FB: Empire 8

[SaintsFAN]

82,
I listened to Gene and Peters broadcast from start to finish.
They did mention the aircast and the ambulance etc, but you are right they would have no way to know about the players dad.
As for any cheap shot- the only one that was mentioned was Benderski, and Peter was pretty critical of him.

As he should have been. I understand football players hit late, and emotions run high, but there was no need for that one. The pick was well down field, and the QB wasn't going to make the play. Forget the loss of field position in a game that no one could move the ball, but more importantly, there is a right way to play. Luckily it didn't end up in an injury.

We were playing a scrimmage against Hobart in 05 and I thew a pass, the receiver caught it ran about 15-20 yards to the 2 yard line, then fumbled.  The Hobart player bent down to pick it up and that's all I saw.  I got smoked, 40+ yards from the play.  No flag, just a really bad headache. 

INT's, fumbles, any turnover on offense suck. Not just because you threw a pick or turned the ball over, but because as you are watching what is happening downfield, 30 yards away from the play, the 285lb lineman that just got worked over decides to earhole you.

When I originally saw this post, I didn't realize the circumstances of the hit and it seemed rational.  I said I understood emotions get high.  But the way you guys are describing it, it really was a cheap shot and it kind of irks me. There's no excuse for it.  There's a huge difference between playing to the whistle and taking a cheap shot.  There's no need for it in today's game, there's enough injuries amongst players that were actually involved in the play.

Maybe next time he can take out the punter after a fair catch.     

I agree. I think the mentality is that this is kind of a free shot at a quarterback who's probably not paying attention to you so you might as well go for the gusto.

Frankly, these kinds of hits need to have a much stiffer penalty. Really, what's 15 yards on an INT return? Unless it calls back a TD, that's like thinking you've seen a $20 bill on the sidewalk and it turns out being a $10 bill instead. Sure, it's not as good as you thought, but it's still money you didn't have before. And if you can knock out the most critical player on the other team while doing it, why not? Are guys intentionally trying to hurt people? Maybe not. But when you deliver a certain type of illegal hit like that, can you be shocked when it happens?

I'd like to see any personal foul penalty—or at least the late hit/blow to the head/railing a return man kind—result in the defensive player needing to sit out a certain number of series. Yes, the game will always be physical, and there will always be injuries, even on legal hits (or no contact), but we simply need to get certain types of hits out of the game. It will never be a perfectly safe game, but we can make it safer.

honestly, just playin devil's advocate here for a minute...its not like this never happens to a qb/k on these sort of plays....kick-offs and interceptions, so why isnt there a little more emphasis on those 2 players actually keeping their eyes open for these technically legal hits?  While I agree its plain that the 40 yard down the field hits are mostly cheap and unnecessary, would you agree that once and a while a player actually hustles from 'out-of nowhere' to make a play so that what if the unchecked qb does so...or what if the defensive back actually beats the other 10 players and the qb who did not get ear-holed by the opportunistic DLman is left to make a TD saving tackle....?  I say the rule should be that the DLman should wear a whistle that he is required to blow 3secs before he is about to light up the QB on interceptions.  That is fair warning for the train wreck that qb is about to encounter to add insult to his injury/poor pass....

I think if a QB is a legitimate threat to the ballcarrier (IE., not 40 yards downfield), then he's fair game. 

[AlfredSaxon8]

82,
I listened to Gene and Peters broadcast from start to finish.
They did mention the aircast and the ambulance etc, but you are right they would have no way to know about the players dad.
As for any cheap shot- the only one that was mentioned was Benderski, and Peter was pretty critical of him.

As he should have been. I understand football players hit late, and emotions run high, but there was no need for that one. The pick was well down field, and the QB wasn't going to make the play. Forget the loss of field position in a game that no one could move the ball, but more importantly, there is a right way to play. Luckily it didn't end up in an injury.

We were playing a scrimmage against Hobart in 05 and I thew a pass, the receiver caught it ran about 15-20 yards to the 2 yard line, then fumbled.  The Hobart player bent down to pick it up and that's all I saw.  I got smoked, 40+ yards from the play.  No flag, just a really bad headache. 

