The Welker Hit on Talib

[Dogman]

 
 
Huh? Must have missed that. Like most people here. I believe that OPI should have been called. Give the pats 15 yards and a first down. They still lose the game. There is absolutely nothing on the tape that shows Welker was trying to hurt Talib. Denver was the far superior team Sunday. They shut down the running game and dared Brady to beat them by throwing to Edelman. Even when he was wide open for a huge gain he overthrew him. They went as far as they were going to go with this squad. Simple as that.

 
 
Pats were on D on the Welker missed call. 
 
The Hooman OPI called on the series before changes the complexion and the score of the game at that point. So, while Denver probably would have won, the 2 series we are all talking about (the previous Pats possession and the Welker non OPI possession) would have altered the score for both teams. 
 
Pats lost by 10 or 2 possessions so the two possessions are kinda paramount and not as simple as you make it out.

 

[glennhoffmania]

The ball was late or Welker was early. So, flag should have been thrown.

If the ball is a split second quicker or Welker is a split second later, that's a heck of a block.

Surprise Belichick said what he said on it.

 
This is exactly right, and why I said earlier that it wasn't an egregious missed call.  Other PI calls, not to mention other types of penalties, far worse than that one are missed every single game.  Technically it absolutely was OPI because he hit Talib before Thomas touched the ball.  But it was so close that I can understand a ref missing that call in real speed, thinking they were simultaneous.
 
I don't think there's any legit debate about whether it was a dirty hit.  A shoulder to his shoulder, ribs, or mid section is totally clean.  Welker's back is to Thomas at that point and he's trying to time the block.  He was too early, but he didn't go for his head or his knees.  BB is totally wrong.

 

[scottyno]

 
This is exactly right, and why I said earlier that it wasn't an egregious missed call.  Other PI calls, not to mention other types of penalties, far worse than that one are missed every single game.  Technically it absolutely was OPI because he hit Talib before Thomas touched the ball.  But it was so close that I can understand a ref missing that call in real speed, thinking they were simultaneous.
 
I don't think there's any legit debate about whether it was a dirty hit.  A shoulder to his shoulder, ribs, or mid section is totally clean.  Welker's back is to Thomas at that point and he's trying to time the block.  He was too early, but he didn't go for his head or his knees.  BB is totally wrong.

It's egregious because they called a pick on the Patriots the series before and weren't consistent involving a team known for setting picks.  If they didn't call the one on Hooman before I think a lot less people would be angry they didn't call this one.

 

[shoosh77]

I'm willing to bet that Gronk or someone is blowing up a Denver DB the same way when they meet next year.

 

[Tony C]

I'm getting a little tired of the "The Pats were outplayed and would have lost anyway" response to every comment on the game. Yes, the Pats were, indeed, outplayed -- that is in fact the case and, for me, that makes it much easier to take this defeat.
 
That said, it was a close game by the score (which, um, is what matters, not yards gained).  And how many NFL games have been won by a team that has been outplayed? Quite a f-ing few. In the halls of eternal justice the Pats were outplayed. That doesn't mean that if DRC is out for the game rather than Talib, if the refs make a few calls that go the Pats way rather than the Broncos way, and ...well, a number of other "ifs" .... that the game wouldn't have turned the other way. No one is arguing that the Pats should have won the game, but that doesn't mean things like the Welker hit was irrelevant, either in the sense that a penalty would have hurt the Broncos drive or in the larger sense that it knocked out the Pats most important defensive player. That is a discussable issue.

 

[dbn]

It's egregious because they called a pick on the Patriots the series before and weren't consistent involving a team known for setting picks.  If they didn't call the one on Hooman before I think a lot less people would be angry they didn't call this one.

 
I get the emotional aspect that leads to the "it got called on our guy but not on theirs!" thing, but the Hooman call penalty is irrelevant. The first call was correct and obvious whether or not Welker would go on to commit the same penalty. That the second was called incorrectly is true regardless of whether the Patriots had or hadn't committed the same penalty earlier. It not a "consistency" thing; they just blew the second call, which was a more difficult call than the first.

