PDA

View Full Version : Chop Block: Priest busted molesting defensive linemen's legs


Taco John
09-05-2005, 08:06 PM
I waited for a few days for this thread to magivally appear as people demanded that Preist be immediately benched for his dirty, dirty tactics during the Rams game. But yea, I didn't see one. Anyone catch Priest's cheap shot? The guy not only dove at the legs, but HE ROLLED!

:shake:

I'm just here to join in the chastisement that I'm sure is bound to ignite any second now about these dirty tactics. Knowing the sentiment around this place as I do, I know that it can be found under general agreement here that only the most cheap of players would ever do such a thing as dive at a defenders legs and then roll. And I must say that I agree. While I do support the cut block, the chop block is cheap.

Saulbadguy
09-05-2005, 08:07 PM
lol

tk13
09-05-2005, 08:11 PM
At least he was actually facing the defender, and it was actually a purposeful block. That's all I care about. :)

Seriously though, even you understand the difference between Priest's block and the block that ended the Cincy lineman's season, you'll still get a rise out of people though, I'm sure.

stevieray
09-05-2005, 08:12 PM
The difference is Priest got called for it, unlike others. As he should.

Thank goodness he didn't hurt anyone, or end their season, or even worse, hold the NFL record for consecutive years in fines for cheap play.

:D

4th and Long
09-05-2005, 08:18 PM
The difference is Priest got called for it, unlike others. As he should.

Thank goodness he didn't hurt anyone, or end their season, or even worse, hold the NFL record for consecutive years in fines for cheap play.
I don't think I can add to that without cursing. Perfection!

Phobia
09-05-2005, 08:20 PM
I think this is TJ's cheap method of campaigning for Larry Johnson.

stevieray
09-05-2005, 08:22 PM
I think this is TJ's cheap method of campaigning for Larry Johnson.

And avoiding the fact that his olineman are rolling on the ground throughout their games.

4th and Long
09-05-2005, 08:25 PM
I think this is TJ's cheap method of campaigning for Larry Johnson.
Holmes, Johnson ... doesn't matter really. Either way, the Browns give up 100+ yards. Ooops ... I mean the Broncos. My bad. :D

Frankie
09-05-2005, 08:28 PM
Accidental chop blocks can happen. When a guy is flagged once for it it shows that it's not a habit with him. However, when a team has been shown and flagged repeatedly for chop blocks, over the years it means that the team is dirty and by design. Now what team could I be talking about? hmmm

FloridaChief
09-05-2005, 08:28 PM
I'm just here to join in the chastisement that I'm sure is bound to ignite any second now about these dirty tactics. Knowing the sentiment around this place as I do, I know that it can be found under general agreement here that only the most cheap of players would ever do such a thing as dive at a defenders legs and then roll. And I must say that I agree. While I do support the cut block, the chop block is cheap.

Yep. If he had any less class, he'd be wearing a blue & orange uniform, I guess...

PRIEST
09-05-2005, 08:32 PM
And avoiding the fact that his olineman are rolling on the ground throughout their games.


Fuggin chinese fire drill I say :harumph:

Chiefs_Mike_Topeka
09-05-2005, 08:41 PM
Yep. If he had any less class, he'd be wearing a blue & orange uniform, I guess...


And smearing himself with vaseline........

Otter
09-05-2005, 09:01 PM
I think TJ wears tighty whiteys that have Chief logos on them.

Katipan
09-05-2005, 09:08 PM
This thread would have been so much better without the word "legs" in the title.

alanm
09-05-2005, 09:08 PM
You would think after watching film on Denver all these years he'd pickup on how to better disguise it. :)

Halfcan
09-05-2005, 09:10 PM
What a stupid thread!!

chief husker
09-05-2005, 09:13 PM
Yo! Kettle!

Count Alex's Losses
09-05-2005, 09:17 PM
Broncos suck. We're going to destroy you!

Darkwolfe
09-05-2005, 09:23 PM
What a stupid thread!!

Gee... You bit twice in one night. :p

(Had to pull your chain, sorry. :) )

Ugly Duck
09-05-2005, 09:25 PM
Accidental chop blocks can happen.Holy Moly! Frankie has become a DonkeyFan!

Folks... all fine and upstanding citizens have to agree with Taco on this one. We can't justify all our years of jabbing at the Donks for their cheap, disgusting, ankle-diving dirty play if we just turn around and look the other way when the Chiefs behave in the same manner. Be men!! Berate the Chiefs like they were Donkeys when they play like cheap, disgusting, ankle-diving a-holes! I know I do!

BigMeatballDave
09-05-2005, 09:28 PM
Funny. When I saw the play, I was thinking TJ would come for a visit and bring this up...

alanm
09-05-2005, 09:30 PM
Holy Moly! Frankie has become a DonkeyFan!

Folks... all fine and upstanding citizens have to agree with Taco on this one. We can't justify all our years of jabbing at the Donks for their cheap, disgusting, ankle-diving dirty play if we just turn around and look the other way when the Chiefs behave in the same manner. Be men!! Berate the Chiefs like they were Donkeys when they play like cheap, disgusting, ankle-diving a-holes! I know I do!
I thought you typed ankle-biting a-holes... Never mind. :)

Taco John
09-05-2005, 09:41 PM
There's more rationalization and distortion going on in this thread than an Escher picture.

alanm
09-05-2005, 09:45 PM
There's more rationalization and distortion going on in this thread than an Escher picture.
Everybody's on to you TJ. You need to go to the tackle box for some new bait. ROFL

Taco John
09-05-2005, 09:46 PM
Funny. When I saw the play, I was thinking TJ would come for a visit and bring this up...



Wait until you see the graphic... ;)

Count Alex's Losses
09-05-2005, 09:46 PM
It looked to me like Priest wasn't actually trying to do a chop block. It just sort of happened that way.

jettio
09-05-2005, 09:49 PM
I thought that would have been a legal block on a pass rusher if the OL had not moved over to engage the guy after Priest had committed to making the block.

I think the player saw Priest getting ready to make the block.

Frankie
09-05-2005, 10:31 PM
Holy Moly! Frankie has become a DonkeyFan!
How did you arrive at that?:shrug:

Taco John
09-06-2005, 12:14 AM
It looked to me like Priest wasn't actually trying to do a chop block. It just sort of happened that way.