INT's, fumbles, any turnover on offense suck. Not just because you threw a pick or turned the ball over, but because as you are watching what is happening downfield, 30 yards away from the play, the 285lb lineman that just got worked over decides to earhole you.

When I originally saw this post, I didn't realize the circumstances of the hit and it seemed rational.  I said I understood emotions get high.  But the way you guys are describing it, it really was a cheap shot and it kind of irks me. There's no excuse for it.  There's a huge difference between playing to the whistle and taking a cheap shot.  There's no need for it in today's game, there's enough injuries amongst players that were actually involved in the play.

Maybe next time he can take out the punter after a fair catch.     

I agree. I think the mentality is that this is kind of a free shot at a quarterback who's probably not paying attention to you so you might as well go for the gusto.

Frankly, these kinds of hits need to have a much stiffer penalty. Really, what's 15 yards on an INT return? Unless it calls back a TD, that's like thinking you've seen a $20 bill on the sidewalk and it turns out being a $10 bill instead. Sure, it's not as good as you thought, but it's still money you didn't have before. And if you can knock out the most critical player on the other team while doing it, why not? Are guys intentionally trying to hurt people? Maybe not. But when you deliver a certain type of illegal hit like that, can you be shocked when it happens?

I'd like to see any personal foul penalty—or at least the late hit/blow to the head/railing a return man kind—result in the defensive player needing to sit out a certain number of series. Yes, the game will always be physical, and there will always be injuries, even on legal hits (or no contact), but we simply need to get certain types of hits out of the game. It will never be a perfectly safe game, but we can make it safer.

honestly, just playin devil's advocate here for a minute...its not like this never happens to a qb/k on these sort of plays....kick-offs and interceptions, so why isnt there a little more emphasis on those 2 players actually keeping their eyes open for these technically legal hits?  While I agree its plain that the 40 yard down the field hits are mostly cheap and unnecessary, would you agree that once and a while a player actually hustles from 'out-of nowhere' to make a play so that what if the unchecked qb does so...or what if the defensive back actually beats the other 10 players and the qb who did not get ear-holed by the opportunistic DLman is left to make a TD saving tackle....?  I say the rule should be that the DLman should wear a whistle that he is required to blow 3secs before he is about to light up the QB on interceptions.  That is fair warning for the train wreck that qb is about to encounter to add insult to his injury/poor pass....

Everyone loves to say "its football". It's part of the game.  If the most unrealistic, bizarre, divine scenario happens, than that player that just got annihilated could be a part of the play. Come on.  He's not.  He won't be.  Football is a game with a purpose.  There's no purpose in sideswiping a QB, Kicker, or Punter that's barely involved.

Why don't we start chop blocking cheerleaders? How about fans or coaches? Because at that point, 40 yards down the field, a QB, Punter, or Kicker is just the same as any one of those people.  And that's not just limited to QB's, Punters, or Kickers.  Its just that D-Lineman love to prey on something half the size of them.  They aren't taking cheap shots on 6'4 285lb O-Lineman, its the QB they go after.   

[AlfredSaxon8]

82,
I listened to Gene and Peters broadcast from start to finish.
They did mention the aircast and the ambulance etc, but you are right they would have no way to know about the players dad.
As for any cheap shot- the only one that was mentioned was Benderski, and Peter was pretty critical of him.

As he should have been. I understand football players hit late, and emotions run high, but there was no need for that one. The pick was well down field, and the QB wasn't going to make the play. Forget the loss of field position in a game that no one could move the ball, but more importantly, there is a right way to play. Luckily it didn't end up in an injury.

We were playing a scrimmage against Hobart in 05 and I thew a pass, the receiver caught it ran about 15-20 yards to the 2 yard line, then fumbled.  The Hobart player bent down to pick it up and that's all I saw.  I got smoked, 40+ yards from the play.  No flag, just a really bad headache. 

INT's, fumbles, any turnover on offense suck. Not just because you threw a pick or turned the ball over, but because as you are watching what is happening downfield, 30 yards away from the play, the 285lb lineman that just got worked over decides to earhole you.

