With the Lions 1-7 coming into Sunday's away game in Minnesota, I can't say I was expecting much from the Lions.  Well, I guess I should say, "with the Lions as bad as they've been for the past decade, I wasn't expecting much."  But seriously, there's no miraculous eight game winning streak to sneak into the playoffs.  There's probably no beating Brett Favre, on the road no less.

What I was most interested in this Sunday was how No. 1 pick, Matthew Stafford, responded to last week's puke-inducing five interception day.  You can tell a lot about a player with the way they respond to a potentially confidence shattering performance like the one Stafford had in Seattle in Week 9.

Stafford responded like a man.

Stafford was 29-51 for 224 yards and a touchdown.  What might be the most important stat after five last week was Stafford's doughnut in the INT column this week.   And I imagine it wasn't very easy to do.

Stafford was pressured all day long by the Vikings front four, endless LB blitzes, and an inept offensive line did not make things any easier on Stafford.  He was sacked just three times, but he was hit nearly 20 times throughout the course of the game.

But Stafford was never phased.  He stood in the pocket, as long as he possibly could before getting blown up, and made smart decisions with the football.  Despite the constant heat, Stafford still completed 29 passes and he should have had 5-6 more if it weren't for drops by his wide receivers.

Big Al over at The Wayne Fontes Experience has a good piece that brings together some quotes that really shed light on just how respectable of a game Stafford had today, despite the 17 point loss:

Towards the end of my running diary I called Stafford the "one bright spot" in what was a dreary afternoon for Lions fans:

There's one bright spot today. Stafford has thrown the ball 51 times, but zero picks. After the 5 pick horror, that's progress. I'm not going to pin much blame on Stafford for the loss. If anything, the rookie proved he's willing to stand up under pressure, and throw the ball while taking a great deal of punishment.

Michael Rosenberg said as much in his Freep post game column:

But this isn’t about his arm. It is about his toughness. The Vikings hit the rookie everywhere but his paycheck — by the end of the game, his left shoulder pad was hanging out of his jersey and he was out of breath at the line of scrimmage.

Yet he never looked scared, not for a second.

So did Killer Kowaslski at Mlive:

This is not the season for Stafford to put up gaudy numbers or engineer a lot of wins, there's just not enough help around him to do it. But what Stafford has done so far this season is show he's got the toughness and the leadership it takes to be a successful quarterback in the NFL.

You have to believe the lockerroom is behind him 110% after a game like that.  I'm very excited to see this kid continue to grow as the leader of the Detroit Lions.  Kudos, Matthew Stafford!

Then there's guys you can't respect.  Meet Ray Edwards, the same guy who was suspended for steroids in 2007.

This might sound like sour grapes, but I assure you it's far from it.  Ray Edwards is trash.  Yes, he dominated the Lions today, but the head-to-head hit he put on Stafford, which landed him a roughing the passer penalty, was straight-up DIRTY.

Have a look (via Buster Sports):

All I have to say after watching that replay over-and-over again is Ray Edwards is lucky.  He's lucky his teammate got to Stafford first and moved Stafford, so Edwards helmet grazed Stafford's facemask as opposed to being a straight on blow to his head.

I'm troubled by this hit because a) it's illegal b) this type of dirty hit can ruin a guy's career.  The last thing Stafford needs in his rookie season, a week after he threw five interceptions, and was just injured recently, is a concussion to further eff with his confidence level.  Obviously, Edwards isn't concerned with Stafford's "confidence level," but nobody should be out there purposely laying dirty hits on people to injure them.  That's the type of blatantly illegal hit that changes careers for the worst.

Brad Childress and Edwards didn't agree with the call and I can't fathom that.  They should both be happy he didn't fully land the hit and didn't injure Stafford.  If it had, Edwards could have expected at least the second suspension in his NFL career.  And who knows, maybe he still will.

Yes, the Lions blocker appears to cut Edwards, which would force anyone with athletic instincts to jump, but that doesn't mean he has to lunge forward and lead with his helmet in the direction of Stafford's head.  It's illegal in the NFL for a reason and it was flagged for a reason.  It was trash and Edwards is a punk if he thinks he was in the right.