ROFL


That's great stuff right there... He wasn't actually diving and rolling at defenders legs. It just sort of happened that way... ROFL ROFL

Count Alex's Losses
09-06-2005, 12:20 AM
ROFL


That's great stuff right there... He wasn't actually diving and rolling at defenders legs. It just sort of happened that way... ROFL ROFL

Like I said, I think it started as a cut block and the rest was an accident. Priest is not a dirty player and never has been. He's stoned hundreds of running backs coming in on blitzes the legit way.

DRU
09-06-2005, 12:37 AM
I thought that would have been a legal block on a pass rusher if the OL had not moved over to engage the guy after Priest had committed to making the block.

Yeah, I remember them saying that the only reason it was a penalty was because the lineman was already engaged with him. 1 on 1, no problem.

Count Alex's Losses
09-06-2005, 12:43 AM
Perhaps DRU could shed some light on this play with a clip... :hmmm:

DRU
09-06-2005, 12:46 AM
Sorry, not this time. Wasn't home to cap this one. 100% ready for this sunday though.

mcan
09-06-2005, 01:13 AM
He definately went in low, but it wasn't a bad shot. He didn't ROLL, he just dropped his shoulder. The guy didn't bend awkwardly or anything. The problem was that he was just coming off of a block. As I recall the block was also from the front, so it was a pretty borderline penalty.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-06-2005, 01:16 AM
Priest actually didn't do it, if you watch it again you can tell he has a cramp in his leg and that causes him to fall down and get nailed with a penalty that should have never happened. Nice try tho teej.

Taco John
09-06-2005, 01:17 AM
[QUOTE=mcan] He didn't ROLL, he just dropped his shoulder. [/url]

Bullshit. He rolled like he was doing the steamroller. It was text book cheap.

Taco John
09-06-2005, 01:17 AM
Priest actually didn't do it, if you watch it again you can tell he has a cramp in his leg and that causes him to fall down and get nailed with a penalty that should have never happened. Nice try tho teej.


AHAHA! ROFL


Beauty. The excuses just keep piling up.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-06-2005, 01:30 AM
AHAHA! ROFL


Beauty. The excuses just keep piling up.


Hey man don't take it from me here's a transcript from my earlier conversation with PH.

Me: "Did you pull that dirty bronco trick on purpose?"

PH: "No if you look closely you can see the grimace on my face and my left arm reaching for my calf, I had a cramp that came on there"

Me: "Ok, I'll let the fellow planeteers know then, thanks Priest I always knew you didn't have any of that bronco scum in ya"

PH: "No problem and tell that Teejay to F-off for me!"

Me: "will do later priest"

there ya go teej, straight from the non horses mouth!

Ugly Duck
09-06-2005, 01:34 AM
How did you arrive at that?:shrug:It was the "Accidental chop blocks can happen" thing. That is the Invesco chant, dontcha know.

Kinda sounded like gochiefs' "It just happened that way" excuse. Those are the same things we've been hearing from Donkfanz for years. And now Chiefanz are following suit. Tsk-tsk.

Count Alex's Losses
09-06-2005, 01:40 AM
Eh, whatever. It's not like this thread actually means anything. What means something is the ass whupping we'll lay on the Donks TWICE this year.

Taco John
09-06-2005, 03:28 AM
It means plenty.

It means I never have to hear from you whiners about legal blocking techniques when I have evidence of your star player using ILLEGAL ones to his advantage.

Pants
09-06-2005, 03:34 AM
It means plenty.

It means I never have to hear from you whiners about legal blocking techniques when I have evidence of your star player using ILLEGAL ones to his advantage.

Dude, please. You need to stfu, you're talking like Priest does this sort of thing all the time. Watch the clip again and then see how f*cking stupid you made yourself look.

Taco John
09-06-2005, 03:45 AM
Watch the clip again and then see how f*cking stupid you made yourself look.



I've seen the clip about 30 times on Tivo, laughing the entire time. It was text book cheap, exactly as "cheap" is described here on this board. He dives. He rolls.

Rukdafaidas
09-06-2005, 08:10 AM
:)
Priest was doing exactly what ALL RB's do when a defensive lineman or LB are rushing full steam at the QB, they take their legs out.

Here's the difference between the Broncos and Priest:

Priest and the rusher were squared up FACING each other. The reason for the flag was one of our OL still had a hand on him.

Broncos' lineman are taught to dive at a player's legs from the side. They don't even see it coming (definition of cheap).

I don't know if you knew this or not Taco, but knees move from front to back, not sideways.

Rukdafaidas
09-06-2005, 08:11 AM
I've seen the clip about 30 times on Tivo, laughing the entire time. It was text book cheap, exactly as "cheap" is described here on this board. He dives. He rolls.
Since you have it on Tivo, why don't you show us a clip?

Taco John
09-06-2005, 08:47 AM
:)
Priest was doing exactly what ALL RB's do when a defensive lineman or LB are rushing full steam at the QB, they take their legs out.

Here's the difference between the Broncos and Priest:

Priest and the rusher were squared up FACING each other. The reason for the flag was one of our OL still had a hand on him.

Broncos' lineman are taught to dive at a player's legs from the side. They don't even see it coming (definition of cheap).

I don't know if you knew this or not Taco, but knees move from front to back, not sideways.



Which part of "ILLEGAL" chop block do you not understand? The rationalizations around this place are great, but they aren't doing anything to make an illegal chop block any less cheap.

stevieray
09-06-2005, 09:04 AM
Which part of "ILLEGAL" chop block do you not understand? The rationalizations around this place are great, but they aren't doing anything to make an illegal chop block any less cheap.

your "smack" has lost it's second level burst.

