NFL 2009 Training Camp

	Scott - 6225 Posts 08/01/2009 @ 06:11:56 PM
I already have 4 tickets for the Packers-Baccaneer's game on November 8! Can't wait! I'm actually not sure exactly what the pundits are saying about the Packers this year, but the local Tampa commentators are acting like this could be the worst Buccaneer's team in recent history. I also was somewhat shocked when I looked up the spelling for T Jack's first name and I found out I guessed correctly. I actually am pretty sure that for the first "r" (ta"r"varis), that I actually inadvertently typed that "r" while moving my finger from the "t" to the "v". I had guessed that it was spelled "tavaris", but I was wrong, even though I techincally was right. is anyone confused?		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Scott screwed with this at 08/01/2009 6:41:02 pm

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 08/01/2009 @ 06:53:48 PM
The Buccaneer's are currently hosting something equivalent to the Packers' "Family Night" inside of Raymond James Stadium, and they have some pretty big names, including (I believe) Nickelback. Anyway, there are literally like 1,000 people there, and I am probably overestimating. I'm sure if they make this a tradition it will become more popular over the years, but I just found it a bit funny when the sports guys were talking about how exciting the atmosphere was. Anyway, my wife is out of town again and I am bored out of my mind.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 08/01/2009 @ 07:52:28 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 06:11:56 PM I also was somewhat shocked when I looked up the spelling for T Jack's first name and I found out I guessed correctly. I actually am pretty sure that for the first "r" (ta"r"varis), that I actually inadvertently typed that "r" while moving my finger from the "t" to the "v". I had guessed that it was spelled "tavaris", but I was wrong, even though I techincally was right. is anyone confused? The only thing I'm confused about is how this is news. You do know T-Jack has been with the Vikings for at least 3 years now right? We've all seen his name before. I don't think there's anyway I could say that without being a jerk, but it had to be said.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Sarah screwed with this at 08/01/2009 7:53:44 pm

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 08/01/2009 @ 08:01:11 PM
It's just an unusual name, and I haven't myself typed it very often. I've only either heard it or seen it without really paying attention. It's kind of like when you were a kid and your parents drove you everywhere and then you get your drivers license and you can't figure out where anything is.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 08/01/2009 @ 08:58:11 PM
I suppose I can accept that		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - Nutcan.com's kitten expert 08/02/2009 @ 08:26:16 AM
Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 07:52:28 PM Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 06:11:56 PM I also was somewhat shocked when I looked up the spelling for T Jack's first name and I found out I guessed correctly. I actually am pretty sure that for the first "r" (ta"r"varis), that I actually inadvertently typed that "r" while moving my finger from the "t" to the "v". I had guessed that it was spelled "tavaris", but I was wrong, even though I techincally was right. is anyone confused? The only thing I'm confused about is how this is news. You do know T-Jack has been with the Vikings for at least 3 years now right? We've all seen his name before. I don't think there's anyway I could say that without being a jerk, but it had to be said. I think you're off base Sarah. First of all, there's a certain level of caring that you have to have about someone and a certain level of fame before it even becomes odd to not know the spelling. Jackson certainly fails the fame test and I doubt Scott gives two craps about his name otherwise. I'm an excellent speller and have a pretty good eye for written detail (like how you didn't use a period in your last post) and I have no clue how KGB's name is spelled, despite reading it tons of times. And yeah, that's probably a tough one. But still. There's no need for me to use my valuable brain space for that because I rarely type it and can always use the nickname. Crap, I didn't even realize Dwyane Wade's name was spelled that way until after I'd watched him in a final four and an NBA championship. When it's something subtle like a transposition of letters or an extra letter from how it's generally pronounced? I'm throwing the "over-critical" flag on you there Sara. Fifteen yard penalty. Yes. I purposely misspelled your name. It'd be funnier if I didn't have to include this, but I'm sure I'd be questioned on it later.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jon edited this at 08/02/2009 8:27:08 am

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 08/29/2009 @ 09:13:12 AM