 

[DanoooME]

Well one thing is for sure the big DBs for Seattle will be on the lookout for this. LIve by the sword, die by the sword.

 
A lot of the time, it will be Chancellor and the LBs covering this kind of stuff.  Welker can feel free to try and drill one of them.

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
I get the emotional aspect that leads to the "it got called on our guy but not on theirs!" thing, but the Hooman call penalty is irrelevant. The first call was correct and obvious whether or not Welker would go on to commit the same penalty. That the second was called incorrectly is true regardless of whether the Patriots had or hadn't committed the same penalty earlier. It not a "consistency" thing; they just blew the second call, which was a more difficult call than the first.


Right. The refs aren't thinking, hey we called a pick on NE and Welker's was close so we have to throw a flag now. Their job isn't to make sure everything is even. It may not even have been the same ref who was watching both plays. Simplifying the whole thing down to they can't call one without the other is short-sighted. Again, far worse doesn't get called every game. That doesn't make it right but in the grand scheme of things it wasn't a horrible call. It was just one of many wrong calls that happen all the time.

 

[DJnVa]

It's not that all calls must even out. It's that if a certain level of contact is deemed OPI then if something is worse than that it should be called. Now, the Welker one was closer but that's the point most are making here. Not that they need to even things up, but that officials need to be consistent in the application.

But, like a lot of times here, it's easier to say Pats fans are all fanboys.

 

[Three10toLeft]

I'm willing to bet that Gronk or someone is blowing up a Denver DB the same way when they meet next year.

 
Yeah. He's proven incredibly durable and an unimportant cog in the machine these past couple years.
 
Let's send him out to be the team's wrecking ball.

 

[KiltedFool]

Yeah. He's proven incredibly durable and an unimportant cog in the machine these past couple years.
 
Let's send him out to be the team's wrecking ball.

Great now I'm going to have that damn Miley video with Gronk's face stuck in my head.

 

[EvilEmpire]

Yeah. He's proven incredibly durable and an unimportant cog in the machine these past couple years.
 
Let's send him out to be the team's wrecking ball.

Clearly, Hernandez would have been the best guy for that. Unless someone meant on the field.

 

[kolbitr]

After reading Bedard's plodding but information-rich article on pick plays this weekend, I went back and watched a bunch of the Denver picks and such via film, YouTube, etc., to see what I had been missing. As usual, he was spot on with his commentary, and I learned a lot.
 
I also got a good idea of the type of pick play that the Broncos have built into their offense this year, a style obviously designed to take account of Manning's greatest strengths (his mind, decision-making) and obviate his weaknesses. It is a thing of infuriating machinelike beauty.
 
It was also clear to me, upon repeated viewings, that Wes was a) on a route designed to set a standard Denver pick play, and b) carried it out very messily. As for b), his lack of grace could have been an accident, or intentional. Meaning that, it seems possible to me that he wanted to 'send a message' as well as deliver a standard pick.
 
I don't think there's any question that he at the very least was over-zealous, and deserved an OPI call on the play.
 
I don't think there's any question that the officials missed this call (it happens).
 
I do think it's defensible to infer that perhaps Welker was over-zealous because of a genuine desire to a) win the game badly, b) send a 'message', c) inflict pain on a vital NE defender.
 
I don't see how anyone who knows about Welker, his departure from NE, and his remaining animus, could doubt the above.
 
BB was clearly hyperbolic (no way it was the worst play he's seen in a while) and he clearly changed his tune--several posters implied that he spoke 'in the heat of the moment', but that's not right; he said he had no problem with the hit at the postgame conference...he changed his mind 24 hrs later. He was sending some sort of message: pro-Talib, anti-Welker, who can say this week?

 

[Shelterdog]

Clearly, Hernandez would have been the best guy for that. Unless someone meant on the field.

 
I smell TOAST! Asshole fan of another team with the BURN!

 

[PedroKsBambino]

I don't think there's any legit debate about whether it was a dirty hit. A shoulder to his shoulder, ribs, or mid section is totally clean. Welker's back is to Thomas at that point and he's trying to time the block. He was too early, but he didn't go for his head or his knees. BB is totally wrong.


