SBLII: Patriots Injury News

Status
Not open for further replies.

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,368
I wonder if today was the day Brady got the stitches out which is why he was limited.
Possibly, or they just wanted to give him another day, and it was a mandatory report when he didn't practice.
 

Bowhemian

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2015
5,701
Bow, NH
At 5pm yesterday, Fox25 Boston had breaking news that Brady was limited with a hand injury, and Gronk was out with a concussion.
Which part of that was breaking news? Ridiculous.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,766
Pittsburgh, PA
Wow. With that and the Gronk hit, plus the Jack shenanigans in the end zone, it's amazing there isn't a bit more in the media about the Jaguars playing a bit dirty. "Young team; plays with emotion" just doesn't really cut it.

Overwhelming anti-Pats sentiment might have masked this for the public / mediots, but I wonder what BB was yelling at the refs after the Pats first touchdown, and I wonder if somehow quietly this hasn't been brought up on Park Ave.
That's not a dirty hit. He pushed Wise back and Wise fell over. You're allowed to pancake block as long as you engage the block legally.

The Gronk hit was a bad, illegal play. I agree with others here that it didn't look intentional, but certainly Church had plenty of room to make a legal hit. This, meanwhile, was nothing - just an everyday unfortunate occurrence in the sport of gridiron football.
 

Bowhemian

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2015
5,701
Bow, NH
That's not a dirty hit. He pushed Wise back and Wise fell over. You're allowed to pancake block as long as you engage the block legally.

The Gronk hit was a bad, illegal play. I agree with others here that it didn't look intentional, but certainly Church had plenty of room to make a legal hit. This, meanwhile, was nothing - just an everyday unfortunate occurrence in the sport of gridiron football.
I don't think that there was one single actual pancake block in that video that you linked. Even if the title was "best pancake blocks".
The block on Wise was a pancake block. Dude was laying on him, and yes that is legal.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,766
Pittsburgh, PA
First google result:

The pancake block is a term that is used by offensive line coach and offensive linemen in football to describe a block that leaves a defensive player flat on his back as the running back goes through the hole. It represents a dominating victory by the offensive lineman over the defensive lineman or linebacker in order to open a sizable hole for the running back to exploit.

A pancake block is not an official statistic in high school, college or professional football. The term was first used by the Pittsburgh Panthers to describe All-America offensive tackle Bill Fralic's blocking prowess in 1983 and '84. As Fralic's propensity for knocking opponents onto their back became known throughout the college football world, Pittsburgh's coaching staff counted the number of times Fralic registered these type of blocks in a given game.
Wise ended up on his back after a great, legal blocking push.
 

lostjumper

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 27, 2009
1,277
Concord, NH
First google result:



Wise ended up on his back after a great, legal blocking push.
I don't believe that's correct. He ended up on the ground because the offensive lineman wrapped his arms around him and tackled him to the ground. That was the guy the refs threw the flag on for holding, right? Then the pats declined it. But unless the holding was called on someone else, that certainly wasn't legal.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,368
I don't think that there was one single actual pancake block in that video that you linked. Even if the title was "best pancake blocks".
The block on Wise was a pancake block. Dude was laying on him, and yes that is legal.
Right, I believe the holding call was on the RT blocking Flowers (98).
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,368
The call was "Holding, #74", who is Cam Robinson. Not a pancake block.
Thanks for the correction. NFL Turning Point has a reverse angle shot of this play, but I didn't slow it down enough to make out what exactly Robinson did to Wise.
 
Last edited:

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,192
That's not a dirty hit. He pushed Wise back and Wise fell over. You're allowed to pancake block as long as you engage the block legally.

The Gronk hit was a bad, illegal play. I agree with others here that it didn't look intentional, but certainly Church had plenty of room to make a legal hit. This, meanwhile, was nothing - just an everyday unfortunate occurrence in the sport of gridiron football.
Are there actually people here who think the Church hit was not intentional? Really?
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
Well, he clearly intended to hit him. However Rob Ninkovich pointed out that guys that intend to go helmet to helmet don't turn and have their earhole hit the other guy's helmet because there's less padding there.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,192
It's unclear to me whether Church intended helmet-to-helmet or not. I do think his body angle makes clear he was trying to hit very high---and so the range for me on his intent runs between 'he targeted the head and happened to get helmet to helmet, not shoulder-to-helmet' to 'he was trying for upper chest and Gronk's motion brought his head into target zone' Either way, to me, that's dirty on a defenseless receiver and Church also bears the blame if he was trying for a high (but legal) hit and missed.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,192
Yes, and it continued even after multiple flags flew by him (though we can't know whether he saw those).

I get that we can never fully know someone's intent, but I find it a lot more likely based on the angle he took, the wind-up, the location of the hit, and the reaction that he intended it to be at least as dirty as it was than anything else.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,368
That hit looked like it was in the category players such as Ryan Clark made (in)famous: aim to hit the guy above the bottom of the sternum and be rather indifferent to hitting the guy in the head.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
He didn’t NOT try to make a dangerous play.
This is where I am as well. These guys know after a career of hitting where they are going to impact - and given the angles and timing he could have hit Gronk anywhere he wanted. Gronk didn't duck his head as occurs in many if these hits - he was as wide open or vulnerable as any defenseless receiver could be. At best Churcg didn't avoid a helmet to helmet hit nor show any attempt to do so. The celebration after what he knew was helmet to helmet was at a minimum classless.

I think that should be the standard for a future rules change for defenseless players. The player making the hit has to avoid the head (or be seen as attempting to do so) or be ejected from the game. It needs polishing but the framework needs to establish the burden of avoiding helmet to helmet or be ejected. If the recipient of the hit lowers or moves his head into contact then there'd be no ejection.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,670
This is basically what Ed McCaffrey was saying on the radio this week, that it was clearly "intentional" in the sense that he wanted to deliver a big hit and didn't care if he nailed Gronk helmet-to-helmet and got fifteen yards. It would have been easy to hit him in the hip but he wanted a bigger hit.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,670
So it was reckless but not intentional.
Yeah the way I heard it it sounded as if he was describing something reckless, but at the same time McCaffrey was making the argument it was therefore "intentional" (which I put in quotes because that's the word he used).
 

wiffleballhero

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2009
4,531
In the simulacrum
It is good to see that everyone (short of the various IR players) are good to go. For some reason there has not been much concern about Waddle, but I, for one, think this would have been a huge loss had he been out, so I am glad to see that it looks like he is ready.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.