When I originally saw this post, I didn't realize the circumstances of the hit and it seemed rational.  I said I understood emotions get high.  But the way you guys are describing it, it really was a cheap shot and it kind of irks me. There's no excuse for it.  There's a huge difference between playing to the whistle and taking a cheap shot.  There's no need for it in today's game, there's enough injuries amongst players that were actually involved in the play.

Maybe next time he can take out the punter after a fair catch.     

I agree. I think the mentality is that this is kind of a free shot at a quarterback who's probably not paying attention to you so you might as well go for the gusto.

Frankly, these kinds of hits need to have a much stiffer penalty. Really, what's 15 yards on an INT return? Unless it calls back a TD, that's like thinking you've seen a $20 bill on the sidewalk and it turns out being a $10 bill instead. Sure, it's not as good as you thought, but it's still money you didn't have before. And if you can knock out the most critical player on the other team while doing it, why not? Are guys intentionally trying to hurt people? Maybe not. But when you deliver a certain type of illegal hit like that, can you be shocked when it happens?

I'd like to see any personal foul penalty—or at least the late hit/blow to the head/railing a return man kind—result in the defensive player needing to sit out a certain number of series. Yes, the game will always be physical, and there will always be injuries, even on legal hits (or no contact), but we simply need to get certain types of hits out of the game. It will never be a perfectly safe game, but we can make it safer.

honestly, just playin devil's advocate here for a minute...its not like this never happens to a qb/k on these sort of plays....kick-offs and interceptions, so why isnt there a little more emphasis on those 2 players actually keeping their eyes open for these technically legal hits?  While I agree its plain that the 40 yard down the field hits are mostly cheap and unnecessary, would you agree that once and a while a player actually hustles from 'out-of nowhere' to make a play so that what if the unchecked qb does so...or what if the defensive back actually beats the other 10 players and the qb who did not get ear-holed by the opportunistic DLman is left to make a TD saving tackle....?  I say the rule should be that the DLman should wear a whistle that he is required to blow 3secs before he is about to light up the QB on interceptions.  That is fair warning for the train wreck that qb is about to encounter to add insult to his injury/poor pass....

I think if a QB is a legitimate threat to the ballcarrier (IE., not 40 yards downfield), then he's fair game.

Couldn't agree more.  If he wants to pull a Brian Morman and go one on one with Sean Taylor (RIP) then he's got exactly what comes to him.

[Bombers798891]

honestly, just playin devil's advocate here for a minute...its not like this never happens to a qb/k on these sort of plays....kick-offs and interceptions, so why isnt there a little more emphasis on those 2 players actually keeping their eyes open for these technically legal hits?  While I agree its plain that the 40 yard down the field hits are mostly cheap and unnecessary, would you agree that once and a while a player actually hustles from 'out-of nowhere' to make a play so that what if the unchecked qb does so...or what if the defensive back actually beats the other 10 players and the qb who did not get ear-holed by the opportunistic DLman is left to make a TD saving tackle....?  I say the rule should be that the DLman should wear a whistle that he is required to blow 3secs before he is about to light up the QB on interceptions.  That is fair warning for the train wreck that qb is about to encounter to add insult to his injury/poor pass....

But again, I think we're talking about a play where the QB isn't near the area of the play. And honestly, I've seen it happen on plays where quarterbacks aren't even moving towards the area of play, because they know they aren't going to make a play on the guy. Sometimes the give a little half-hearted jog, but you know they're just hoping they don't need to do anything.

To me, the goal of some of these hits isn't to prevent a QB/K from making a tackle. It's to take a free shot at a QB. Let's be honest, (and don't take this as an insult AS8), most of those guys aren't threats to track down a DB or KR in the open field anyway. Most guys play the position they play for a reason. A QB getting ear-holed 40 yards from a cornerback running in the open field is just stupid. Even worse is when the DB in question has passed the QB, and the hit occurs behind the play.

Now, if the QB is in the area and going after a guy, then yes, he's got a responsibility to keep himself aware of his surroundings. It's sort of like self-defense. When does someone stop being a threat? That's when common sense needs to take over.