I don't think it is that simple; you're saying no hit to midsection can ever be a personal foul? I don't believe that is so.

 

[mulluysavage]

I'm with Tedy. This collision happens partly because of Talib's intent to fight the pick. My judgement is that Welker is trying to go under Aqib and force him over the top, and when he sees it's not going to happen, braces himself for impact. Welker is turned downfield to the extent that his ribs are as exposed as Talib's to the contact. It looks to me like an awkward accident.

I also think the league should call picks one way or the other. This grey area is making teams into cheaters and players unclear on what to expect for contact in these situations.

Bruschi: I know how it looked, David, but I disagree with the assessment. This type of collision happens every week in the NFL. If you look closely, this type of pick-route mentality happens weekly within the New England Patriot offense. It's a strategic way to beat man to man coverage. When these techniques are utilized closer to the line of scrimmage, they happen at a lower rate of speed. But when they happen down the field, 10-15 yards from the line of scrimmage, the rate of speed increases. Welker had a clear goal on that play -- to make Aqib Talib go over the top so he could free up Demaryius Thomas. Aqib Talib made a decision to attempt to fight to stay under that pick. So what you have there are 2 players, going at a high rate of speed because they were 10-plus yards from the line of scrimmage, simultaneously deciding to take the same route. That's where the collision occurred. Welker's intent was to pick Aqib Talib, but it wasn't to injure.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

I think the national media is making more of Bill's comments that what is there.  They are the ones injecting "intent to injure" and "dirty play" into the discussion.  Bill is basically saying the receiver was way beyond the legal pick distance, wasn't looking to get open, and was intending to "take out Talib".  I think he means "take out" as in take him out of the play.  I don't think Bill is saying Wes was looking to injure the guy. 
 
Bill's problem from a football perspective is that pics happen and are designed, but that in those situations the receivers are still looking for space and looking to get open. I think Bill's problem is that there is open field on that play and Wes isn't looking for space to catch a ball, but rather runs right into Talib when given the chance. I don't think it can be argued, as many routes we've seen Wes run, that if he was looking to rub a guy and flash open he would have hooked in and shown the QB his numbers. By running dead into Talib, Bill's problem, IMO, is that he was never a receiver on the play, and in a football sense (to Bill) that's pretty shitty.
 
Now in fairness to Wes, maybe he thought they would switch and that Talib was going to plant and follow Wes and he was suprised Talib kept following DT, but I doubt that.  He talks about trying to get under Talib, but behind DT??  There shouldn't be any room there if Talib is doing his job. 
 
I think what Bill thinks, Wes wasn't running a route.  He wasn't running a pic to free a receiver.  He was running a pic to free up YAC and was never looking to get open.  Not the worst thing I've ever seen, but I understand why Bill is pissed.

 

[lars10]

I think the national media is making more of Bill's comments that what is there.  They are the ones injecting "intent to injure" and "dirty play" into the discussion.  Bill is basically saying the receiver was way beyond the legal pick distance, wasn't looking to get open, and was intending to "take out Talib".  I think he means "take out" as in take him out of the play.  I don't think Bill is saying Wes was looking to injure the guy. 
 
Bill's problem from a football perspective is that pics happen and are designed, but that in those situations the receivers are still looking for space and looking to get open. I think Bill's problem is that there is open field on that play and Wes isn't looking for space to catch a ball, but rather runs right into Talib when given the chance. I don't think it can be argued, as many routes we've seen Wes run, that if he was looking to rub a guy and flash open he would have hooked in and shown the QB his numbers. By running dead into Talib, Bill's problem, IMO, is that he was never a receiver on the play, and in a football sense (to Bill) that's pretty shitty.
 
Now in fairness to Wes, maybe he thought they would switch and that Talib was going to plant and follow Wes and he was suprised Talib kept following DT, but I doubt that.  He talks about trying to get under Talib, but behind DT??  There shouldn't be any room there if Talib is doing his job. 
 
I think what Bill thinks, Wes wasn't running a route.  He wasn't running a pic to free a receiver.  He was running a pic to free up YAC and was never looking to get open.  Not the worst thing I've ever seen, but I understand why Bill is pissed.