Rukdafaidas
09-06-2005, 09:05 AM
Which part of "ILLEGAL" chop block do you not understand? The rationalizations around this place are great, but they aren't doing anything to make an illegal chop block any less cheap.
Yes, the block was ILLEGAL, did you see me say that it wasn't? So is a false start, but it happens all the damn time.
The Broncos blocking scheme isn't ILLEGAL, it's CHEAP. They've ended the season for 5 players since 2001, with CHEAP blocks. I can't think of one player whose season was ended by a cut block from a Chief, EVER. I'm sure it's probably happened, but I sure as hell don't remember it. Meanwhile, I remember it happening with the Broncos TWICE last season alone, Williams and Spicer.

vckcchiefs04
09-06-2005, 09:17 AM
Which part of "ILLEGAL" chop block do you not understand? The rationalizations around this place are great, but they aren't doing anything to make an illegal chop block any less cheap.
Hey I don't doubt you would know what an illegal chop block is, that is the only way the donk line can block at all, and you get to watch that crap line do it all year every year.... but until Priest does it for 16 games in a season and becomes known around the league as "A dirty player" like all the donk linemen are, take your little crying, sissy, little girl act somewhere that people actually care what ya think. :crybaby:

morphius
09-06-2005, 09:18 AM
I remember seeing the chop block, but I honestly don't remember Priest doing any rolling around, anybody but Talco remember that? The way I saw it was that the OL had just released the guy and Priest came in with the chop, but the clip was so quick it was hard to tell if the OL had actually released the guy, and from the point of view from the ref who threw the flag it would have been near impossible for him to catch if the OL had got his hands off the DL. I don't have anything against the call though, you have to protect those guys.

I guess I could see Talco's point more if the play was somewhere on the other side of the field and Priest just saw some D Lineman standing around and took a shot though, or maybe if Priest dove in from the side instead of face to face, which is what people are really complaining about. Of course Talco just doesn't get that...

PastorMikH
09-06-2005, 09:46 AM
Taco complaining about a RB throwing a chop block is a bit hypocritical. Had Priest been a Donkey, they would have had a fruit basket waiting for him after the game as a token of congratulations on such a nice move.

philfree
09-06-2005, 09:52 AM
That was the worst call I've ever seen. Priest was between the defender and the O linemen and threw a block and as the defender started going down he happened to make contact with the O linemen........flag on the play. Chop block on #31! WAFJ :shake: Kinda like that tackling the QB below the knees penalty we got the week before. If you can't go above their shoulders or below their knees that really narrows it down :shake:


PhilFree:arrow:

philfree
09-06-2005, 09:54 AM
I remember seeing the chop block, but I honestly don't remember Priest doing any rolling around, anybody but Talco remember that? The way I saw it was that the OL had just released the guy and Priest came in with the chop, but the clip was so quick it was hard to tell if the OL had actually released the guy, and from the point of view from the ref who threw the flag it would have been near impossible for him to catch if the OL had got his hands off the DL. I don't have anything against the call though, you have to protect those guys.

I guess I could see Talco's point more if the play was somewhere on the other side of the field and Priest just saw some D Lineman standing around and took a shot though, or maybe if Priest dove in from the side instead of face to face, which is what people are really complaining about. Of course Talco just doesn't get that...

I don't think the O linemen and the defender were ever engaged.

PhilFree:arrow:

jettio
09-06-2005, 10:09 AM
Which part of "ILLEGAL" chop block do you not understand? The rationalizations around this place are great, but they aren't doing anything to make an illegal chop block any less cheap.

IIRC, you have video posting capability.

There seems to be a factual dispute as to whether the D-Lineman saw him coming, and if Priest did anything after the first hit.

I only saw one replay, so it would be good to post the play. It looked to me that the D-Lineman saw Priest going low on him before the O-Lineman came over to engage him also.

Frazod
09-06-2005, 10:10 AM
A Bronco fan complaining about dirty plays is kind of like Hitler accusing somebody else of being a war criminal. :shake:

KC Kings
09-06-2005, 10:20 AM
The difference is that Priest would not have been called for the blcok had the lineman not alreadty been engaged. It was an illegal block, but not a cheap block.

Saulbadguy
09-06-2005, 10:27 AM
I think the big difference is the Chiefs don't integrate chop/cut blocks in to their game plan.

I also bet Priest didn't get a bonus for trying to injure another player.

morphius
09-06-2005, 10:30 AM
I think the big difference is the Chiefs don't integrate chop/cut blocks in to their game plan.

I also bet Priest didn't get a bonus for trying to injure another player.
Actually, I bet we very much do have them as part of our game plan. Its just that we don't do it as much, and haven't been known to injury players on purpose using it.

jidar1
09-06-2005, 10:40 AM
Actually, I bet we very much do have them as part of our game plan. Its just that we don't do it as much, and haven't been known to injury players on purpose using it.

Really? Why would you say that? Is it a common thing?

Tinlar
09-06-2005, 10:41 AM
You think that's what this means? Wow, I figured you'd have known better.

So by your logic fans of teams with cheap blocking pricks can't post threads about cheap blocks? hmmm... irony.

It means plenty.

It means I never have to hear from you whiners about legal blocking techniques when I have evidence of your star player using ILLEGAL ones to his advantage.

Tinlar
09-06-2005, 10:42 AM
And someone has to say it:

This thread is worthless (and thus will be dismissed as TJ BS) without pictures.

donkhater
09-06-2005, 10:51 AM
Once Taco can find another play in which Priest did this to another player, I'll take this thread seriously. Meanwhile, all I have to do is pull out any Bronco tape and find a number of times where a Bronco chop blocks. Not cut blocks, mind you, chop blocks. Blocks a player below the knees while he is engaged wityh another blocker. If any of you have old Bronco game tapes, concentrate on the Bronco O-line. It happens a startling amount of time.

I reckon it's like the old Kentucky basketball teams getting away with the agressive fouling they do on their full court presses. If the the refs called it every single time, the game would last five hours and they would look vindictive. Hence they only call it occasionally.

Rukdafaidas
09-06-2005, 11:01 AM
And someone has to say it:

This thread is worthless (and thus will be dismissed as TJ BS) without pictures.
Yeah Taco, roll that beautiful bean footage.

Then, compare it to Foster's hit on Williams last year and tell me which one is cheaper. ROFL

HC_Chief
09-06-2005, 11:01 AM
Once Taco quits acting like a complete douchenozzle, I'll take his stale act seriously.

I can't believe how many of you fishies he snags with his trolling.... it's amazing.