Comments (18)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by Darth_Icarus, November 16, 2009

The best (worst?) part about that giant douche canoe Edwards' hit was that the crowd was booing unmercifully afterward like it was a clean hit. Everyone knows had a Lions lineman done that to His Holiness Favre there would've been a riot. I almost wish a Lion had done that just to prove you can't hit our guy with a cheap shot like that and get away with it...of course that would've required them to actually get to Favre and apply pressure, maybe next season

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Bill, November 16, 2009

Vikings fan, but I honestly don't see where you're getting that (aside from the preconceived notion that Ray Edwards is a bad guy because he apparently once took steroids like almost every other player in the NFL has). You don't see any helmet-to-helmet contact there, nor is there any indication that that's what Edwards was going for. Looks to me like he made a great move and led with his shoulder. Yeah, it was dangerous, but football's dangerous. And the "sure, you expect him to jump when he gets cut, but don't jump in such a way that you're still trying to do your job and get to the quarterback!" idea toward the end there just doesn't make any sense to me at all.

All it is to me is further confirmation that the league needs to figure out what the hell it's doing with its protecting-the-quarterback rules. Not every hard hit is an illegal hit. Edwards lunged for the quarterback and hit him hard with his shoulder while the ball was still in his hands. That's just a good football player playing football.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Bobby B, November 16, 2009

Bill, anytime a guy lunges at a QB's head, let alone with with his helmet, it's not a good football play. It's dirty. I don't see where you're getting that he leads with his shoulder. If it weren't for Stafford getting knocked back first, Edwards would have hit Stafford straight on, helmet-to-helmet. It's clear as day.

And I said, "Yes, the Lions blocker appears to cut Edwards, which would force anyone with athletic instincts to jump, but that doesn't mean he has to lunge forward and lead with his helmet in the direction of Stafford's head," which is much different than the quote idea you somehow formulated from that. Lunging at a QB's head, with your helment, is illegal. Flat out.

As for preconceived notions, whatever. He took steroids, it's illegal and he got suspended. Your "like almost everyone else in the NFL has" comment is fair, but irrelevant. It's still illegal and doesn't make it right. But I assure you, preconceived notions about steroids didn't play a role in my thinking that that hit was trash.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Bill, November 16, 2009

I almost think you have to really want to see it that way to see it that way. If you pause it at the moment he leaves the ground, you can see that he's nowhere near lined up for a head-to-head hit, whether Stafford gets "knocked back" or not (and I think you're seriously overstating that; Edwards and the other guy seem to get there at exactly the same time, and Stafford's upper half is just exactly where it was when Edwards left the ground). He would've had to twist wildly out of his way to make that happen. He "led with his helmet" only in the sense that, when you're traveling more or less horizontally, your head is the foremost part of your body. There's no sense there at all that he's attempting to hit him with his helmet. And there's nothing illegal about what he actually did.

Which I guess explains the difference in my phony "quote" and what you actually said -- if you really believe that he was lunging at the quarterback with his helmet, then sure, that's illegal. I just can't see any support for that position in the video. There's certainly nothing wrong with jumping to avoid a block and letting your jump carry you into the quarterback. It was an amazing athletic play, and I think it's a shame that the refs suddenly have no idea what they're doing w/r/t all these special quarterback rules.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Bobby B, November 16, 2009

Bill,

With all due respect, you're a Vikings fan. You're not going to see it because YOU don't want to. I have nothing to gain by saying Edwards is a punk, but you definitely feel it's best to defend your favorite team's player and I don't blame you.

However, it's AS CLEAR AS DAY. There's all kinds of "sense" into seeing it as a helmet-to-helmet, after all it was freaking called that way and the video is, again, CLEAR AS DAY. If this was a Lions player we were talking about here, I'd be saying the same thing -- great job avoiding the block by jumping, but lunging at the quarterback's head is absolute trash. Period.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Bill, November 16, 2009

We must both be doing a bit of "seeing what we want to see." I think it's "AS CLEAR AS DAY" that he is not trying for a helmet-to-helmet hit there -- again, pause it when he begins his jump, the angles just don't work -- and I'm quite confident that I'd be saying the same thing if the teams were reversed. He hit the quarterback (who, again, plainly didn't budge an inch, of his own volition or anyone else's, from the time Edwards jumped to the time of the hit) with his shoulder, and, yeah, the shoulder came in a little high, but that's pretty hard to control, and there's nothing per se illegal in that.

Of course I'm not inclined to believe the guy on my team is a dirty player or whatever, but you've got just as much incentive to see it as a cheap shot against your quarterback. It's the nature of fandom. Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle. One thing that's obvious, though, is that where two reasonable people can look at the same video over and over and be convinced that they saw opposite things, it's not "AS CLEAR AS DAY" that he was trying to put on an illegal hit.