However, your whistle idea is pretty funny. Like those Terry Tate "Office Linebacker" commercials. "The pain train is coming!!!"

[sjfcards]

I think if a QB is a legitimate threat to the ballcarrier (IE., not 40 yards downfield), then he's fair game.

Agreed, but I don't think that kind of play sends parents into a fit of rage. My guess is this parent saw something (like the late hit), and when you compound that with what happened to his son, then you have a recipe to fly off the edge. I can't say I blame the parent for being upset, but I also like to think I would keep it together in that situation.

If a QB is trying to get into a play, then blow him up if you can. But if he is staying away from the ball and just looking busy, then let him be.

[Bombers798891]

Curious as to what people thought of the Oklahoma State-Savannah State game. I know the concept of a money game makes these things some what necessary, but 84-0? I think that's a little embarrassing for all parties involved. The athletic department gets its money, but who else benefits?

[Jonny Utah]

82,
I listened to Gene and Peters broadcast from start to finish.
They did mention the aircast and the ambulance etc, but you are right they would have no way to know about the players dad.
As for any cheap shot- the only one that was mentioned was Benderski, and Peter was pretty critical of him.

As he should have been. I understand football players hit late, and emotions run high, but there was no need for that one. The pick was well down field, and the QB wasn't going to make the play. Forget the loss of field position in a game that no one could move the ball, but more importantly, there is a right way to play. Luckily it didn't end up in an injury.

We were playing a scrimmage against Hobart in 05 and I thew a pass, the receiver caught it ran about 15-20 yards to the 2 yard line, then fumbled.  The Hobart player bent down to pick it up and that's all I saw.  I got smoked, 40+ yards from the play.  No flag, just a really bad headache. 

INT's, fumbles, any turnover on offense suck. Not just because you threw a pick or turned the ball over, but because as you are watching what is happening downfield, 30 yards away from the play, the 285lb lineman that just got worked over decides to earhole you.

When I originally saw this post, I didn't realize the circumstances of the hit and it seemed rational.  I said I understood emotions get high.  But the way you guys are describing it, it really was a cheap shot and it kind of irks me. There's no excuse for it.  There's a huge difference between playing to the whistle and taking a cheap shot.  There's no need for it in today's game, there's enough injuries amongst players that were actually involved in the play.

Maybe next time he can take out the punter after a fair catch.     

I agree. I think the mentality is that this is kind of a free shot at a quarterback who's probably not paying attention to you so you might as well go for the gusto.

Frankly, these kinds of hits need to have a much stiffer penalty. Really, what's 15 yards on an INT return? Unless it calls back a TD, that's like thinking you've seen a $20 bill on the sidewalk and it turns out being a $10 bill instead. Sure, it's not as good as you thought, but it's still money you didn't have before. And if you can knock out the most critical player on the other team while doing it, why not? Are guys intentionally trying to hurt people? Maybe not. But when you deliver a certain type of illegal hit like that, can you be shocked when it happens?

I'd like to see any personal foul penalty—or at least the late hit/blow to the head/railing a return man kind—result in the defensive player needing to sit out a certain number of series. Yes, the game will always be physical, and there will always be injuries, even on legal hits (or no contact), but we simply need to get certain types of hits out of the game. It will never be a perfectly safe game, but we can make it safer.

honestly, just playin devil's advocate here for a minute...its not like this never happens to a qb/k on these sort of plays....kick-offs and interceptions, so why isnt there a little more emphasis on those 2 players actually keeping their eyes open for these technically legal hits?  While I agree its plain that the 40 yard down the field hits are mostly cheap and unnecessary, would you agree that once and a while a player actually hustles from 'out-of nowhere' to make a play so that what if the unchecked qb does so...or what if the defensive back actually beats the other 10 players and the qb who did not get ear-holed by the opportunistic DLman is left to make a TD saving tackle....?  I say the rule should be that the DLman should wear a whistle that he is required to blow 3secs before he is about to light up the QB on interceptions.  That is fair warning for the train wreck that qb is about to encounter to add insult to his injury/poor pass....

