way to drill him. Dirty hit - no question. Having said that, this stuff happens pretty much every game so it is what it is.
Matthews was the leading guy perhaps in position to tackle the ball carrier for a loss, and you expect Barbre to hit him lightly? What if Matthews regained his balance enough to throw himself into the ball carrier. How pleased would the Philly coaches have been with Barbre if that had happened? Isn't the objective to make sure he does not impact the play? Do you expect Matthews to hit ball carriers lightly when he is tackling them, becaue maybe that will be enough to get them down? Besides, I think it looked like a harder hit than it might have been, because Matthews was completely unprepared for it. The worst part was hitting the ground like a sack of coal.