I think the reason Bill is pissed is because a receiver specifically tried to hit his DB from the blind side.  As 'clean' as it is to block people after the catch is made I don't think that was ever Welker's intention.  He's throwing his body into a player who doesn't see him.  Maybe this isn't dirty and it's not intended to hurt Talib, but if this is done in every NFL play then there are going to be a lot more injured WRs and DBs next year.
 
Denver runs illegal picks on almost every play.  Infuriatingly they get called for one or two a game...and the refs also seem to look for it against the other team as a consequence.  This is purely anecdotal, but I feel like the Broncos figure it's basically like holding...it only gets called so often so why not do it all the time?
 
Maybe it was almost a legal block, but I think Welker's intent was to lay Talib out and getting hit when you're not protecting yourself is always going to suck and have far more potential for injury.  Maybe that's BB's problem with it...he thinks that Welker was targeting Talib?

 

[rodderick]

They lost. Denver was the better team. We can analyze this particular play for weeks, but at the end of the day, it was a play that perhaps deserved a flag for OPI. So what? I do not see anything in the replay that indicated an intent to injure. Let's give the Pats 15 yards and the first down. They would still lose.

 
Yeah, all that play ammounted to was our best defensive player getting injured and severely changing the complexion of the whole fucking game. It's not like the Pats had a promising drive stalled by a less egregious OPI being called on them 5 minutes earlier either. Yeah, they were outplayed, let's stop talking about every other thing that happened in the game because that wouldn't matter. Do you realize how close this was to being a one score game at the end? Don't call that OPI on Hooman and call the one on Welker and it's possible we're looking at a 7-3 Pats advantage, instead of 10-0 Denver. If that's not significant, I don't know what is.

 

[Stitch01]

Lol at taking a genoasalami post seriously.  The dude wanted to give the Pats 15 yards and a first down on offensive pass intereference against Denver.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Will BB get fined for his comment, or was he "diplomatic" enough to avoid that?

 

[genoasalami]

Lol at taking a genoasalami post seriously.  The dude wanted to give the Pats 15 yards and a first down on offensive pass intereference against Denver.

 
 
yup ..my bad ...I am an idiot ...still does not change my opinion,,,it should have been OPI on Denver, but trying to put an intent to injure label on Welker for the hit on Talib is ridiculous. We can't even make a case that TJ Ward's hit on Gronkowski earier in the year was done with intent to injure. How do you make that assumption on Welker who I doubt will be fined??

 

[Dogman]

 
 
yup ..my bad ...I am an idiot ...still does not change my opinion,,,it should have been OPI on Denver, but trying to put an intent to injure label on Welker for the hit on Talib is ridiculous. We can't even make a case that TJ Ward's hit on Gronkowski earier in the year was done with intent to injure. How do you make that assumption on Welker who I doubt will be fined??

 
Well, your opinion was that Denver would have won so no point in discussing this. As mentioned, these two possessions altered the outlook of the entire game by score and injury. Because the Pats lost by 10, this is a rather important point.
 
Further, not a single person has claimed the Ward hit was dirty or that Ward was doing anything but attempting a tackle. Nice strawman .
 
A lot of people are using the Welker and Thomas acknowledgments that Welker ran that route not looking to get open.  That's a problem for some of us based on the outcome of the play.

 

[Stitch01]

 
 
yup ..my bad ...I am an idiot ...still does not change my opinion,,,it should have been OPI on Denver, but trying to put an intent to injure label on Welker for the hit on Talib is ridiculous. We can't even make a case that TJ Ward's hit on Gronkowski earier in the year was done with intent to injure. How do you make that assumption on Welker who I doubt will be fined??

Id take your opinion seriously if you ever made a positive comment about a Boston sports team or if 99% of your posts weren't criticizing a Boston sports team after a Boston team losesa big game/while a Boston team is losing a big game.  You must have some severe self loathing issues going on if you like Boston sports teams.

 

[glennhoffmania]

It's not that all calls must even out. It's that if a certain level of contact is deemed OPI then if something is worse than that it should be called. Now, the Welker one was closer but that's the point most are making here. Not that they need to even things up, but that officials need to be consistent in the application. But, like a lot of times here, it's easier to say Pats fans are all fanboys.