Everyone loves to say "its football". It's part of the game.  If the most unrealistic, bizarre, divine scenario happens, than that player that just got annihilated could be a part of the play. Come on.  He's not.  He won't be.  Football is a game with a purpose.  There's no purpose in sideswiping a QB, Kicker, or Punter that's barely involved.

Why don't we start chop blocking cheerleaders? How about fans or coaches? Because at that point, 40 yards down the field, a QB, Punter, or Kicker is just the same as any one of those people.  And that's not just limited to QB's, Punters, or Kickers.  Its just that D-Lineman love to prey on something half the size of them.  They aren't taking cheap shots on 6'4 285lb O-Lineman, its the QB they go after.   

I can't seem to find it online, but a rule came out a few years ago which said you could not block another player if that player was "not involved" in the play.  I can't remember the exact wording, but it was intended for situations like what is described here.  The QB that throws a pick but doesn't run after the ball, or the punter who doesn't get involved, or the defender who runs 50 yards behind the play and isn't looking.

This is in MA high school rules and MA uses NCAA rules for the most part with some federation rules sprinkled in. So I could be wrong about it being an NCAA rule.

[sjfcards]

Curious as to what people thought of the Oklahoma State-Savannah State game. I know the concept of a money game makes these things some what necessary, but 84-0? I think that's a little embarrassing for all parties involved. The athletic department gets its money, but who else benefits?

Mike and Mike had an interesting point about that game on Monday morning. Basically they were questioning how the NCAA, college presidents, ad's, etc can say they don't want an 8 team (or more) playoff due to player safety, but they will let a team that clearly does not belong on the same field with a superior opponent play so the smaller school can cash a check.

They also discussed who is to blame, i.e. the NCAA, or Savannah States athletic department for basically selling out their players. Interesting discussion for sure...

[Jonny Utah]

Curious as to what people thought of the Oklahoma State-Savannah State game. I know the concept of a money game makes these things some what necessary, but 84-0? I think that's a little embarrassing for all parties involved. The athletic department gets its money, but who else benefits?

Mike and Mike had an interesting point about that game on Monday morning. Basically they were questioning how the NCAA, college presidents, ad's, etc can say they don't want an 8 team (or more) playoff due to player safety, but they will let a team that clearly does not belong on the same field with a superior opponent play so the smaller school can cash a check.

They also discussed who is to blame, i.e. the NCAA, or Savannah States athletic department for basically selling out their players. Interesting discussion for sure...

Well for every Savannah State there is a Youngstown (beat Pitt) or an Applachian State (beating Michigan a few years back). 1-AA teams hang often enough with the big boys, and games like this can be a recruiting tool for those smaller schools.

[Bombers798891]

Curious as to what people thought of the Oklahoma State-Savannah State game. I know the concept of a money game makes these things some what necessary, but 84-0? I think that's a little embarrassing for all parties involved. The athletic department gets its money, but who else benefits?

Mike and Mike had an interesting point about that game on Monday morning. Basically they were questioning how the NCAA, college presidents, ad's, etc can say they don't want an 8 team (or more) playoff due to player safety, but they will let a team that clearly does not belong on the same field with a superior opponent play so the smaller school can cash a check.

They also discussed who is to blame, i.e. the NCAA, or Savannah States athletic department for basically selling out their players. Interesting discussion for sure...

Well for every Savannah State there is a Youngstown (beat Pitt) or an Applachian State (beating Michigan a few years back). 1-AA teams hang often enough with the big boys, and games like this can be a recruiting tool for those smaller schools.

It's not a 1-for-1 trade like you describe. It'd bet it's more like 1-for-20

[Jonny Utah]

Curious as to what people thought of the Oklahoma State-Savannah State game. I know the concept of a money game makes these things some what necessary, but 84-0? I think that's a little embarrassing for all parties involved. The athletic department gets its money, but who else benefits?

Mike and Mike had an interesting point about that game on Monday morning. Basically they were questioning how the NCAA, college presidents, ad's, etc can say they don't want an 8 team (or more) playoff due to player safety, but they will let a team that clearly does not belong on the same field with a superior opponent play so the smaller school can cash a check.