Coach
09-06-2005, 11:10 AM
Hey Taco, how you feel about your QB? Need another reason defenses are starting to believe that Jake Plummer lacks the toughness to be a good NFL QB?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v39/SwedeCarlson/Funnies/Football%20Smack/hellokitty.jpg

morphius
09-06-2005, 12:04 PM
Really? Why would you say that? Is it a common thing?
RB's use it all the time, and I have seen some of out OL attempt to do it as well. Normally RB's do it to either cut a guy down to give the QB a whole to throw threw or because the only way to stop someone bigger then you is to take out their legs. I doubt anyone really has an issue with RB's using the chop block as long as the DL isn't already in contact with someone else.

BIG_DADDY
09-06-2005, 12:09 PM
I would expect Taquito Boy to recognize a cheap chop block when he sees one especially considering his team does more of them than all the rest in the league combined.

Calcountry
09-06-2005, 12:30 PM
I think this is TJ's cheap method of campaigning for Larry Johnson.Yes, Taco only like guys with second level "burst".

Amnorix
09-06-2005, 12:34 PM
I waited for a few days for this thread to magivally appear as people demanded that Preist be immediately benched for his dirty, dirty tactics during the Rams game. But yea, I didn't see one. Anyone catch Priest's cheap shot? The guy not only dove at the legs, but HE ROLLED!

:shake:

I'm just here to join in the chastisement that I'm sure is bound to ignite any second now about these dirty tactics. Knowing the sentiment around this place as I do, I know that it can be found under general agreement here that only the most cheap of players would ever do such a thing as dive at a defenders legs and then roll. And I must say that I agree. While I do support the cut block, the chop block is cheap.

As shown by the above post, you don't even understand the difference between a cut block and a chop block.

Cut blocks are legal and performed by EVERY TEAM IN THE NFL, so long as they are within the tackle box. Denver pisses everyone off because (1) they use the cut block MORE than most teams (far more) and (2) they have, for some insane reason, been allowed to use them BEYOND the tackle box for many, many years.

I did not see the play in question, but diving at someone below the legs to cut him, and rolling, have nothing to do with anything in terms of whether the play is legal or not, or cheap or not.

Cut blocks are flat illegal, all the time, anywhere.

Feel free to look up what a cut block is versus a chop block so you don't waste all our time again in he future. As a Broncos fan, I'd figure you'd know this stuff cold...

Amnorix
09-06-2005, 12:36 PM
RB's use it all the time, and I have seen some of out OL attempt to do it as well. Normally RB's do it to either cut a guy down to give the QB a whole to throw threw or because the only way to stop someone bigger then you is to take out their legs. I doubt anyone really has an issue with RB's using the chop block as long as the DL isn't already in contact with someone else.

It's NOT a chop block. It's a cut. Don't let TJ confuse you.

Saulbadguy
09-06-2005, 12:39 PM
As shown by the above post, you don't even understand the difference between a cut block and a chop block.

Cut blocks are legal and performed by EVERY TEAM IN THE NFL, so long as they are within the tackle box. Denver pisses everyone off because (1) they use the cut block MORE than most teams (far more) and (2) they have, for some insane reason, been allowed to use them BEYOND the tackle box for many, many years.

I did not see the play in question, but diving at someone below the legs to cut him, and rolling, have nothing to do with anything in terms of whether the play is legal or not, or cheap or not.

Cut blocks are flat illegal, all the time, anywhere.

Feel free to look up what a cut block is versus a chop block so you don't waste all our time again in he future. As a Broncos fan, I'd figure you'd know this stuff cold...


Can you say...OWNED?

Pants
09-06-2005, 02:54 PM
Cut blocks are flat illegal, all the time, anywhere.


Did you mean chop blocks?

And way to own TBell.

Taco John
09-06-2005, 04:43 PM
As shown by the above post, you don't even understand the difference between a cut block and a chop block.

Cut blocks are legal and performed by EVERY TEAM IN THE NFL, so long as they are within the tackle box. Denver pisses everyone off because (1) they use the cut block MORE than most teams (far more) and (2) they have, for some insane reason, been allowed to use them BEYOND the tackle box for many, many years.

I did not see the play in question, but diving at someone below the legs to cut him, and rolling, have nothing to do with anything in terms of whether the play is legal or not, or cheap or not.

Cut blocks are flat illegal, all the time, anywhere.

Feel free to look up what a cut block is versus a chop block so you don't waste all our time again in he future. As a Broncos fan, I'd figure you'd know this stuff cold...


You are exactly wrong. You've got it exactly opposite. Dork.

Taco John
09-06-2005, 04:43 PM
Can you say...OWNED?



Can you say, "in your dreams?" For that to happen, he would have to be right. He is not. Chop blocks, which Priest was called on, are illegal. Cut blocks are legal.

Taco John
09-06-2005, 04:53 PM
Come on Amoron... Tell me again about how cut blocks are flat illegal, all the time, anywhere, while Chop blocks are legal. You're so knowlegable...

dirk digler
09-06-2005, 04:53 PM
The cut block is a variation of the drive block. It differs in that the blocker aims at the linebacker's feet and ankles instead of driving at the linebacker's numbers. If the defensive player has not focused his eyes on the blocker and is looking for the ball carrier, this can be an effective offensive tool. One minute the linebacker will be standing up; the next second he will find himself sprawled on the ground.

A chop block is a foul by the offense, in which one offensive player blocks a defensive player in the area of the thigh or lower, while another offensive player blocks the same defensive player high or above the waist.

Taco John
09-06-2005, 04:54 PM
Then while you're at it, Amoron, why don't you explain why there is a referee signal for Chop Blocking, but none for Cut Blocking... (http://www.allfootballbettinglines.com/NFL/signals.htm) Huh, Amoron?

dirk digler
09-06-2005, 04:57 PM
I would like to see the replay again but from what I remember Priest hit the D player before he was engaged with the tackle but I could be wrong. At the time I thought it was a iffy call.

ct
09-06-2005, 05:00 PM
I waited for a few days for this thread to magivally appear as people demanded that Preist be immediately benched for his dirty, dirty tactics during the Rams game. But yea, I didn't see one. Anyone catch Priest's cheap shot? The guy not only dove at the legs, but HE ROLLED!

:shake:

I'm just here to join in the chastisement that I'm sure is bound to ignite any second now about these dirty tactics. Knowing the sentiment around this place as I do, I know that it can be found under general agreement here that only the most cheap of players would ever do such a thing as dive at a defenders legs and then roll. And I must say that I agree. While I do support the cut block, the chop block is cheap.