Oooh, an "over-critical" flag sighting. Haven't seen one of those since the Majkowski era. And for those of you keeping score at home, I actually spelled that name correct on the very first try. On another note, the Packers Offense AND Defense appear to be absolutely unstoppable right now. The first team offense has scored something like 8 touchdowns in 10 posessions* or something like that. And then they put up 38 points against the defending NFC champs in the first half while only alowing 10 points themselves. I have heard it being said (by my dad), that the Packers defensive success might be a bit misleading for this reason: because the Packers are making the switch to the 3-4 defense, they have to get used to throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the offense even in the preseason, when ideally a team wouldn't necessarily be so aggressive during the preseason. That being said though, this is shaping up to be a rather exciting year. *Fact Check: they have scored 9 touchdowns in 12 posessions.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 08/29/2009 9:18:56 am

	Alex - 3619 Posts 08/29/2009 @ 10:12:17 AM
Too bad preseason doesn't mean diddly squat.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 08/29/2009 @ 10:14:14 AM
They certainly haven't looked bad thus far, but I'm not sure there's anything to take from this. Yeah, the Cardinals made it to the Suberbowl, but they were just north of a .500 team and got their asses kicked just as bad by the Vikings for real. Look Aaron Rodgers throws a mean longball, but when game planning and live games start you can't just chuck it down the field 50 times. (Ask Al Davis) The Packers have yet to demonstrate that they can produce anything sustainable. The only thing we know so far is that if a coordinator is experimenting to see what he can and can't call in a real game, and the defense forgets to cover a guy, and the refs don't call any of the 3-4 painfully obvious holds, Rodgers will find him for a big play. The Packers have played the Browns, TO-less Bills, and the Cardinals, who got hot at the right time last year, but weren't a very good team. The Packers have indeed looked good, but how much of that is the Packers looking good, and how much is the other teams looking bad? If anyone but Larry Fitz was able to catch a ball last night things might have looked very different. I think your dad is also on the right track with the defense. Thus far most success has come due to getting in the QB's face, but once teams start watching film they are going to come up with counter measures, and sending the whole team on every down will get you burned once people know it's coming. Again, I'm not totally trying to rain on your parade, the Packers have indeed looked good, but given how they've gone about looking good, I'm not sure you can assume that will translate into anything. The Lions had an undefeated preseason last year.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.
Jeremy edited this 2 times, last at 08/29/2009 10:15:06 am

	PackOne - 1528 Posts 08/29/2009 @ 10:55:07 AM
You guys are all haters. The third preseason game is always a measuring stick for the season. The Packers are good, really good. EDIT: As far as the defense goes, it is pretty well known that the Packers are only showing 20-30 percent of their packages.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.
PackOne screwed with this at 08/29/2009 10:55:56 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 08/29/2009 @ 06:08:11 PM
I think the pre-season mean more than diddly squat. I'll hold off my talk about them being good until the regular season actually starts, but the fact remains that the Packers offense already seems to be clicking on all cylanders. I'm not pointing to their record one bit, just the fact that the first team offense has looked pretty sharp, especially Rodgers and the o-line. The only reason I really brought this up was because I was expecting the Packers to be pretty bad this year, but judging by how they look so far, my original assumptions might be incorrect. And another thing about the 3-4 defense: According to one of the Packer writers for the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel (it was in print, not online, so you'll have to take my word for it), the 3-4 defense requires a much different type of personnel than the 4-3 defense, which generally causes a transition to a 3-4 defense to be a struggle. This writer (I don't even remember his name, but it might have been Bob McGinn) raised the question that maybe the Packers personnel was actually more cutout for the 3-4 defense all along, an may not have been totally suited for the 4-3 defense that is typical. Anyway, three weeks into the exhibition season is no reason to get all giddy and start buying my tickets for Miami. I just haven't seen the Packers look more impressive during the preseason in a long time. The last time the Packers went 4-0 in the preason they finished the season 8-8 and missed the playoffs, and I specifically remember people saying at that time that they have never been less confident about a 4-0 preseason. That is why I didn't mention the Packers record in my original post. I wasn't saying that the fact that they are 3-0 makes me excited, just the fact that the offense seems to be clicking on cylanders already. (I'm also not predicting any records, or comparing them to other teams).		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.
