Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

. . .for those who believe that the N.F.L. is "wimpizing" its sport: https://www.yardbarker.com/nfl/articles ... 2_40038928

By 2028 there will be a squad of Marines in full combat gear assigned to protect the QB. The first volley will be aimed over the heads of onrushing linemen. The second....well, they were warned.

Ooo-rah!

I suggested that idea as a trade-off for letting QBs be "football players" and able to be hit, tackled, etc.. Fine with it, in that sense. But obviously that's not the proposal or how it'd play out, of course.

I don't like the over-protection but I'm much less annoyed by protections in the pocket than I am by the sport being compromised by the inherent protections QB's have when they run. Though the former becomes a major annoyance when it leads to the latter.

Lot of Lamar's running, most of Allen's, would happen anyway but Watson, Mahomes, Wilson, etc., it's not just that they're still protected when they run -- even though they're supposed to lose some protections, if a defensive player even looks at them funny every official on the field is unloading their flags -- it's that they're also treated with kids gloves by the defensive players. Part due to wanting to avoid penalty and also due to how ingrained "can't touch QB" has become with this generation.

So you'll have QB 20-yards downfield thinking and acting like he's juking everyone, when in reality defensive players are tip-toeing around afraid to even touch him, let alone do a routine form tackle, or forbid, go blow him up. Then announcers, fans, everything online talks about the legendary run and it's just an unsporting, aided, ingrained distortion of the sport, reality and history.

"Eliminating the pocket requirement might help quarterbacks avoid the types of hits that produce injuries."

I don't think that's true. It seemed to me that they called intentional ground more last year than any time in the last decade or so (which means like once every two games, but still ...), and I don't recall any cases where a quarterback avoided a "big hit." I think most grounding calls come when the quarterback is already in the grasp of the defender and going down, and he just flips the ball ahead a few yards. I don't see this proposed (and probably inevitable) rule change doing anything about injuries; mainly it would just make the game that much easier for the offense. But of course I think most fans that's what the rules are for anyway.

Bob Gill wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 5:59 pm "Eliminating the pocket requirement might help quarterbacks avoid the types of hits that produce injuries."

I don't think that's true. It seemed to me that they called intentional ground more last year than any time in the last decade or so (which means like once every two games, but still ...), and I don't recall any cases where a quarterback avoided a "big hit." I think most grounding calls come when the quarterback is already in the grasp of the defender and going down, and he just flips the ball ahead a few yards. I don't see this proposed (and probably inevitable) rule change doing anything about injuries; mainly it would just make the game that much easier for the offense. But of course I think most fans that's what the rules are for anyway.

Agree ... sometimes quarterbacks put themselves at risk by trying to make an awkward throw that has no chance of being completed, rather than take a sack. They are, as you point out, in the grasp already.

Philosophically, they did call more groundings but fewer than I saw happen. A QB can fiht, flail, play 100% while a defender who has to go 80% when he gets near a QB so there is a competitive disadvantage to begin with, and if a QB can just flip the ball away inside the pocket like they can now outside the pocket you might as well take grounding out of the rulebook.

It's just another way a defender is in a no-win situation.

JohnTurney wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 5:22 pm Philosophically, they did call more groundings but fewer than I saw happen. A QB can fiht, flail, play 100% while a defender who has to go 80% when he gets near a QB so there is a competitive disadvantage to begin with, and if a QB can just flip the ball away inside the pocket like they can now outside the pocket you might as well take grounding out of the rulebook.

It's just another way a defender is in a no-win situation.

Exactly. Same goes for the earlier comment about defenders leery of tackling quarterbacks in the open field.

Quarterbacks put themselves at greatest risk when they slide at the last moment. Sliding too late leaves them completely prone to the hits from defenders that have already committed themselves to making the tackle. It’s the most poorly conceived rule in football.

Quarterbacks are the most important players and there aren't 32 good ones, obviously. You'd want to protect them, too. It's just good business.

This insistence on bloodlust from longtime fans just baffles me. What, not enough people get decapitated anymore for your liking? Not enough guys unable to walk when they're 55?

Players are bigger, stronger, faster and more lethal than ever. They don't have to risk livelihoods because YOU miss seeing Joe Kapp.

Also, Yardbarker. Puh-leeze.

Actually, I do miss ol' Injun Joe. Dem wuz da days.

Throwin_Samoan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2024 12:40 am Quarterbacks are the most important players and there aren't 32 good ones, obviously. You'd want to protect them, too. It's just good business.

This insistence on bloodlust from longtime fans just baffles me. What, not enough people get decapitated anymore for your liking? Not enough guys unable to walk when they're 55?

Players are bigger, stronger, faster and more lethal than ever. They don't have to risk livelihoods because YOU miss seeing Joe Kapp.

Also, Yardbarker. Puh-leeze.

Also, the defenses get better over time, the ability for them to injure increases over time. If they left the rules the same, half the league would be out on IR at any one time.