Another thing: it's one thing to have the kind of amazing instincts Edwards had to have in order to react that way to the attempted block. But to react that way and, in the same split-second motion, aim yourself for a direct head-to-head hit on the quarterback would be (a) maybe the most amazing display of reflexes in history, and (b) one of the dumbest things anyone has ever done on a football field (much worse even than Haynesworth stomping on that dude's head a few years ago), since it's just about the most openly visible way possible to do something that could get you fined or suspended. Flying acrobatically through the air at a quarterback who is still holding the ball and thus the entire world's attention? I'd need really strong independent evidence to convince me that any given player really is that stupid.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Bobby B, November 16, 2009

"Of course I'm not inclined to believe the guy on my team is a dirty player or whatever, but you've got just as much incentive to see it as a cheap shot against your quarterback."

I do? No, I don't actually because a) Stafford wasn't injured b) I'm not a dick. I don't enjoy calling Edwards a dirty player. I don't even believe that. I just think this was a dirty play by him. You defending your teams's player and me thinking it's a cheap shot against my team's quarterback is completely different.

I don't know if you're watching a different highlight or what, but either the wind blows Edwards to the right and grazes Stafford or someone else moved Stafford because clearly from the screen shots even Edwards was lined up directly to nail Stafford. I don't think the wind inside the Metrodome was that strong on Sunday....

You admit, or at least imply, that maybe we're not the best people to make this call and then you say two reasonable people would say it's clear as day not illegal? Maybe we should defer that to two reasonable people and not actually have you assume...

But I don't think we can completely disregard the referee and announcers on this issue. I think your opinion is grossly flawed by the fact that it was actually ruled a helmet to helmet and that the announcers admit it too, both people I'd consider reasonable in that they don't have any allegiance to either team.

And I wouldn't be so gung ho on your player's "amazing instincts." Not many options when you see someone coming at your knees (which I can easily admit is a dirty block) -- you jump. My problem is that he lunged at Stafford's head and as you stated in a previous comment, when you lunge like that your head is going to be in front of the rest of your body and if you lunge at the QB's head, then you're naturally going to have a helmet-to-helmet. And that's what we had called here.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Bill, November 16, 2009

Of course he was lined up to "nail" Stafford. Just not with his head. Shoulder tackles are OK in the NFL. Encouraged, even.

Right now I have the video paused at 0:56. Edwards is just about to leave the ground. If you draw a stright line from the top of his head, it passes right over Stafford's left shoulder. Edwards' left shoulder, on the other hand, is right in line with the dead middle of Stafford. And that's exactly how they ended up.

Appealing to the referee's authority kind of begs the question, doesn't it? They only see it in real time, and from who-knows-what angle. And the whole problem I have with the current system is that whenever a quarterback takes a hard hit this year, be it early or late, clean or dirty, it's been a personal foul. And the announcers basically said "it looked like it might have been head to head contact there. Yep, it looks like Edwards might have hit him with his helmet." And moved on. This is not overwhelming objective evidence.

Right, I admit I'm biased, but that doesn't make me unreasonable. I've watched that way too many times now, and if there had been clear evidence that it was a dirty play, I'd admit to it. I didn't defend Moss squirting water bottles at the referees and such. This just isn't that kind of "CLEAR AS DAY" case. It's at least solidly in the gray area. And if you don't think there's a natural tendency to cry foul against the other guys (especially when the other guys are a team you have a particular dislike for, as your posts seem to suggest you do, not that I'd blame you), I just don't know what to say about that. I know I've been a lot quicker to criticize the obnoxious jersey-grabbing tendencies of the Packers' DBs than the Vikings' (or, say, the Bengals' if they were playing the Vikings). If that same hit had happened against Favre, I'm *sure* I would have immediately screamed "cheap shot" (I'd like to think that I'd back off after watching the replay, but who knows?). It's natural.

Again, I don't see how my biases can get in the way of this: you look at his jumping-off point, at 0:56, and he's lined up to hit the QB with his shoulder. He goes straight through from there, and it looks like he does exactly that. It was close, but there's certainly no clear evidence that he hit him with his helmet, and no evidence at all that that was his intention. I'm trying my hardest to see it; I just don't think it's there.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Bobby B, November 16, 2009

You say he led with his shoulder even though you basically admitted earlier that when traveling horizontally, which he's clearly doing (no gray area there), "your head is the foremost part of your body." Direct quote there at the end from you.