Scott perfected this at 08/29/2009 6:09:28 pm

	Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 08/30/2009 @ 12:21:35 AM
PackOne Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:55:07 AM You guys are all haters. The third preseason game is always a measuring stick for the season. The Packers are good, really good. EDIT: As far as the defense goes, it is pretty well known that the Packers are only showing 20-30 percent of their packages. Right, and the offenses are running vanilla versions of what they would be doing too. The Packers have looked sharp, sure, but you should look sharp if you get handed 78 turnovers and the teams don't cover your receivers. The third preseason game is the game the starters play the most, it's not a whole lot more than that. Teams are still experimenting with packages, and "how will this guy fare if I give him no help" situations. If you were to look at the games in terms of which one would be most relevant sure, you'd pick game three. If you were to pick the teams the Packers have played as to which one is the biggest "test" thus far it would be the Cardinals, but to throw around phrases like "beating up the NFC champs" and discuss the matter as if the 2008 Cardinals were some sort of juggernaut is pretty dishonest. The Vikings beat the Cardinals 35-14, and 7 of the Cardinals points were off of a blocked FG attempt return. They are a team that either played well, or horrible, and against the Packers they played horrible, and either way it's the preseason. They haven't established any sort of dependable running game, all they've shown thus far is that if Rodgers has no one near him, and a receiver is wide open, Rodgers will hit him with a pass that couldn't be more on target if Mike McCarthy was marking the receiver with a green laser beam from the sidelines and the football was stuffed with electronic telemetry hardware. However, both halves of that equation are things teams can scheme against/adjust to, and that's the event that SHOULD happen, if the all-day/wide-open situation presents itself over and over. The only way you could say this translates to something is if you could somehow demonstrate that it's in no-way-shape or form an artifact of pre-season and the defenses most teams play. That Packers really have found an offensive line that can pass block that well, and the Packers have a new super secret method for getting a guy open by 5 yards down field 3 times a drive.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 08/30/2009 11:25:32 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 08/30/2009 @ 07:02:54 AM
Sheesh, I'm sorry I brought it up.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 08/30/2009 7:07:20 am

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 08/31/2009 @ 07:54:02 AM
No, Pack was right, Jeremy is a hater. And the preseason does mean more than diddly squat. It's free football that's only slightly more meaningful to me than college ball. It's like the movie trailer/teaser.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	PackOne - 1528 Posts 08/31/2009 @ 10:02:54 AM
Haven't established a running game? Try number two in football for the preseason.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 08/31/2009 @ 10:39:46 AM
Yeah, mostly by Sutton and the rest of the backups, against backups. Grant had 22 yards against the Cardinals, granted he wasn't needed, but that's not the point. The Cardinals didn't game plan for this matchup, and the Packers did. The Cardinals didn't do much blitzing, as don't most teams in the preseason, the Packers blitzed like crazy. the point has nothing to do with "hating," it's pointing out the realities of why, well these certainly aren't bad things, they don't necessarily translate into anything.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - Tag This 08/31/2009 @ 01:41:00 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:39:46 AM Yeah, mostly by Sutton and the rest of the backups, against backups. Grant had 22 yards against the Cardinals, granted he wasn't needed, but that's not the point. The Cardinals didn't game plan for this matchup, and the Packers did. The Cardinals didn't do much blitzing, as don't most teams in the preseason, the Packers blitzed like crazy. the point has nothing to do with "hating," it's pointing out the realities of why, well these certainly aren't bad things, they don't necessarily translate into anything. Spoken like a man who has 2 star backs- and depth- at RB. I call you a hater because the chances of you being positive about the Packers in any way is about 1:25.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec perfected this at 08/31/2009 1:44:25 pm

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 08/31/2009 @ 01:47:23 PM
Oh, and did anyone else see the reception Cutler got? I don't care the Bears ended up winning, that was the worst "boo" job I've ever seen.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?" 08/31/2009 @ 02:15:00 PM