 
I don't think anyone has accused anyone of being a fanboy.  There's just disgreement over this particular call.  I agree that the officials need to be more consistent.  The state of officiating in the NFL is awful.  Maybe that's the larger point- they've been so bad that missing the Welker OPI isn't even close to one of the worst calls they've made lately. 
 
How many times does a DB hit a WR a fraction of a second early but PI isn't called?  Or how many times does the DB hit the WR right as the ball arrives but PI is called?  These are bang bang plays, just like the Welker play.  They got it wrong but it wasn't an obvious blown call when you watch it in real speed.  We have the benefit of slow mo, clips, gifs, screen grabs, etc. 
 

I don't think it is that simple; you're saying no hit to midsection can ever be a personal foul? I don't believe that is so.

 
Sure, I meant on that particular play.  To me, it's either OPI or nothing.  It's not a dirty hit or a late hit.  If the ball is rolling on the ground after Thomas drops it and Welker lays into Talib's ribs it could certainly be a late hit personal foul but that obviously wasn't the case here.  Talib wasn't a defenseless receiver so that doesn't apply.  Am I missing something else?

 

[genoasalami]

 
Well, your opinion was that Denver would have won so no point in discussing this. As mentioned, these two possessions altered the outlook of the entire game by score and injury. Because the Pats lost by 10, this is a rather important point.
 
Further, not a single person has claimed the Ward hit was dirty or that Ward was doing anything but attempting a tackle. Nice strawman .
 
A lot of people are using the Welker and Thomas acknowledgments that Welker ran that route not looking to get open.  That's a problem for some of us based on the outcome of the play.

Really?? Immediately after the Ward play this board lit up on Ward..FINE!!! SUSPENSION!! CHEAP SHOT!!! The Welker/Talib play deserves discussion but its tough to get worked up over the impact of the play when Denver was the far superior team. If you want to say that the play was a game changer, then fine. I just dont see it. Brady missing a wide open Edelman was just as huge. I've dealt with many playoff losses that made it tough to sleep at night. This wasn't one of them. They got about as far as they could. It was a great year.

 

[RedOctober3829]

Really?? Immediately after the Ward play this board lit up on Ward..FINE!!! SUSPENSION!! CHEAP SHOT!!! The Welker/Talib play deserves discussion but its tough to get worked up over the impact of the play when Denver was the far superior team. If you want to say that the play was a game changer, then fine. I just dont see it. Brady missing a wide open Edelman was just as huge. I've dealt with many playoff losses that made it tough to sleep at night. This wasn't one of them. They got about as far as they could. It was a great year.

I am fine with the loss too as it was pretty obvious that Denver outplayed NE.  But, if Talib doesn't get taken out I believe it is a different game.  The game changed on that play because it forced Dennard onto DT and Manning started to go his way frequently.  It was 3-0 in the 2nd quarter at that point and Talib was doing a good job on DT. 
 
We'll never know for sure, but having Talib for 60 minutes probably makes a big difference.

 

[Hendu for Kutch]

 
I don't think anyone has accused anyone of being a fanboy.  There's just disgreement over this particular call.  I agree that the officials need to be more consistent.  The state of officiating in the NFL is awful.  Maybe that's the larger point- they've been so bad that missing the Welker OPI isn't even close to one of the worst calls they've made lately. 
 
How many times does a DB hit a WR a fraction of a second early but PI isn't called?  Or how many times does the DB hit the WR right as the ball arrives but PI is called?  These are bang bang plays, just like the Welker play.  They got it wrong but it wasn't an obvious blown call when you watch it in real speed.  We have the benefit of slow mo, clips, gifs, screen grabs, etc. 
 
 
Sure, I meant on that particular play.  To me, it's either OPI or nothing.  It's not a dirty hit or a late hit.  If the ball is rolling on the ground after Thomas drops it and Welker lays into Talib's ribs it could certainly be a late hit personal foul but that obviously wasn't the case here.  Talib wasn't a defenseless receiver so that doesn't apply.  Am I missing something else?

