Thread: The hit on Cutler: clean or dirty? Agree with Marshall or Peppers?

The point is, your average runningback wasn't as big as Jim Brown, who not so coincidentally, has the highest average in league history. Put him or Butkus in today's game, and they'll be great, but not anymore outstanding than Adrian Peterson or Brian Urlacher. Babe ruth was known to be a fat guy, when he weighed 215 pounds, at 6'2. Obviously he didn't have the muscle mass any of today's players have. Plus, pre-integration players didn't have to play against some of the best talent of their career, so that makes them irrelevant, unless you worship the history books....

Too many people equate "not illegal" with clean. You see it all the time with Politicians. "I have done nothing illegal"... is not the same as saying " I have done nothing wrong"

That takedown may not have been defined in the rulebook, but it was DIRTY. That type of move could land someone in a wheelchair. If it happens again, it will be defined in the rulebook, and will also limit other legitimate moves.

Just look at Suh's past and you can clearly see his intent. Time and time again, Suh has tried to maim Cutler. HELLO! Last year he ripped off Cutlers helmet and then tried to kick Cutler in the face. THATS NOT FOOTBALL.

Originally Posted by bearsinhouston

Ken:

I'd be interested in your definition of dirty. Can you elaborate? Seriously, I'd like to understand what dirty is and how one creates a rule around dirty and not dirty. First you must have a concise definition that is actionable. You seem like you have a very strong opinion that this is dirty and so I assume, you have something that you are guaging it against that makes it dirty.

Just saying he was trying to hurt Cutler I don't think would meet any actionable rules as one can not easily prove intent. Also, I would concede that he was in fact trying to knock Cutler out of the game. Does trying to knock out a player or take away his will to play in the game constitute "dirty" in your opinion, or is it something else?

I am not trying to be a jerk, I would really like to understand how you would create a real world rule to stop what you consider dirty and you need a definition first. Maybe you are onto something that I do not think is possible.

This is not an easy topic.

Having played the sport there were many times I wanted to take a guy out of the game because he was destroying us. But I never tried to hurt anyone. Never. And I never went out of my way to cheap shot somebody. I tried to beat them on the field. There are different types of players out there. Some are decent and some are dirty. Guess what type Suh is.

Originally Posted by KenMasters

Too many people equate "not illegal" with clean. You see it all the time with Politicians. "I have done nothing illegal"... is not the same as saying " I have done nothing wrong"

Interesting point..I am not ready to agree with you, but you at least make a strong case...

Originally Posted by Henry Burris

The point is, your average runningback wasn't as big as Jim Brown, who not so coincidentally, has the highest average in league history. Put him or Butkus in today's game, and they'll be great, but not anymore outstanding than Adrian Peterson or Brian Urlacher. Babe ruth was known to be a fat guy, when he weighed 215 pounds, at 6'2. Obviously he didn't have the muscle mass any of today's players have. Plus, pre-integration players didn't have to play against some of the best talent of their career, so that makes them irrelevant, unless you worship the history books....

Henry, I don't think it's posssible to make a blanket statement saying this applies to all players from earlier eras (even the ones smaller than Brown or Butkus), and here's why I feel that way. Some undersized players in the modern era are excellent players today - even Pro Bowl level players. So my feeling is that unless you'd could give a player from the past the opportunity to match up with current NFL players (which obviously is impossible) you can't say for sure. Not for any given player.

In addition to this, the game itself has changed. Butkus did some things light-years better than Urlacher. But Urlacher does some things Butkus couldn't do well at all. Put Urlacher on some of those teams Butkus played on, and I don't think he'd do as well, but the reverse is true also (Butkus would get killed trying to play Lovie's cover-2 in covering receivers).

I'm OK though, in saying a percentage of players from the past may very well not be so good in today's game. But to be honest, I don't think all of today's "stars" would be able to excel in past era's. Not all of them. It was a very different game in past era's.