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 01:41:00 PM Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:39:46 AM Yeah, mostly by Sutton and the rest of the backups, against backups. Grant had 22 yards against the Cardinals, granted he wasn't needed, but that's not the point. The Cardinals didn't game plan for this matchup, and the Packers did. The Cardinals didn't do much blitzing, as don't most teams in the preseason, the Packers blitzed like crazy. the point has nothing to do with "hating," it's pointing out the realities of why, well these certainly aren't bad things, they don't necessarily translate into anything. Spoken like a man who has 2 star backs- and depth- at RB. I call you a hater because the chances of you being positive about the Packers in any way is about 1:25. I complimented Rodgers. I also didn't mean to imply that running was automatically superior, similar types of things can be accomplished with the pass. I guess what I mean is more along the lines of this: What says more about a team, completing a 60 yard TD pass to a receiver who is wide open because the defense blew the coverage, or pounding it 4 yards when everyone knew you were going to do that? IMO things that demonstrate "imposing your will" on the other team is what I'd rather see in the preseason if I was going to make any proclamations about what may or may not translate to real games, and not things that are sporadic/fluky. It's kind of like in a football game when you catch a few big breaks early, maybe you get a couple turnovers and a big pass play so you're up 21 really early, but it becomes apparent in the second quarter that your opposition is moving the ball on your team pretty easily, and your team can't move the ball at all. Sooner or later that other team is going to close that gap, because the game is still likely going to come down to who can out "regular offense" the other team. Big pass plays and getting 5 turnovers a game are fun to watch, but on the other hand it robs your team of a chance to demonstrate they can convert 3rd and short on a regular basis, consistently put drives together, and things like that. I'm not making any claims that the Packers can't do those things, just that scoring 5 TDs on busted coverages only proves A-Rod can hit a wide open guy, which is still good, but that doesn't tell you much of anything. You can't count on a int/short field, or busted coverage on a deep pass, like you can on a fool-proof 6 yard slant, or a running back that consistently averages 4-5 YPC.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 08/31/2009 2:16:00 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 08/31/2009 @ 02:23:46 PM
Well, busted coverage could have been because of a sick play action pass that the cornerback fell for; and that would be evidence of a teams ability. It definitely doesn't prove that the Vikings don't suck (think about that for a second and realize that in the end, I really just said nothing).		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 08/31/2009 @ 02:40:31 PM
It certainly could be because of something the team did, no one said it has to be 100% happenstance, it comes down to whether or not you NEED someone to bite on a fake or not. All I'm saying is if I was a Packer fan (at least one that proclaims their lopsided preseason as evidence of sure-fire awesomeness) I would be a little concerned that things have been a little too easy. I'd want to see substance over style, for lack of a better term. Put it this way, a team might actually have a defense that's actually better at getting turnovers than normal, it's not chance, they just are better ball hawks, or what have you. Such a setup is certainly good, it will almost certainly ice a few games, and probably be a big factor in winning a couple games, but the best ball hawking team isn't going to intercept their way to 12 wins. As a whole the season is going to come down to "can we convert most 3rd and less than 4's (and stop the opposition on their 3rd and 4's)," "can we pound the ball to run down the clock (and stop the run)," and those types of things.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 08/31/2009 @ 02:52:11 PM
The problem is that the score doesn't matter and teams aren't putting their best lineups out there so you can't really evaluate the substance or the style. Being concerned about things being too easy is ridiculous though. Favre is hurt already http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp09/news/story?id=4434939		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 08/31/2009 @ 03:09:13 PM
Alex Wrote - Today @ 02:52:11 PM Being concerned about things being too easy is ridiculous though. Well, I was just trying to explain what I'm getting at, since as usual the point seems continually missed. Though, to be fair, there are times where you should be concerned things seem too easy. Wins are wins, but when you pile up a few in a row because you're outplaying teams it's "better" than piling up a few wins because the ball is just bouncing your way, or what-have-you, if you're going to use those wins to project future wins. Edit: I like how he says "completed just one pass for four yards" as if he attempted 50 passes.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 4 times, last at 08/31/2009 4:48:48 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 08/31/2009 @ 07:56:16 PM