Are we talking about the play he dropped to hit the rusher low the same time an O-Lineman turned to see a stray defender coming and engaged him high? Two guys independently engaging a pass rusher at the same exact time? Unfortunate timing, and illegal to boot. But intentional and Bronco-like? Is this all you got Taco? :shake:

dirk digler
09-06-2005, 05:01 PM
Are we talking about the play he dropped to hit the rusher low the same time an O-Lineman turned to see a stray defender coming and engaged him high? Two guys independently engaging a pass rusher at the same exact time? Is this all you got Taco? :shake:

That was what I was thinking as well. It wasn't a blatant foul.

Bowser
09-06-2005, 05:03 PM
Are we talking about the play he dropped to hit the rusher low the same time an O-Lineman turned to see a stray defender coming and engaged him high? Two guys independently engaging a pass rusher at the same exact time? Unfortunate timing, and illegal to boot. But intentional and Bronco-like? Is this all you got Taco? :shake:

It's his moment in the sun!

Just never mind it's 10 degrees out with a -12 degree wind chill.

Amnorix
09-06-2005, 05:03 PM
You are exactly wrong. You've got it exactly opposite. Dork.

10 minutes on Google tells me that people seem to use the terms interchangably. Randy Mueller, former GM of the Saints, uses the phrase the same way I do in this sentence:

"The cut block, which is a block at the knees, is legal and within NFL rules, so we can't really blame the Broncos or Foster."

http://www.gridirontalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=21893


Anyway, without getting carried away with the linguistics, if no other player was engaged with whoever Priest Holmes cut, then cutting him, even if he was rolling, is legal, so long as it was within the tackle box.

If someone was already blocking the target of Priest's affections high, then it's illegal.

I didn't see the play, so I don't know which it was.

Taco John
09-06-2005, 05:04 PM
I would like to see the replay again but from what I remember Priest hit the D player before he was engaged with the tackle but I could be wrong. At the time I thought it was a iffy call.



There was no engagement. The ball was snapped and Priest just dove at the guys legs and then rolled.

dirk digler
09-06-2005, 05:06 PM
There was no engagement. The ball was snapped and Priest just dove at the guys legs and then rolled.

That is legal then according to the NFL rules I posted above.

chop block is a foul by the offense, in which one offensive player blocks a defensive player in the area of the thigh or lower, while another offensive player blocks the same defensive player high or above the waist.

Taco John
09-06-2005, 05:06 PM
Anyway, without getting carried away with the linguistics,



What a buncyh of bullshit... You were wrong dude.

The terms aren't used interchangably. That's stupid. Like you said, I should know. I've been paying attention to such things for almost ten years now.

A cut block is not used interchangably for a chop block. They are two very different things. Sack up and admit you got it wrong you chode.

Amnorix
09-06-2005, 05:08 PM
There was no engagement. The ball was snapped and Priest just dove at the guys legs and then rolled.

Then it's perfectly legal.

dirk digler
09-06-2005, 05:10 PM
Then it's perfectly legal.

Very questionable call. WR's do it all the time. The d-back runs in to make a play and the WR's drop to their knees to cut the d-back.

I remember Dale Carter did it against the Broncos and boy where the Donkey's pissed about that.

Taco John
09-06-2005, 05:11 PM
Hmm... Turns out the defender was engaged...

Here is Holmes right before he starts his roll:

stevieray
09-06-2005, 05:11 PM
This thread is weak.

morphius
09-06-2005, 05:12 PM
Again, did anyone but taco see Priest rolling? The announcers were sure it was called because the ref thought the OL was also in contact with the DL when Priest came in with the hit, nobody till now has mentioned him rolling.

Taco John
09-06-2005, 05:13 PM
This thread is weak.



ROFL

How'd I know that you'd think so?

Amnorix
09-06-2005, 05:13 PM
What a buncyh of bullshit... You were wrong dude.

The terms aren't used interchangably. That's stupid. Like you said, I should know. I've been paying attention to such things for almost ten years now.

A cut block is not used interchangably for a chop block. They are two very different things. Sack up and admit you got it wrong you chode.

I'm going to admit that I was 100% sure what I was saying is correct. After Googling around to figure out which one is right, I see TREMENDOUS inconsistency used throughout the internet. The NFL rules digest (the full rules seem to be unavailable) don't even use the term "cut block" AT ALL. Instead it refers to "chop block" the way you refer to it. That's fine, but it suggests that "cut block" isn't even a real term under the NFL rules.

Randy Mueller, a former NFL GM, uses the phrases the way I do.

So does Joe Theismann who, on the one hand, was a very good NFL quarterback for many years, but on the other hand, is generally a moron:

"The cut block, which is a block at the knees, is legal and within NFL rules, so we can't really blame the Broncos or Foster."

http://proxy.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=theismann_joe&id=1912145

Then there's this:

"Although University of Wisconsin defensive end Erasmus James was knocked out of the Purdue game with a cut block, not a chop block - which is illegal - first-year Badgers defensive coordinator Bret Bielema was still..."

http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=tct:2004:10:18:390293:SPORTS

And many others

dirk digler
09-06-2005, 05:13 PM
Hmm... Turns out the defender was engaged...

Here is Holmes right before he starts his roll:

Thanks TJ. At the time I thought Priest hit him before he was engaged but it was a very close and probably could have gone either way.

The engaged part is what makes the call a chop block.

Taco John
09-06-2005, 05:14 PM
Again, did anyone but taco see Priest rolling? The announcers were sure it was called because the ref thought the OL was also in contact with the DL when Priest came in with the hit, nobody till now has mentioned him rolling.



He gets two full rotations in...

Taco John
09-06-2005, 05:17 PM
I'm going to admit that I was 100% sure what I was saying is correct. After Googling around to figure out which one is right, I see TREMENDOUS inconsistency used throughout the internet. The NFL rules digest (the full rules seem to be unavailable) don't even use the term "cut block" AT ALL. Instead it refers to "chop block" the way you refer to it. That's fine, but it suggests that "cut block" isn't even a real term under the NFL rules.

Randy Mueller, a former NFL GM, uses the phrases the way I do.

