Saints vs Vikings - Game Thread

[MichiganPackerFan]

...
The vikigns were teh better team, but had this massive case of fumblitis.

I disagree: the better team doesn't have their top players all choke in the playoffs.

[denverYooper]

...
The vikigns were teh better team, but had this massive case of fumblitis.

I disagree: the better team doesn't have their top players all choke in the playoffs.

Yeah, I find that argument funny also (and not the first time I've heard it). The Saints game on D is to force turnovers. They were successful in that aspect of their game, despite giving up the yards. Apparently it worked well enough because they're going to Miami.

You could also argue that the Saints would have held the Vikings to less yards had they not committed so many killer penalties. Had they lost the game, that would have been their downfall.

[pbmax]

...
The vikigns were teh better team, but had this massive case of fumblitis.

I disagree: the better team doesn't have their top players all choke in the playoffs.

Well, that goes both ways. Brees and Bush had their own struggles with this game. Brees did not look like himself and Bush, with only one big catch and on TD run didn't do much else. And Brees was facing a Pass D that can be beaten. If not for the short fields, he was in trouble.

[gbgary]

lurking at purple pride and saw this article. a writer saying the second hard hit on brett was illegal. if the brady rule says, as he professes, that a player on the ground can't go at the qb's legs, than the hit isn't illegal at all. the player wasn't on the ground as he alleges.

http://www.purple-pride.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=57&func=view&catid=8&id=19626&lang=en

[Zool]

lurking at purple pride and saw this article. a writer saying the second hard hit on brett was illegal. if the brady rule says, as he professes, that a player on the ground can't go at the qb's legs, than the hit isn't illegal at all. the player wasn't on the ground as he alleges.

http://www.purple-pride.com/index.ph...=19626&lang=en

I think people are confusing the Brady rule with the lineman engagement rule. You can't engage a blocker low and high but I don't think that same rule applies to any other situations. Yes/no?

[mngolf19]

lurking at purple pride and saw this article. a writer saying the second hard hit on brett was illegal. if the brady rule says, as he professes, that a player on the ground can't go at the qb's legs, than the hit isn't illegal at all. the player wasn't on the ground as he alleges.

http://www.purple-pride.com/index.ph...=19626&lang=en

I think people are confusing the Brady rule with the lineman engagement rule. You can't engage a blocker low and high but I don't think that same rule applies to any other situations. Yes/no?

Their talking about the new rule instituted in '09 that lineman cannot "go" for a QB's legs when not attacking from an upright position. This is also a Brady rule. Many at the beginning of the season thought this might pose a problem for all DE's but especially Jared Allen.

[Fritz]

From what I saw Brees got the hell beaten out of him and didn't get much for calls.

[Iron Mike]

...
The vikigns were teh better team, but had this massive case of fumblitis.

I disagree: the better team doesn't have their top players all choke in the playoffs.

[Scott Campbell]

...
The vikigns were teh better team, but had this massive case of fumblitis.

I disagree: the better team doesn't have their top players all choke in the playoffs.

Thanks Ted.