The Brett Favre rule is finally on our side! (Though to be fair, I'm pretty sure it was just a technicality roughing, not actually roughing, you aren't allowed to go at the knees anymore.)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 08/31/2009 @ 08:35:05 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 07:56:16 PM The Brett Favre rule is finally on our side! (Though to be fair, I'm pretty sure it was just a technicality roughing, not actually roughing, you aren't allowed to go at the knees anymore.) No, that was vintage BFR.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 08/31/2009 @ 09:02:40 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 08:56:16 PM The Brett Favre rule is finally on our side! (Though to be fair, I'm pretty sure it was just a technicality roughing, not actually roughing, you aren't allowed to go at the knees anymore.) Isn't it the Tom Brady rule then?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 08/31/2009 @ 09:11:05 PM
how about Favre taking out that dude in the 3rd? What's that do for you?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 08/31/2009 @ 09:22:08 PM
Viking players play dirty. The transformation is complete.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 08/31/2009 @ 09:28:29 PM
I think it's unfortunate, but reacting to it like Favre had a shiv in his sock and put it in the guy's eye was a little overkill by the announcers. We're talking about a guy who's lined up outside like 3 times in his career. It's not just this play. I never like it when announcers react to such things as if the player actually decided "I'm going to try to end this guy's game/season/career" when in reality there's 22 people running in god knows what direction all just making split second moves to try and help.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	jthompto - 209 Posts 09/01/2009 @ 07:04:45 AM
Like everyone said that was just an unfortunate play on every level. Chilly should have never put Favre in that situation, Favre shouldn't have thrown a block with with throwing shoulder and he shoudn't have gone low. I wish it could be erased from the game. Luckily it appeared that the Texans safety was ok.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 09/01/2009 @ 08:14:24 AM
jthompto Wrote - Today @ 08:04:45 AM Favre shouldn't have thrown a block with with throwing shoulder When did Favre become left handed?		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Jon - Nutcan.com's kitten expert 09/01/2009 @ 08:19:03 AM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 08:14:24 AM jthompto Wrote - Today @ 07:04:45 AM Favre shouldn't have thrown a block with with throwing shoulder When did Favre become left handed? Maybe he just recently realized he was left handed. That happens sometimes.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 09/01/2009 @ 08:20:03 AM
Usually in the middle of a game.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/01/2009 @ 08:21:46 AM
WHAT?!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/01/2009 @ 08:48:06 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 09:21:46 AM WHAT?! He didn't throw a block with his throwing shoulder, he threw it with his left side.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - What the F@#$ am I being arrested fo? 09/01/2009 @ 09:08:02 AM
Did you not see the play?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 09/01/2009 @ 09:15:52 AM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 08:48:06 AM Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 08:21:46 AM WHAT?! He didn't throw a block with his throwing shoulder, he threw it with his left side. It's an inside joke. It's the follow up to Jon's comment.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	jthompto 09/01/2009 @ 12:53:51 PM
Sorry, guess I wasn't watching that closely and I thought I heard Gruden say it was his throwing shoulder during the broadcast.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 09/01/2009 @ 02:25:58 PM
jthompto Wrote - Today @ 01:53:51 PM Sorry, guess I wasn't watching that closely and I thought I heard Gruden say it was his throwing shoulder during the broadcast. Gruden got fired for saying crazy things like that.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/01/2009 @ 02:54:15 PM
Almost everyone said it was his throwing shoulder. It really doesn't matter what shoulder it was, it was a stupid call. You don't want Favre to get hurt throwing a block, let alone in preseason, yet you can't waste a player either. Percy or not, I don't think the wildcard is smart with Favre on the field. As for Farve "going low," that's what they've been told to do. The concept of going low isn't "cheap." Running backs aren't taught to pick up blitzes by taking on the defensive end twice their size, they are taught to submarine them. Same thing with the QBs throwing blocks with the option, or now with the wildcat. This wasn't illegal because he went low, it was illegal because the guy was at about 3/4 profile. If the guy was slightly more turned we wouldn't be talking about this. Don't get me wrong, it was illegal, but throwing around phrases like"cheap shot" implies some sort of intent, and is ridiculous.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/01/2009 @ 03:06:09 PM