They also discussed who is to blame, i.e. the NCAA, or Savannah States athletic department for basically selling out their players. Interesting discussion for sure...

Well for every Savannah State there is a Youngstown (beat Pitt) or an Applachian State (beating Michigan a few years back). 1-AA teams hang often enough with the big boys, and games like this can be a recruiting tool for those smaller schools.

It's not a 1-for-1 trade like you describe. It'd bet it's more like 1-for-20

I meant for every 84-0 blowout, you might have a win or close game on the other side.

[Bombers798891]

Curious as to what people thought of the Oklahoma State-Savannah State game. I know the concept of a money game makes these things some what necessary, but 84-0? I think that's a little embarrassing for all parties involved. The athletic department gets its money, but who else benefits?

Mike and Mike had an interesting point about that game on Monday morning. Basically they were questioning how the NCAA, college presidents, ad's, etc can say they don't want an 8 team (or more) playoff due to player safety, but they will let a team that clearly does not belong on the same field with a superior opponent play so the smaller school can cash a check.

They also discussed who is to blame, i.e. the NCAA, or Savannah States athletic department for basically selling out their players. Interesting discussion for sure...

Well for every Savannah State there is a Youngstown (beat Pitt) or an Applachian State (beating Michigan a few years back). 1-AA teams hang often enough with the big boys, and games like this can be a recruiting tool for those smaller schools.

It's not a 1-for-1 trade like you describe. It'd bet it's more like 1-for-20

I meant for every 84-0 blowout, you might have a win or close game on the other side.

Maybe, but I bet if we looked at all FBS/FCS games involving Top 25 teams, you'd see 10 40+ blowouts for every one that's 10 or closer

[Jonny Utah]

Curious as to what people thought of the Oklahoma State-Savannah State game. I know the concept of a money game makes these things some what necessary, but 84-0? I think that's a little embarrassing for all parties involved. The athletic department gets its money, but who else benefits?

Mike and Mike had an interesting point about that game on Monday morning. Basically they were questioning how the NCAA, college presidents, ad's, etc can say they don't want an 8 team (or more) playoff due to player safety, but they will let a team that clearly does not belong on the same field with a superior opponent play so the smaller school can cash a check.

They also discussed who is to blame, i.e. the NCAA, or Savannah States athletic department for basically selling out their players. Interesting discussion for sure...

Well for every Savannah State there is a Youngstown (beat Pitt) or an Applachian State (beating Michigan a few years back). 1-AA teams hang often enough with the big boys, and games like this can be a recruiting tool for those smaller schools.

It's not a 1-for-1 trade like you describe. It'd bet it's more like 1-for-20

I meant for every 84-0 blowout, you might have a win or close game on the other side.

Maybe, but I bet if we looked at all FBS/FCS games involving Top 25 teams, you'd see 10 40+ blowouts for every one that's 10 or closer

You are probably right, but it is still a chance for a small program to make a big name for themselves and get some experience against some bigger schools in a bigtime enviornment.  These games are also planned a few years in advance so you don't always know how great or how awful either team will be.

Sometimes these games aren't as bad as the score indicates either.  Many of them have 4-5 special teams/defensive/big play touchdowns which make the games seem worse than they are.

Hell that Michigan/Alabama game seemed like it should have been 55-0.

[Bombers798891]

You are probably right, but it is still a chance for a small program to make a big name for themselves and get some experience against some bigger schools in a bigtime enviornment.  These games are also planned a few years in advance so you don't always know how great or how awful either team will be.

Sometimes these games aren't as bad as the score indicates either.  Many of them have 4-5 special teams/defensive/big play touchdowns which make the games seem worse than they are.

Hell that Michigan/Alabama game seemed like it should have been 55-0.

I agree with that.

[SJFF82]

82,
I listened to Gene and Peters broadcast from start to finish.
They did mention the aircast and the ambulance etc, but you are right they would have no way to know about the players dad.
As for any cheap shot- the only one that was mentioned was Benderski, and Peter was pretty critical of him.