 
On the bolded, I think in a situation where the roles are reversed it gets called 100% of the time.  I'm not talking about a defender arriving late and trying to go through the receiver, I'm talking about a defender that levels the receiver from between the ball and the receiver before it has arrived.  That would get called every single time.

 

[shoosh77]

 
Yeah. He's proven incredibly durable and an unimportant cog in the machine these past couple years.
 
Let's send him out to be the team's wrecking ball.

 
"or someone"...pick whoever you are comfortable with.  Sheesh

 

[genoasalami]

I am fine with the loss too as it was pretty obvious that Denver outplayed NE.  But, if Talib doesn't get taken out I believe it is a different game.  The game changed on that play because it forced Dennard onto DT and Manning started to go his way frequently.  It was 3-0 in the 2nd quarter at that point and Talib was doing a good job on DT. 
 
We'll never know for sure, but having Talib for 60 minutes probably makes a big difference.

Thats fair, but didn't Denver lose their best defensive back during the San Diego game? His loss was supposed to really open up the passing game for Brady. They found a way to get the job done. I just dont see the loss of Talib as the main reason they lost the game. Denver shut down the running game and allowed to Brady beat them by basically throwing to Edelman. Solid game plan and execution.

 

[DJnVa]

Thats fair, but didn't Denver lose their best defensive back during the San Diego game? His loss was supposed to really open up the passing game for Brady. They found a way to get the job done

 
You understand there's a difference between losing a player in-game and game planning for a week without that player right?

 

[genoasalami]

 
You understand there's a difference between losing a player in-game and game planning for a week without that player right?

Yes..and if Talib was hurt the previous week against the Colts, then the Pats would have been fine because they would have had a week to game plan in the secondary? OK

 

[Stitch01]

Brick sure is useless unless he's tracking a stormfront

 

[genoasalami]

Brick sure is useless unless he's tracking a stormfront

Got a big one coming here today. Could be 4 straight nights in the 30s. Natives are in a tizzy.

 

[DJnVa]

Yes..and if Talib was hurt the previous week against the Colts, then the Pats would have been fine because they would have had a week to game plan in the secondary? OK

 
That's not what I said, but nice try.

 

[smastroyin]

I think the national media is making more of Bill's comments that what is there.  They are the ones injecting "intent to injure" and "dirty play" into the discussion.  Bill is basically saying the receiver was way beyond the legal pick distance, wasn't looking to get open, and was intending to "take out Talib".  I think he means "take out" as in take him out of the play.  I don't think Bill is saying Wes was looking to injure the guy. 

 
 
I think the media is running with this because:
 
Bill Belichick: " It was a deliberate play by the receiver to take out Aqib. No attempt to get open. ...
 
Bill Belichick: "I’ll let the league handle the discipline on that play, whatever they decide. It’s one of the worst plays I’ve seen. ..."
 
Obviously there are varying definitions of "take out" but when you run those two quotes together, I think you can stop with the idea that the media are playing things up that Belichick didn't mean to say.

 

[EL Jeffe]

1) I agree with an above point that we don't know what Belichick's true intent was when he said the receiver tried to take Talib out. The media and (most) fans are taking it to assume that Belichick meant that Welker intentionally tried to injure Talib, but for all we know, he was just saying Welker was trying to take Talib out of the play. Obviously he WAS trying to take Talib out of the play (but not necessarily out of the game) so it isn't some big stretch to think that was what he really meant - especially when you consider that Belichick mentions Welker never tried to run a route. I can't imagine Belichick will ever have any further comment on the play, so I doubt we'll ever get any clarification. It would surprise me if Belichick felt like Welker was intentionally trying to injure Talib. By the same train of thought, he could have been saying it was one of the worst pick plays he's seen as opposed to one of the dirtiest plays he's ever seen. Belichick is a true historian of the game, and I'm sure he's seen much, much worse stuff than what occurred on that play.
 
1a) It's a shame that his one comment from Welker is getting all of the attention from that press conference and the resulting sour grapes narrative it is drawing. It was one of the more interesting Belichick press conferences where he touched on a number of different subjects and for the most part, gave long and detailed answers. He was extremely complimentary of Denver, Fox and especially Manning. People will run with the 'sour grapes / What a jerk!!!1!1' narrative, but whatever his intent behind the Welker / Talib play was, it was just a small snippet of his overall comments about the game and Denver's performance.
 