As for my thoughts on the game: I'm pretty pumped for the season. Brett looked like he knew exactly where to go, and especially good on 3rd downs, the running game had success, should have had another TD instead of settling for 3. (Percy needs to catch that ball.) Overcoming 1st and 25 to score a TD while running the 2 minute drill got me very excited. Way too many penalties though. If the Vikings can stop beating themselves I think good things are ahead. Favre and Shank are clearly already on the same page, they ad-libbed at least one major first down on a 3rd and long, and maybe a couple others.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 09/01/2009 @ 05:22:53 PM
My world is officially turned upside down, Jeremy's defending Brett Favre left and right and is apparently on a first name basis with the guy.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 09/01/2009 @ 09:13:04 PM
bandwagons are like that, Sarah. You're living with a traitor-enemy-bandwagoner.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 09/01/2009 @ 11:18:28 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:54:15 PM This wasn't illegal because he went low, it was illegal because the guy was at about 3/4 profile. If the guy was slightly more turned we wouldn't be talking about this. Don't get me wrong, it was illegal, but throwing around phrases like"cheap shot" implies some sort of intent, and is ridiculous. Actually, the way I read the rule, Favre's block was "doubly" illegal, since in that situation it's illegal to block in the back, and it's also illegal to block low no matter what way the defender is facing. From NFL Rulebook (bottom of page): "An offensive player who lines up more than two yards outside his own tackle or a player who, at the snap, is in a backfield position and subsequently takes a position more than two yards outside a tackle may not clip an opponent anywhere nor may he contact an opponent below the waist if the blocker is moving toward the ball and if contact is made within an area five yards on either side of the line. (crackback)" I do, however, agree that it is stupid to call it a cheap shot, since it was most likely just a instinctual reaction on Favre's part. It's not like he gets much practice blocking in general, let alone blocking when he's lined up wide.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 09/02/2009 @ 07:24:52 AM
Where was the block in the back? Peter King says the North is rising.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/02/2009 @ 07:44:54 AM
Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 06:22:53 PM My world is officially turned upside down, Jeremy's defending Brett Favre left and right and is apparently on a first name basis with the guy. I will say this, hearing Viking Fans/former Favre haters defend Favre is quite unusual. Now that the games are starting, it actually feels like an old girlfriend who I mututally broke up with, but now she's dating someone I never really liked, and I can't say I'm really that upset with her because I still want her to be happy and all, but I don't think the guy she is with really deserves her. It's bittersweet in that regard; I do wish Favre to do well, but I cannot bring myself to wish the Vikings to do well. If on the slim chance that the Vikings reach the Super Bowl, however, I might find a way to root for them. But I'll cross that river when I come to it.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Robots don't say 'ye' 09/02/2009 @ 09:11:16 AM
Matt Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:18:28 PM Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 02:54:15 PM This wasn't illegal because he went low, it was illegal because the guy was at about 3/4 profile. If the guy was slightly more turned we wouldn't be talking about this. Don't get me wrong, it was illegal, but throwing around phrases like"cheap shot" implies some sort of intent, and is ridiculous. Actually, the way I read the rule, Favre's block was "doubly" illegal, since in that situation it's illegal to block in the back, and it's also illegal to block low no matter what way the defender is facing. From NFL Rulebook (bottom of page): "An offensive player who lines up more than two yards outside his own tackle or a player who, at the snap, is in a backfield position and subsequently takes a position more than two yards outside a tackle may not clip an opponent anywhere nor may he contact an opponent below the waist if the blocker is moving toward the ball and if contact is made within an area five yards on either side of the line. (crackback)" I do, however, agree that it is stupid to call it a cheap shot, since it was most likely just a instinctual reaction on Favre's part. It's not like he gets much practice blocking in general, let alone blocking when he's lined up wide. Crap, I meant to say it normally wouldn't be illegal except for..., (since he doesn't line up at wideout). In other words, he's been conditioned to go low, and probably didn't know he couldn't, but it was still illegal anyway because it was a block to the guys backside. But yes, you can't go low period. (The Hines Ward rule, I think) Now that I reread what I wrote I have no idea what I was getting at, I knew receivers couldn't do that. Clearly I confused myself or wasn't paying attention to what I was doing.