As he should have been. I understand football players hit late, and emotions run high, but there was no need for that one. The pick was well down field, and the QB wasn't going to make the play. Forget the loss of field position in a game that no one could move the ball, but more importantly, there is a right way to play. Luckily it didn't end up in an injury.

We were playing a scrimmage against Hobart in 05 and I thew a pass, the receiver caught it ran about 15-20 yards to the 2 yard line, then fumbled.  The Hobart player bent down to pick it up and that's all I saw.  I got smoked, 40+ yards from the play.  No flag, just a really bad headache. 

INT's, fumbles, any turnover on offense suck. Not just because you threw a pick or turned the ball over, but because as you are watching what is happening downfield, 30 yards away from the play, the 285lb lineman that just got worked over decides to earhole you.

When I originally saw this post, I didn't realize the circumstances of the hit and it seemed rational.  I said I understood emotions get high.  But the way you guys are describing it, it really was a cheap shot and it kind of irks me. There's no excuse for it.  There's a huge difference between playing to the whistle and taking a cheap shot.  There's no need for it in today's game, there's enough injuries amongst players that were actually involved in the play.

Maybe next time he can take out the punter after a fair catch.     

I agree. I think the mentality is that this is kind of a free shot at a quarterback who's probably not paying attention to you so you might as well go for the gusto.

Frankly, these kinds of hits need to have a much stiffer penalty. Really, what's 15 yards on an INT return? Unless it calls back a TD, that's like thinking you've seen a $20 bill on the sidewalk and it turns out being a $10 bill instead. Sure, it's not as good as you thought, but it's still money you didn't have before. And if you can knock out the most critical player on the other team while doing it, why not? Are guys intentionally trying to hurt people? Maybe not. But when you deliver a certain type of illegal hit like that, can you be shocked when it happens?

I'd like to see any personal foul penalty—or at least the late hit/blow to the head/railing a return man kind—result in the defensive player needing to sit out a certain number of series. Yes, the game will always be physical, and there will always be injuries, even on legal hits (or no contact), but we simply need to get certain types of hits out of the game. It will never be a perfectly safe game, but we can make it safer.

honestly, just playin devil's advocate here for a minute...its not like this never happens to a qb/k on these sort of plays....kick-offs and interceptions, so why isnt there a little more emphasis on those 2 players actually keeping their eyes open for these technically legal hits?  While I agree its plain that the 40 yard down the field hits are mostly cheap and unnecessary, would you agree that once and a while a player actually hustles from 'out-of nowhere' to make a play so that what if the unchecked qb does so...or what if the defensive back actually beats the other 10 players and the qb who did not get ear-holed by the opportunistic DLman is left to make a TD saving tackle....?  I say the rule should be that the DLman should wear a whistle that he is required to blow 3secs before he is about to light up the QB on interceptions.  That is fair warning for the train wreck that qb is about to encounter to add insult to his injury/poor pass....

Everyone loves to say "its football". It's part of the game.  If the most unrealistic, bizarre, divine scenario happens, than that player that just got annihilated could be a part of the play. Come on.  He's not.  He won't be.  Football is a game with a purpose.  There's no purpose in sideswiping a QB, Kicker, or Punter that's barely involved.

Why don't we start chop blocking cheerleaders? How about fans or coaches? Because at that point, 40 yards down the field, a QB, Punter, or Kicker is just the same as any one of those people.  And that's not just limited to QB's, Punters, or Kickers.  Its just that D-Lineman love to prey on something half the size of them.  They aren't taking cheap shots on 6'4 285lb O-Lineman, its the QB they go after.   

really...chop-blocking cheerleaders?  Is that the same as legally de-cleating a guy wearing the number 7 on his jersey and who is wearing a helmet and who just through an errant pass and could still effect the outcome of a play?  I said I was playing devil's advocate, but cmon?  BTW, if a dlineman on such a play is 40 yds down field from int along side the qb, at what point does the dlineman have your blessing to take out the qb?  Does he have to run along side him and ask his permission?  To make it fair to DLman, does QB have to give advance warning that he might take off sprinting back into the play so that the DLman doesnt give up his opportunity to take him out?