So does Joe Theismann who, on the one hand, was a very good NFL quarterback for many years, but on the other hand, is generally a moron:

"The cut block, which is a block at the knees, is legal and within NFL rules, so we can't really blame the Broncos or Foster."

http://proxy.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=theismann_joe&id=1912145

Then there's this:

"Although University of Wisconsin defensive end Erasmus James was knocked out of the Purdue game with a cut block, not a chop block - which is illegal - first-year Badgers defensive coordinator Bret Bielema was still..."

http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=tct:2004:10:18:390293:SPORTS

And many others



I love to see a guy challenge another man's football knowledge, going so far as to ask them to "Feel free to look up what a cut block is versus a chop block so you don't waste all our time again in the future," and then turn into a complete puss when confronted with the evidence that he's a clueless chode.

Eye Patch
09-06-2005, 05:17 PM
He gets two full rotations in...

sounds like one of your dates.

stevieray
09-06-2005, 05:23 PM
ROFL

How'd I know that you'd think so?

Because your insecurity predicts it.

It's like you've never left High School. Like you need some sort of payback for the embarassing and illegal play of your football team.

You act like you're at your high school rival's parking lot, egging cars, thinking it makes you something more than you really are.


In fact, you're just a guy who needs validated by trying to feel superior on a rival board.

amnorix isn't a amoron, dork or chode.

You've only been doing this for five years. Your kung fu is weak.

Taco John
09-06-2005, 05:28 PM
Because your insecurity predicts it.

It's like you've never left High School. Like you need some sort of payback for the embarassing and illegal play of your football team.

You act like you're at your high school rival's parking lot, egging cars, thinking it makes you something more than you really are.


In fact, you're just a guy who needs validated by trying to feel superior on a rival board.

amnorix isn't a amoron, dork or chode.

You've only been doing this for five years. Your kung fu is weak.



It's hypocrites like you that make it easy.

Eye Patch
09-06-2005, 05:32 PM
Because your insecurity predicts it.

It's like you've never left High School. Like you need some sort of payback for the embarassing and illegal play of your football team.

You act like you're at your high school rival's parking lot, egging cars, thinking it makes you something more than you really are.


In fact, you're just a guy who needs validated by trying to feel superior on a rival board.

amnorix isn't a amoron, dork or chode.

You've only been doing this for five years. Your kung fu is weak.

yeah we have a name for it... it's called a troll..

Eye Patch
09-06-2005, 05:34 PM
It's hypocrites like you that make it easy.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...

Look who's calling somebody a hypocrite.

Unbelievable...

Seriously Taco you have a career in politics… because you are absolutely shameless.

stevieray
09-06-2005, 05:35 PM
It's hypocrites like you that make it easy.

thanks for admitting that it's what you're doing.

You need to check my first post. He was flagged. The call was correct. One time....ooooo.... Unlike your players, who CONSISTANTLY and FLAGRANTLY engage in illegal play

I'm sure you think one infraction is equal to the NUMEROUS offenses committed by the Invescos, which ROUTINELY draw fines.

Weak. High Schoolish at best.

Taco John
09-06-2005, 05:38 PM
thanks for admitting that it's what you're doing.


Whatever. I just gave you what you wanted. You're easy.

stevieray
09-06-2005, 05:38 PM
Whatever. I just gave you what you wanted. You're easy.


no, you've just lost.

"whatever".... ROFL ok valley girl high school eighties baby.

Frankie
09-06-2005, 05:40 PM
It was the "Accidental chop blocks can happen" thing. That is the Invesco chant, dontcha know.

Kinda sounded like gochiefs' "It just happened that way" excuse. Those are the same things we've been hearing from Donkfanz for years. And now Chiefanz are following suit. Tsk-tsk.

All I meant was, if a player with no reputation of being dirty does it once, then i could fairly be chalked up to it neing accidental. On the other hand when a team's entire O-line does it routinely for years it cannot be called an accident. TJ just wants to sooth his conscience about being the fan of a dirty team.

Taco John
09-06-2005, 05:42 PM
no, you've just lost.

"whatever".... ROFL ok high school eighties baby.


HAHAHA! I've lost! ROFL

That's pretty good right there. You like to yip yip yip yip yip, but don't like it when a big dog barks back. When that happens, you don this attitude like you're so above it all. Everybody knows your act just as well as they know mine. By mid-season if things aren't going well, you'll start calling out your own fans like you always do.

I'll say whatever just to shut you up. If you think you've "won" here, so be it.

Taco John
09-06-2005, 05:45 PM
:shake:

stevieray
09-06-2005, 05:50 PM
HAHAHA! I've lost! ROFL

That's pretty good right there. You like to yip yip yip yip yip, but don't like it when a big dog barks back. When that happens, you don this attitude like you're so above it all. Everybody knows your act just as well as they know mine. By mid-season if things aren't going well, you'll start calling out your own fans like you always do.

I'll say whatever just to shut you up. If you think you've "won" here, so be it.

You haven't done anything to warrant a bite. More like an annoying bark.

I'm not above anything, especially telling it like it is about you.

I was the first to say Priest should've been flagged, but that's not your desired result is it? you have to "win' something. The rest of your post is nothing but more deflection because you've been exposed for the fraud you are.

find someone to back up your claim of calling out the fans. I used to do that, but realized they want to win as bad as I do.

Taco John
09-06-2005, 06:04 PM
find someone to back up your claim of calling out the fans. I used to do that, but haven't for the last couple of years.


You did just last season. Maybe Phil remembers. It's not that important. Well, at least not to me.

See, I find rivalry fun. I enjoy it. I like it. It's a good time.

Your constant yipping about me playing the part of a rival fan does nothing for me. It might work for you, but it has no effect on me. I'm not over the top. I'm not vulgar. I just lay it out from a Broncos fan perspective and then let you react. Likewise, when something happens against my team, I can always count on a pile on. That's the way it works, give and take.

You always get so worked up and try to make this stuff a statement about manhood and integrity and what a better person you are than everybody else. None of this is important. None of this really matters. You're no better than me or anybody else.

/well, you're better than Tom Cash...

stevieray
09-06-2005, 06:13 PM
You did just last season. Maybe Phil remembers. It's not that important. Well, at least not to me.