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/02/2009 @ 09:13:52 AM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:44:54 AM Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 05:22:53 PM My world is officially turned upside down, Jeremy's defending Brett Favre left and right and is apparently on a first name basis with the guy. I will say this, hearing Viking Fans/former Favre haters defend Favre is quite unusual. Now that the games are starting, it actually feels like an old girlfriend who I mututally broke up with, but now she's dating someone I never really liked, and I can't say I'm really that upset with her because I still want her to be happy and all, but I don't think the guy she is with really deserves her. It's bittersweet in that regard; I do wish Favre to do well, but I cannot bring myself to wish the Vikings to do well. If on the slim chance that the Vikings reach the Super Bowl, however, I might find a way to root for them. But I'll cross that river when I come to it. Once again, there was no "Favre defending," I said I can't stand it when the peanut gallery decides the intent of the player. Edit: And I certainly wasn't arguing that Favre did nothing wrong and shouldn't get flagged/fined.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 09/02/2009 9:25:20 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/02/2009 @ 09:40:01 AM
Splitting hairs.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Refactor Mercilessly 09/02/2009 @ 01:15:51 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:24:52 AM Peter King says the North is rising. He also said this, "It simply an acknowledgement that if we're to believe anything about the preseason (and that is a dubious practice right there, taking anything from practice games)" Vindication! Despite the typos!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3941 Posts 09/02/2009 @ 03:13:11 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:24:52 AM Where was the block in the back? Yeah, Favre's block was more from the side than from the back, but I was using "block in the back" to kind of encompass all non-frontal blocks since, I think, the only legal block you can make in that situation is one from the front, and above the waist. And to echo Jeremy a little on the Favre hating/defending bit. I think we've said multiple times here, it was always more of us hating the Favre hype more than the man himself. The media and fans were so quick to give him credit for any random thing (or give him a pass on any mistake), that we had to speak out and try to set the record straight. Same thing here, except in this case, people were going the other way with it.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt perfected this 2 times, last at 09/02/2009 3:15:03 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/02/2009 @ 03:39:50 PM
He said it was a "dubious" practice, not worthless practice. No vindication for the guy who said that the preseason didn't mean anything. And really, when I say "defending" Favre, and "Favre-haters", I really just mean to draw the line between rooting for him (as is, he's now on your team) and rooting against him. Although, I would say you are defending him no less than a defense attorney would defend a man accused of a crime, regardless of what the attorney's opinion is of that man.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 09/02/2009 @ 04:06:37 PM
Well, though I'm not sure where you're going with that comment, if I were a lawyer and it was assumed that every time one of my clients got in a car accident that it must have been their malicious intent to get in the car accident, and they were being admonished as such, I would say something. The defendant could be a sack of shit, or my mom, that's still a baseless assumption right off the bat, and certainly a ridiculous starting point to begin every case from. Edit: In other words, I don't at all consider fault vs intent "splitting hairs," in this case.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 09/02/2009 4:32:58 pm

	Matt - Ombudsman 09/02/2009 @ 04:36:42 PM