2) As for the affect of losing Talib so early in the game, sure it sucked. He's a Pro Bowl corner and he matches up well with Thomas. However, if Talib never gets hurt, I'm fairly certain Manning would have just turned his attention to the Decker vs. Dennard & Julius Thomas vs. Collins matchups, which were both lopsided in Denver's favor. I just don't think it would have made enough of a difference. This Denver offense was historically good, and one of the reasons is the amount of skill position talent they had at their disposal. Take out Thomas, and it's still an embarrassment of riches.

 

[Myt1]

Welker isnt even going to get fined.  We are losing our damn minds if we think that was a suspendable offense.
 
What was Denver's thought process here.  "Hey, we want to take Talib out of the game.  Lets send our 5'9 receiver with lots of concussion problems and run at his midsection"?
 
EDIT: I think Pereira was wrong, contact was early, should have been OPI
 

Yup.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

 
 
2) As for the affect of losing Talib so early in the game, sure it sucked. He's a Pro Bowl corner and he matches up well with Thomas. However, if Talib never gets hurt, I'm fairly certain Manning would have just turned his attention to the Decker vs. Dennard & Julius Thomas vs. Collins matchups, which were both lopsided in Denver's favor. I just don't think it would have made enough of a difference. This Denver offense was historically good, and one of the reasons is the amount of skill position talent they had at their disposal. Take out Thomas, and it's still an embarrassment of riches.

 
I agree to an extent.  But Denver wasn't exactly driving up video game points numbers like they did earlier in the season.  26 versus us, 24 versus the Chargers.  Take one of the options away and suddenly it becomes more difficult to sustain a drive.  Take a touchdown off the board and turn it into a field goal and we've got a one score game.  I'm not saying we win if Talib stays on the field, but it was a significant injury.  Similar to last year with him and Chandler going down.

 

[RedOctober3829]

 
I agree to an extent.  But Denver wasn't exactly driving up video game points numbers like they did earlier in the season.  26 versus us, 24 versus the Chargers.  Take one of the options away and suddenly it becomes more difficult to sustain a drive.  Take a touchdown off the board and turn it into a field goal and we've got a one score game.  I'm not saying we win if Talib stays on the field, but it was a significant injury.  Similar to last year with him and Chandler going down.

2 similar plays made a huge impact on the game: the OPI called on Hooman that took the possibility of 3 points off the board and the non-OPI that took Talib off the field. Even if one of those plays goes in the Patriots' favor, it's a different game.

 

[Dogman]

Really?? Immediately after the Ward play this board lit up on Ward..FINE!!! SUSPENSION!! CHEAP SHOT!!! The Welker/Talib play deserves discussion but its tough to get worked up over the impact of the play when Denver was the far superior team. If you want to say that the play was a game changer, then fine. I just dont see it. Brady missing a wide open Edelman was just as huge. I've dealt with many playoff losses that made it tough to sleep at night. This wasn't one of them. They got about as far as they could. It was a great year.

 
The Ward tackle on Gronk and the Welker block on Talib are not remotely comparable. Additionally, you are taking emotional gamethread posts immediately after the play that ended Gronks season and drawing similarities between that and posts in this thread?
 
We know your position.  Mind if the rest of us continue with the conversation?
 
Thanks.

 

[RoyHobbs]

 
The Ward tackle on Gronk and the Welker block on Talib are not remotely comparable. Additionally, you are taking emotional gamethread posts immediately after the play that ended Gronks season and drawing similarities between that and posts in this thread?

 
The funny thing is if one goes back to that game thread, more people are pissed at/levy blame toward the League itself than Ward (as a participant in the thread that day I don't even recall anyone even calling out Ward, really).

It seems the only constant in either the Welker/Talib or Ward/Gronk cases is how the NFL wants its game to be played, and how that game is going to be called.