So which is it? Is he leading with his head or his shoulder?

And even if you want to stick with he hit Stafford with his shoulder, it doesn't change the fact that he hit Stafford in the HEAD, which is the whole reason why we're having this argument:

"In addition to roughing the passer, defensive players cannot strike the quarterback below the knees or IN THE HEAD. Officials may call a roughing the passer penalty if they feel the quarterback's safety is in jeopardy." -- NFL RULES

And while I admit natural tendencies certainly occur, I assure you my feelings about this aren't stemmed from some natural tendency as a Lions fan. Trust me, being a fan of the Lions for the past decade has probably made me more cynical toward the Lions than any of their opponents. When something is as serious as a player leaping at another player and nailing them in the head, all that cynicism and jokingly dislike of other teams or their players goes right out the window.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Bob Biscigliano is the punk
written by DC, November 16, 2009

Bob Biscigliano, You sir, are an idiot. I am not a Vikings fan nor a worthless Lions fan. I am a football fan and view Edwards' play as perfectly fine. He was blocked low and the only way to get past the block was to go in the air. Any decent football player would do that. Your two main arguments are 1.) Edwards was once suspended for using steroids and 2.) Stafford is a rookie who played terribly last week and his confidence is in jeopardy.
In response to point No. 1, his steroid use in the past had nothing to do with Sunday's play.
To point No. 2, if you are worried about Stafford's confidence, put him on the bench. There's little chance of his succeeding with a terrible Lions team. If you don't think he should be hit hard because he had a bad game last week and he might get down on himself, peitition the NFL and see if they will let him wear a red jersey next game.
The play probably should have drawn a flag but there's no way you can honestly say he was trying to hurt your pretty boy quarterback. He was just trying to get to the quarterback which is what he is paid to do.
If you want to defend your Lions, go ahead. But don't do it at the expense of a good football player making a good play.

• 
• -1
• 
• 

...
written by Bobby B, November 16, 2009

@DC Call me what you want, especially considering after reading your comment it's not me that's the idiot. But my main point, not points, was that it's an illegal hit. You can't lunge at a quarterback's head. Get better. I'm sorry you had to waste all your time writing up that balderdash crap.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Bill, November 16, 2009

Bob Biscigliano, you are not an idiot.

But there's no inconsistency in what I said. I said that he led with his head "only in the sense that, when you're traveling more or less horizontally, your head is the foremost part of your body." As in, if you're going to lunge at someone, your head is furthest front. That does not mean that he attempted to make the hit using his head, or that he aimed his head at the quarterback. It's a pretty straightforward distinction, really.

I don't even think that it's clear that he hit him in the head. And if he did, it was incidental, and the rule you quoted leaves it up to the discretion of the referee whether or not to call a penalty ("Officials MAY call a roughing the passer penalty if they feel the quarterback's safety is in jeopardy."). As I indicated earlier, I don't believe even a world-class athlete has the ability to pinpoint his landing spot with that kind of accuracy during the quarter of a second or so in which he's hurtling headlong through the air. If his shoulder did make some contact with his head en route to his sternum, eh. They can technically penalize him for that, I suppose. But it's far from the kind of play that should get him condemned as a Dirty Player. FWIW, I'm searching and I can't find anything calling out the Evans cheap shot -- not from the players, not from the Detroit media, nothing...lots about how dominant he was, but nothing about his disgraceful attempt on poor Mr. Stafford's life.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Bill, November 16, 2009

*er, Edwards, not Evans. Oops.e

• 
• +0
• 
• 

What would you have done?
written by DC, November 16, 2009

The only reason you were ranting and raving is because it was your quarterback and you were afraid he might get hurt.

Here is your paragraph:
I'm troubled by this hit because a) it's illegal b) this type of dirty hit can ruin a guy's career. The last thing Stafford needs in his rookie season, a week after he threw five interceptions, and was just injured recently, is a concussion to further eff with his confidence level. Obviously, Edwards isn't concerned with Stafford's "confidence level," but nobody should be out there purposely laying dirty hits on people to injure them. That's the type of blatantly illegal hit that changes careers for the worst.

After your points about the "dirty hit" you instantly go into concerns about Stafford's confidence level. You are correct in that Edwards doesn't care about Stafford. But to say he is purposely laying a dirty hit on Stafford is about as far from the truth as it gets.