See, I find rivalry fun. I enjoy it. I like it. It's a good time.

Your constant yipping about me playing the part of a rival fan does nothing for me. It might work for you, but it has no effect on me. I'm not over the top. I'm not vulgar. I just lay it out from a Broncos fan perspective and then let you react. Likewise, when something happens against my team, I can always count on a pile on. That's the way it works, give and take.

You always get so worked up and try to make this stuff a statement about manhood and integrity and what a better person you are than everybody else. None of this is important. None of this really matters. You're no better than me or anybody else.

/well, you're better than Tom Cash...

I guess you can't back it up.


i'm not worked up taco, I know you need to claim that to feel 'right'.
I've never said I was above everybody. You just don't like being called out, yet you thrive on it yourself.

The main difference bewteen you and I is your inability to admit you are wrong. I've admitted to others here that i have made mistakes. Have you? sounds like you are judging in me what you see in yourself.

I haven't said anything that others haven't called you out on before.

Pants
09-06-2005, 06:14 PM
I don't really see Priest roll, he went from his side to his belly from what it looks like. Besides, we know it's all a moot point, because it's not like Chiefs engage in this sort of activity all the time. You want fans to talk on their own players like they do on their rivals? Well, when it becomes a consistant "problem" like it is with the Broncos, you'd be justified to expect that.

stevieray
09-06-2005, 06:17 PM
You want fans to talk on their own players like they do on their rivals? Well, when it becomes a consistant "problem" like it is with the Broncos, you'd be justified to expect that.

exactly.

Raiderhader
09-06-2005, 06:17 PM
You did just last season. Maybe Phil remembers. It's not that important. Well, at least not to me.

See, I find rivalry fun. I enjoy it. I like it. It's a good time.

Your constant yipping about me playing the part of a rival fan does nothing for me. It might work for you, but it has no effect on me. I'm not over the top. I'm not vulgar. I just lay it out from a Broncos fan perspective and then let you react. Likewise, when something happens against my team, I can always count on a pile on. That's the way it works, give and take.

You always get so worked up and try to make this stuff a statement about manhood and integrity and what a better person you are than everybody else. None of this is important. None of this really matters. You're no better than me or anybody else.

/well, you're better than Tom Cash...


Well, I suppose if that is what you WANT to read... No where is that stated in any of his posts here. All he is saying is that you are playing games again, the same tired games you have been playing since you got here.

I think he's trying to push you for a new tactic, because this one is worn thin.

stevieray
09-06-2005, 06:19 PM
Well, I suppose if that is what you WANT to read... No where is that stated in any of his posts here. All he is saying is that you are playing games again, the same tired games you have been playing since you got here.

I think he's trying to push you for a new tactic, because this one is worn thin.

rep.

Raiderhader
09-06-2005, 06:20 PM
I don't really see Priest roll, he went from his side to his belly from what it looks like. Besides, we know it's all a moot point, because it's not like Chiefs engage in this sort of activity all the time. You want fans to talk on their own players like they do on their rivals? Well, when it becomes a consistant "problem" like it is with the Broncos, you'd be justified to expect that.


Not unless he calls his team out for it as well. Unless he does, he is not justified to expect dick from us on the subject.

Taco John
09-06-2005, 06:23 PM
I guess you can't back it up.

i'm not worked up taco, I know you need to claim that to feel 'right'.
I've never said I was above everybody. You just don't like being called out, yet you thrive on it yourself.

The main difference bewteen you and I is your inability to admit you are wrong. I've admitted to others here that i have made mistakes. Have you? sounds like you are judging in me what you see in yourself.

I haven't said anything that others haven't called you out on before.



Do you understand what the word Hollow means? You should. It seems to apply to yourself really well. I didn't say you said you were above everybody. That is clear in the way you treat people. It'll come out during the season. Might not be today, might not be next week... But it's there and it'll come out in due time.

If I didn't like being called out, then why would I spend much time here? I'm called out constantly, and rise to the challenge. As far as admitting when I'm wrong, I have no problem with doing it... when I'm wrong.

It's amusing to me that you say that it sounds like I'm judging in you what I see in myself. I always have thought the same thing of you. Coincidence? I think not.

stevieray
09-06-2005, 06:27 PM
Do you understand what the word Hollow means? You should. It seems to apply to yourself really well. I didn't say you said you were above everybody. That is clear in the way you treat people. It'll come out during the season. Might not be today, might not be next week... But it's there and it'll come out in due time.

If I didn't like being called out, then why would I spend much time here? I'm called out constantly, and rise to the challenge. As far as admitting when I'm wrong, I have no problem with doing it... when I'm wrong.

It's amusing to me that you say that it sounds like I'm judging in you what I see in myself. I always have thought the same thing of you. Coincidence? I think not.

don't hold your breath.

I imagine it stings, that's why you're still focusing on me, instead of acknowledging that I was the first to admit Priest was guilty.

Taco John
09-06-2005, 06:31 PM
find your own smack


I don't use drugs.

Pants
09-06-2005, 06:32 PM
Not unless he calls his team out for it as well. Unless he does, he is not justified to expect dick from us on the subject.

Yeah, that's true.

Taco John
09-06-2005, 06:32 PM
oh whoah, you changed it...

Here's a cookie for admitting the obvious:

http://www.gatewayfundraising.com/images/cookie%20b.jpg

Taco John
09-06-2005, 06:33 PM
Not unless he calls his team out for it as well. Unless he does, he is not justified to expect dick from us on the subject.



When is the last time a Bronco got busted for Illegal Chop Blocking?

It doesn't happen.

Raiderhader
09-06-2005, 06:36 PM
When is the last time a Bronco got busted for Illegal Chop Blocking?

It doesn't happen.


You see now, according to your thread starter I thought you were complaining about CHEAP play, not illegal play.

But whichever helps you stay on top of the discussion at any given moment in the conversation.....

Taco John
09-06-2005, 06:59 PM
You see now, according to your thread starter I thought you were complaining about CHEAP play, not illegal play.

But whichever helps you stay on top of the discussion at any given moment in the conversation.....


Nice try.

While I do support the cut block, the chop block is cheap.


The Cut Block = Legal

The Chop Block = Illegal


Salbadguy will be by to drop a huge "Owned" on you any second now...