 

[Joshv02]

 
 
I think the media is running with this because:
 
Bill Belichick: " It was a deliberate play by the receiver to take out Aqib. No attempt to get open. ...
 
Bill Belichick: "I’ll let the league handle the discipline on that play, whatever they decide. It’s one of the worst plays I’ve seen. ..."
 
Obviously there are varying definitions of "take out" but when you run those two quotes together, I think you can stop with the idea that the media are playing things up that Belichick didn't mean to say.

Agreed - it sounded like "take out" meant "pick," and clearly implied an illegal pick by reference to discipline.  "Hurt" isn't a natural reading there; it isn't unreasonable, but it is forced.

 

[Steve Dillard]

Do BB's comments color if the refs focus on picks in the Super Bowl? If so is he making it less likelyManning and Welker get a ring? Both a personal and a professional agenda.

 

[Myt1]

Agreed - it sounded like "take out" meant "pick," and clearly implied an illegal pick by reference to discipline.  "Hurt" isn't a natural reading there; it isn't unreasonable, but it is forced.

Supplemental discipline post game (which seems to be what he was talking about in the later press conference) typically isn't handed out except or unsportsmanlike conduct or intent to injure, though. I think the most natural reading of Belichick's comment, especially given the context, is that it was an intentionally dirty play worthy of discipline, be it a fine or suspension.

 

[JokersWildJIMED]

 
 
Sure, I meant on that particular play.  To me, it's either OPI or nothing.  It's not a dirty hit or a late hit.  If the ball is rolling on the ground after Thomas drops it and Welker lays into Talib's ribs it could certainly be a late hit personal foul but that obviously wasn't the case here.  Talib wasn't a defenseless receiver so that doesn't apply.  Am I missing something else?

It's maddening as hell, but it was a borderline dirty hit, not a whole lot worse than what happens multiple times in any NFL game...the fact that Talib goes out for the game says more about Talib and his balky hip and knees than it does about Welker.  It may be wise to not rely solely on Talib in ensuing AFC Championship games...that's not working out too well. 

 

[Stitch01]

It's maddening as hell, but it was a borderline dirty hit, not a whole lot worse than what happens multiple times in any NFL game...the fact that Talib goes out for the game says more about Talib and his balky hip and knees than it does about Welker.  It may be wise to not rely solely on Talib in ensuing AFC Championship games...that's not working out too well. 

 
Can you expand on this?  I feel like the roster the Pats had this year was set up about as well as possible to not rely solely on Talib with Dennard/Ryan/Arrington rounding out the secondary.  Its sort of hard to have a backup All-Pro corner.

 

[Joshv02]

Supplemental discipline post game (which seems to be what he was talking about in the later press conference) typically isn't handed out except or unsportsmanlike conduct or intent to injure, though. I think the most natural reading of Belichick's comment, especially given the context, is that it was an intentionally dirty play worthy of discipline, be it a fine or suspension.

League discipline is allowed for unnecessary roughness or unsportsmanlike conduct (cba Art 46(1)(b)).  Intent to injure may be proof of either of those, but it is not necessary for either of those.  Setting an illegal pick without the intent to do anything other than set the illegal pick (i.e., not get open) may be subject to discipline (I have no idea).  Either way, I don't think think it means that Belichick said "Welker tried to hurt him," but rather means "Welker's play was either unnecessarily rough or unsportsmanlike."  (Technically, I think it likely would violate the unnecessary roughness rule, 12.8(e): "unnecessarily running, diving into, cutting, or throwing the body against or on a player who. (ii) should not have reasonably anticipated such contact by an opponent, before or after the ball is dead." But I have no idea if that is how it is typically read.)

 

[NortheasternPJ]

 
Can you expand on this?  I feel like the roster the Pats had this year was set up about as well as possible to not rely solely on Talib with Dennard/Ryan/Arrington rounding out the secondary.  Its sort of hard to have a backup All-Pro corner.

This is where people want the pats to go get a shutdown corner with no injury problems like they're hanging around 7-11 just there for the picking.

 

[dbn]

This is where people want the pats to go get a shutdown corner with no injury problems like they're hanging around 7-11 just there for the picking.

 
Simple: trade Blount for Revis.