Regarding the integration issue. That is a great point. But again, we'll never know how this may have affected individual players' ability to be Hall of Fame level players. For some, it may have meant they never would have been as great. But other players may have excelled anyway.

My point is, you will never know for sure how each player would be affected. Not unless you could build a time machine and let a great player from the past actually PLAY against today's players.

It's a great disservice to automatically say a guy from the past would not be good today. It would be like saying a great man from any historical past would not be special by today's standards (Albert Einstein, William Shakespeare, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., or any great figure from the past). It's just MHO that we should respect the "great ones" from the past and let them be.

Of course Henry, I'm a zealot about the past NFL players, so take all of this with a grain of salt I'm a "relic" too...

Originally Posted by JustAnotherBearsFan99

Henry, I don't think it's posssible to make a blanket statement saying this applies to all players from earlier eras (even the ones smaller than Brown or Butkus), and here's why I feel that way. Some undersized players in the modern era are excellent players today - even Pro Bowl level players. So my feeling is that unless you'd could give a player from the past the opportunity to match up with current NFL players (which obviously is impossible) you can't say for sure. Not for any given player.

In addition to this, the game itself has changed. Butkus did some things light-years better than Urlacher. But Urlacher does some things Butkus couldn't do well at all. Put Urlacher on some of those teams Butkus played on, and I don't think he'd do as well, but the reverse is true also (Butkus would get killed trying to play Lovie's cover-2 in covering receivers).

I'm OK though, in saying a percentage of players from the past may very well not be so good in today's game. But to be honest, I don't think all of today's "stars" would be able to excel in past era's. Not all of them. It was a very different game in past era's.

Regarding the integration issue. That is a great point. But again, we'll never know how this may have affected individual players' ability to be Hall of Fame level players. For some, it may have meant they never would have been as great. But other players may have excelled anyway.

My point is, you will never know for sure how each player would be affected. Not unless you could build a time machine and let a great player from the past actually PLAY against today's players.

Of course Henry, I'm a zealot about the past NFL players, so take all of this with a grain of salt I'm a "relic" too...

You're going way out of bounds by bringing in the non sports related players, so I cut that out of the quote. Now, I'm sorry, but if you took Urlacher in his prime, against Butkus' opponents, in their prime, you'd have someone who is an unparalleled freak. The players of old, even the great ones, didn't have the medicine, the surgical treatment and exercise capabilities that todays players do. I'm not saying Butkus wasn't special, but if you took him from then to today, he wouldn't be as outstanding in his play. That is, he wouldn't be the LB that everyone watches for. For the longest time, that was Urlacher and Lewis, at that position. Butkus would just be another great player. Now, given how he did against the talent he played back then, he's "the scariest linebacker ever", because he was simply bigger and faster than everyone else, which besides team parity, there is also a talent parity too. Yes, there are undersized players today that excell, but there aren't any 250lb DTs either. Flat out, before blacks were allowed to play baseball, I don't think any of it should matter. Why? Because only having one race allowed to play something excludes a majority of great players. Let's see Babe Ruth's fatass try to swing on Bob Gibson, and his numbers go down...

@bearsinhouston
1) Suh put his right arm on the left side of Cutler's neck
2) Suh was pulling Cutler's left arm
3) Suh Tripped Cutler (illegal)
4) Suh transferred his entire body weight across Cutler's neck.
That move was meant to permanently injure someone.

Here is how I would define it:
"A rushing defender is prohibited from committing such intimidating and punishing acts as “stuffing” a
passer into the ground or unnecessarily wrestling or driving him down"

"a defensive player must not unnecessarily or violently throw him down and land on
top of him with all or most of the defender’s weight. Instead, the defensive player must strive to wrap
up or cradle the passer with the defensive player’s arms."

"There shall be no unnecessary roughness. This shall include, but will not be limited to:
striking an opponent anywhere with the foot or any part of the leg with a whipping motion"