Well, if you have a history of being a dirty player and you do something like make an illegal block into a players knees, I don't think its unreasonable to assume that it was done on purpose. At the very least you would lose the benefit of the doubt in any ambiguous situation. Since Favre doesn't really have a reputation for dirty play, though, and the foul occurred when he was in a position he was not very familiar with, then it only makes sense to assume that he just made a dumb mistake without any malice behind it. This isn't to say that it's a certainty that he didn't do it with intent to injure or whatever, maybe he did (only he knows for sure), but it's not the most likely explanation.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 09/02/2009 @ 04:48:15 PM
Maybe it's because he's such a gunslinger and shoots from the, I mean "for the", hip.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/02/2009 @ 05:23:14 PM
Matt Wrote - Today @ 04:36:42 PM Well, if you have a history of being a dirty player and you do something like make an illegal block into a players knees, I don't think its unreasonable to assume that it was done on purpose. At the very least you would lose the benefit of the doubt in any ambiguous situation. Since Favre doesn't really have a reputation for dirty play, though, and the foul occurred when he was in a position he was not very familiar with, then it only makes sense to assume that he just made a dumb mistake without any malice behind it. This isn't to say that it's a certainty that he didn't do it with intent to injure or whatever, maybe he did (only he knows for sure), but it's not the most likely explanation. Right, but many people's modus operandi is the assumption that all hits that end with injury are intentional cheap shots, which is stupid. Just like car accidents, some could be intentional, it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility, but it shouldn't be every observer's first thought, when the alternatives are almost always much more likely.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 09/02/2009 5:24:04 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/03/2009 @ 06:15:51 AM
My comment about splitting hairs was not about fault vs intent but rather the difference between defending favre and defending the actions, or at least the reaction. What I really mean is that no matter how you look at it, I would say you are indeed defending Favre, or at the very least his character--which is a very strange thing.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 09/03/2009 6:19:15 am

	Jon - 1 bajillion posts 09/03/2009 @ 08:12:53 AM
Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 04:48:15 PM Maybe it's because he's such a gunslinger and shoots from the, I mean "for the", hip. The man is a gamer! Did you all forget already?! Funny though how things work. Favre has clearly lost somewhere around 90-99% of his goodwill from the general population. The BFR call was one of maybe two or three that announcers have bothered to point out over the course of his career. And I didn't watch the block live, but it sounds like he clearly lost the ability to elicit laughter and praise for his gamer-ness by goofily tossing his body around to make a block.* Anyway, this somewhat sudden lack of love for all things Favre should serve to add some perspective to our "Favre-hating" over the years. I'll love to hear everyone's reaction when he runs down the field 50 yards to do the throat slash gesture in someone's face. He sure can be a goof ball. *I cringe when I see that block. Clearly it was ill-advised and poorly executed. Matt brought up Favre's reputation and I think it's a good thing to do. Favre hasn't really been a dirty player, he just makes stupid decisions a lot. This one just happened to almost maim someone.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 09/06/2009 @ 12:43:37 PM
Any thoughts on Packers cuts? I am a bit surprised by Sutton, Lumpkin, Martin, Anthony Smith, and Joe Porter to name a few. Harrell's already on the IR, that was a good draft pick. Only going going with are QBs? Not sure I agree with that. Maybe we should pick up Garcia?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 09/07/2009 @ 10:10:47 AM
Can always pick up a washed up veteran QB if Rodgers gets hurt.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 09/08/2009 @ 11:15:22 AM
I figured Martin was going to get cut. That's what the Milwaukee Journal was saying anyway ahead of time. And let's just hope that Rodgers doesn't get hurt.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 09/08/2009 @ 11:52:40 AM
Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:10:47 AM Can always pick up a washed up veteran QB if Rodgers gets hurt. Sage. TJack, or Booty will be up for sale soon.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/08/2009 @ 01:16:48 PM
They could have picked up Booty for nothing. (and as far as I know could pick up him at any time.)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 09/08/2009 @ 02:16:31 PM
That's because Booty's worthless.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/08/2009 @ 07:24:22 PM
Anyone want to buy a ticket to the Packers-Buccaneers game? I have a ticket I'm trying to sell for face value.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.