There may be a players in the league who try to hurt other players but I'm sure there aren't many who purposely lay a dirty hit on other players in an attempt to hurt them. I highly double Edwards broke the huddle on that play thinking "I am going to torpedo myself at Stafford with a dirty hit and try to end his career." That is not what happened. What happened was he decided to jump toward the quarterback as a reaction to the blocker going low on him. That's a football player doing what he thinks is best in the situation, whether right or wrong, and does not make him a punk or a dirty player and I don't think it makes it a dirty play.

Tell me what you would have done had you been rushing the quarterback and the blocker, who had already gone low to block you earlier in the game, went down in an attempt to block you. I would like to hear how you would have handled it.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Bobby B, November 16, 2009

Again, I don't think he's a dirty player. I just think it was a dirty play. You're grasping at straws if you think he wasn't hit in the head because he clearly was, whether it was with the shoulder or the helmet. I don't think there's any gray area on whether or not it should have been a penalty and that might be a reason why nobody is talking about it because the call was right and that's the end of it. I on the other hand just wanted to point out that it could have been worse and Edwards should feel lucky Stafford wasn't hurt because had he hit him straight on in the head, he could have been seriously injured at the result of an illegal hit which is definitely the issue here.

As for the rule, I'm pretty sure the "Officials MAY call a roughing the passer penalty if they feel the quarterback's safety is in jeopardy" is an addendum, not an explanation of how a hit to the knees or head is to be called. Meaning if a guy hits a QB in the knees or the head, it's a penalty. And the refs may use discretion to call any other penalty should they feel it's putting the QB's "life" as you call it, in danger.

All in all, it was a dirty play because it was illegal. I think he could have jumped the dirty block without lunging at the QB's head. If hitting Stafford in the head was truly incidental, then I'll be the first to acknowledge that. Unfortunately, neither one of us are ever going to know what Edwards true intentions there were. We only know that he flew like Superman, horizontal to the ground, and hit Stafford in the head. It was called for a penalty, it was the right call, and I wasn't happy about it -- as a Lions fan, as a Stafford fan, or as a football fan in general.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Bill, November 16, 2009

His arm made contact with Stafford's head. The force of the blow pretty clearly hit the shoulder. I'm sure they didn't intend that a penalty be assessed every time a defensive player makes contact with the quarterback's helmet in any way (though with the way they're being called this year, you'd think that it was a penatly anytime a defensive player made contact with the quarterback, period).

"Ray Edwards is a punk"
"Then there's guys you can't respect"
"Ray Edwards is trash"
"nobody should be out there purposely laying dirty hits on people to injure them."
...and later...
"Again, I don't think he's a dirty player."
"Unfortunately, neither one of us are ever going to know what Edwards true intentions there were."

Um...apology accepted? Seriously, thanks, it was a fun conversation.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Bobby B, November 16, 2009

"Then there's guys you can't respect" & "nobody should be out there purposely laying dirty hits on people to injure them," don't apply to Edwards per se. Those apply to anyone who purposefully lunges at a QB's head. I think Edwards purposefully lunged at Stafford and then he hit him in the head. I drew conclusions from that.

I won't apologize for being mad at him for lunging at a QB's head, almost seriously injuring him, but I probably should apologize for calling him a punk and trash.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Bobby B, November 16, 2009

@DC

"The only reason you were ranting and raving is because it was your quarterback and you were afraid he might get hurt."

I WAS afraid he could have been hurt, yes. But that wasn't the ONLY reason I was "ranting and raving." It was an illegal hit, thus a dirty play.

I would have handled it by not torpedoing myself at the QB's head. I would have jumped or side stepped the dirty block attempt by the Lions player, but I definitely would not have lunged into the QB's head, head first. That's exactly how I would have tried to handle it, but that's irrelevant because I'm not a defensive end in the NFL with all the athletic ability in the world.

And for the record, I'm a sports fan in general, so I would feel the same way if a Lions player went head first into Brett Favre. I'd say, that was dirty, maybe throw out an ill-advised "he's a punk" and admit that it was the right call to call it a penalty. My opinion on this does not change just because it was Stafford's head being hit here. Notice how I have no qualms with saying Maurice Morris' cut block was dirty even though we see that a whole lot more from RBs who don't know how to block like lineman than we see defensive lineman suprmanning into the heads of QBs.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Add Comment