NFL 2009

[gunnar hendershow]

I usually roll my eyes when people say "the league's going to be unwatchable in a few years" but if this trend continues, those people may be right.

It won't be "unwatchable" it just won't be competitive. A good offense is always going to beat a mediocre offense if there's rules that neutralize defensive presence even further. And also, it will become a game of yards instead of inches which would make it only necessary to pass the ball. So, basically, the Saints, Broncos, Texans, and Cardinals would have dominated the league last year.

[DMN in the House]

God, if they do that, I'll stop watching. Honestly, thats not football, its basketball on grass. The fucked up part is it'll trickle down to college, and I'll be stuck with nothing to watch.

[Tits McGee]

You could always watch the UFL, starting this October.

[Evil Chase K]

NFL Passes Four Safety Proposals

Posted by Aaron Wilson on March 24, 2009, 2:31 p.m.

The NFL passed four safety proposals today at the annual NFL owners meetings, enacting several rule changes that includes banning the use of wedge-blocking on kickoffs, according to John Clayton of ESPN.com.

The league also passed rules to protect players from blindside helmet-to-helmet contact on blocks and for defenseless receivers from being forearmed or hit with shoulder blocks in the head or neck. The league also took additional measures to make onside kicks safer.

The wedge is a longtime football tradition, but the NFL Competition Committee changed the rule because of concern about injuries.

The rule governing blindside blocks could be dubbed the Hines Ward rule.

It’s in response to Ward’s jaw-breaking block on Cincinnati Bengals linebacker Keith Rivers last season. Now, a fifteen-yard penalty will be assessed if a player doles out a blindside block to the helmet of a defensive player by brandishing a forearm, shoulder, or helmet to the head or neck.

Plus, defensive players will be flagged for unnecessary roughness if they hit a defenseless receiver in the head or neck with a forearm or shoulder.

[naiwf]

The Hines Ward rule is good, the others suck.

[Evil Chase K]

I agree with that rule as long as it's enforced right. You're taught from the time you begin playing football to keep your head on a swivel and to pay attention to your surroundings. If you don't, and you get knocked the fuck out, that's your fault. If they start throwing flags for clean blocks just because the defender was "defenseless" then the rule is an absolute failure. If they keep it strictly to "helmet-to-helmet" shots, then I'm okay with it.

That said, the helmet-to-helmet thing is okay...but I don't remember Hines Ward ever really leading with his helmet. The hit on Keith Rivers was clean.

Another thing I find funny is that they added the forearm/shoulder shot to a defenseless receiver rule in response to the Ryan Clark hit of Wes Welker that was, once again, clean. IIRC Clark lead with the shoulder (legal) and hit Welker in the chest. It was flagged because the referees felt it was so vicious that it had to be illegal, which is pathetic.

So essentially, they change the rules because guys were "getting away" with perfectly legal and clean hits? And those same hits would still be legal according to the rule changes? Kinda weird but okay.

If they're enforced right, I don't think it will change the game too drastically. But I highly doubt they'll be enforced right.

Edited March 24, 2009 by Evil Chase K

[naiwf]

Those legal hits could potentially end careers, which is why I don't have a problem with them looking into tightening the rulebook. It's the same reason I was all for the outlawing of the horse collar tackle. It used to be legal until guys legs were breaking in pieces all over the field turf because someone *coughRoyWilliamscough* pulled them down by their equipment from behind which is about as dirty as you can get without actually taking a cheap shot.

[Evil Chase K]

Those legal hits could potentially end careers, which is why I don't have a problem with them looking into tightening the rulebook. It's the same reason I was all for the outlawing of the horse collar tackle. It used to be legal until guys legs were breaking in pieces all over the field turf because someone *coughRoyWilliamscough* pulled them down by their equipment from behind which is about as dirty as you can get without actually taking a cheap shot.

I agree. I just fear that the officials will continue to fuck up these penalty calls and will essentially be penalizing people for being football players.

[MyKILLv2.0]

I really wish the NFL would adopt a rule that says no stupid ass divisional games in the first two weeks. Though that would require the league to be pro-active instead of reactive, which aggravates me more then any rule change….which I am actually glad they extended the "defenseless player rule "to include wide outs to the degree they do QBs. I guess all it took some talentless smuck nearly killing A. Bodin to make it happen….which is the way the NFL works, right? It took Carson Palmer & Tom Brady’s knees being caved in before the NFL would say…hey defense, no torpedoing yourself off the ground into the knee of a QB.

Edited March 24, 2009 by iMikel

[Evil Chase K]

I really wish the NFL would adopt a rule that says no stupid ass divisional games in the first two weeks. Though that would require the league to be pro-active instead of reactive, which aggravates me more then any rule change….which I am actually glad they extended the "defenseless player rule "to include wide outs to the degree they do QBs. I guess all it took some talentless smuck nearly killing A. Bodin to make it happen….which is the way the NFL works, right? It took Carson Palmer & Tom Brady's knees being caved in before the NFL would say…hey defense, no torpedoing yourself off the ground into the knee of a QB.

I couldn't disagree about the QB rule more. You're telling me that a guy who is on the ground is just supposed to give up on a play and if he can't get to his feet not do something to attempt to tackle the QB? That goes against everything football is about. And the way it's interpreted is stupid. 3 years ago, Steelers DE Brett Keisel fell at Drew Brees' feet and literally reached out to grab Brees' legs and tackle him, but only managed to pull Brees' sock down. And he was flagged for it. Brees himself looked shocked when he saw the flag get thrown.

As for the hit on Boldin, that hit was already illegal. The rule changes this season have nothing to do with that hit because it was helmet-to-helmet which has been illegal for a while.

[OGpistolpete]

NFL Shop leaked the Lions new logo...

Someone made it bigger though for easy viewing...and put it right next to the old logo for comparison.

[NobBe Nobbs]

Yeah, a new logo. THAT'S what Detroit needs.

/sarcasm

[naiwf]

I want them to go 0-16 again simply because of that shitty logo.

[JStarr]

It's better than the old one...at least we can tell that this lion has a face, and by that token, maybe some teeth.

Now, if only the defense could grow some, they might be onto something.

[alldaws1]

That's a great logo and wordmark. It's not been changed dramatically but enough to give it a new modern twist while keeping the basics of the old logo. Kudos to the designer on that.

[Meacon Keaton]

The Lions have learned that in order to play fabulous, you have to look fabulous.

[OGpistolpete]

That's a great logo and wordmark. It's not been changed dramatically but enough to give it a new modern twist while keeping the basics of the old logo. Kudos to the designer on that.

I totally agree, and I see that most of your fail to realize how something like this can change a franchise. Look at the Tampa Bay Rays, Arizona Cardinals, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Cleveland Cavaliers, Detroit Pistons, and Anaheim Ducks, and many more.

[Maxx]

Yes, none of those teams turn arounds had anything to do with player acquisitions made around the time of the logo change.

[naiwf]

The new logo lion is clearly on the juice. That's bad for the league.

[MyKILLv2.0]

Anything is better then those horrid 'throw back' jerseys they seem to wear as much as their current day jerseys.

Also.... is there any suttle message the marketing people are trying to send by debuting their 'brand new' logo on a MOVING TRUCK?!?!?!

Edited March 25, 2009 by iMikel