Raiderhader
09-06-2005, 07:25 PM
Nice try.



The Cut Block = Legal

The Chop Block = Illegal


Salbadguy will be by to drop a huge "Owned" on you any second now...


When you change your thread starter to complain about illegal play instead of the cheap play you currently have up there, come back and see me.

The word illegal is not mentioned once in your thread starter, your entire complaint is based around cheap play. Illegal can most certainly be considered cheap, but cheap does not have to be illegal.

Saulbadguy
09-06-2005, 07:29 PM
Then while you're at it, Amoron, why don't you explain why there is a referee signal for Chop Blocking, but none for Cut Blocking... (http://www.allfootballbettinglines.com/NFL/signals.htm) Huh, Amoron?

Talk to me when Priest gets fined.

Saulbadguy
09-06-2005, 07:30 PM
Salbadguy will be by to drop a huge "Owned" on you any second now...
The "OWNED" with you is implied, buddy. Its sad that you constantly get OWNED, and keep coming back. Especially when gochiefs does it.

Count Alex's Losses
09-06-2005, 08:43 PM
That cookie looks good.

Taco John
09-06-2005, 08:50 PM
You see now, according to your thread starter I thought you were complaining about CHEAP play, not illegal play.

But whichever helps you stay on top of the discussion at any given moment in the conversation.....



So which part of Priest diving at the defenders legs and rolling isn't cheap?

Deberg_1990
09-06-2005, 08:52 PM
So which part of Priest diving at the defenders legs and rolling isn't cheap?


Taco, dont make me roll out my old Terrell Davis Video circa 1996.

|Zach|
09-06-2005, 08:52 PM
That cookie looks reeeallly good.

Count Alex's Losses
09-06-2005, 08:53 PM
That cookie looks reeeallly good.

Yup. With some milk.

Cochise
09-06-2005, 08:53 PM
Damn that cookie looks... oh, we covered that.

Count Alex's Losses
09-06-2005, 08:58 PM
Damn that cookie looks... oh, we covered that.

It's OK. That cookie is more interesting than Taco's retarded observation about what MIGHT be a chop block.

Raiderhader
09-06-2005, 09:01 PM
So which part of Priest diving at the defenders legs and rolling isn't cheap?


Cry about your own team's cheap play before you come here and expect me to cry about mine.

When Chiefs' fans act nonchalantly about those types of plays when they are happening habitually, when they become SOP for the team, then you can point your finger and say "hypocrites!" But as has already been pointed out numerous times, this is not an on going practice of our players. So expect to see us upset over a stupid penalty, but not at Priest being a "cheap and dirty player". That very notion is so laughable and ridamndiculous, that it could only come from one of your posts. Vintage TJ.



This entire thread is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to justify, in your mind, your team's play. The fact that you feel the need to justify it speaks volumes.

jettio
09-06-2005, 09:06 PM
So which part of Priest diving at the defenders legs and rolling isn't cheap?

Why don't you post the entire replay at regular speed without having several loops of Priest on the ground? You sped up the video, do not show as much of the replay as the TV showed at the time and then run a couple of loops of Priest making the block.

I am disappointed that you would catapult the propaganda like that.

It could be funny, if you were sharing the laugh about the phony editing, but it seems that you enjoy making people think that you are arguing when you know that you are only goofing off.

Rukdafaidas
09-06-2005, 10:11 PM
RB's are taught to do exactly as Priest does in this play, take out the pass rusher's legs. Like I mentioned earlier, I don't see this as dirty because the rusher is facing him and can see him go low. What I do see as dirty is a player diving into an unsuspecting players legs from the side.
Either Priest doesn't know the rusher is engaged or it happens around the same time. I simply can't tell from the video TJ posted, it's way too fast and jerky.
Surely someone around here Tivo'd the game and can post a real time version of this play. Where's Dru?
What Foster did to Williams was one of the dirtiest plays I've ever seen in any sport.

Taco John
09-06-2005, 10:14 PM
It's OK. That cookie is more interesting than Taco's retarded observation about what MIGHT be a chop block.


ROFL

MIGHT! He got flagged by the ref.

Might. That's precious.

Taco John
09-06-2005, 10:15 PM
Cry about your own team's cheap play before you come here and expect me to cry about mine.



Hey no problem... I figured as much. I was just checking to see if there was really a moral imperative here with all the whining that you guys do, or if it was simply a team oriented thing.

I think that's been answered loud and clear.

Taco John
09-06-2005, 10:17 PM
Why don't you post the entire replay at regular speed without having several loops of Priest on the ground? You sped up the video, do not show as much of the replay as the TV showed at the time and then run a couple of loops of Priest making the block.

I am disappointed that you would catapult the propaganda like that.

It could be funny, if you were sharing the laugh about the phony editing, but it seems that you enjoy making people think that you are arguing when you know that you are only goofing off.



NOthing phony about that. He dove, he rolled, he got flagged for illegal chop block. The editing is to show he was clearly rolling into the defenders legs.

tk13
09-06-2005, 10:30 PM
This thread is still going? Running backs all over the league do what Priest did on that play. Big deal. He didn't do it 8 miles away from the play, from behind, to a guy that wasn't looking. That's really the end of the discussion, there is no room for comparison. You guys played right into Taco's hands here.

Tinlar
09-06-2005, 11:16 PM
Taco,
Thanks for the video clip!
As you can see it removes all doubt when your crappy editing is removed from it so that it can actually be seen.

I'll take out the three frames from your video that really matter:

http://iu.dnsalias.com/football/17.gif
http://iu.dnsalias.com/football/18.gif
http://iu.dnsalias.com/football/19.gif

A blind man can see that priest was the first blocker to make contact... from the front... right in the middle of all the action. This is a clean block and a bad call. Thanks for clearing that up for us!

I'll now be accepting your appology in the form of blow jobs.

Count Alex's Losses
09-06-2005, 11:47 PM
Taco,
Thanks for the video clip!
As you can see it removes all doubt when your crappy editing is removed from it so that it can actually be seen.

I'll take out the three frames from your video that really matter:

http://iu.dnsalias.com/football/17.gif
http://iu.dnsalias.com/football/18.gif
http://iu.dnsalias.com/football/19.gif

A blind man can see that priest was the first blocker to make contact... from the front... right in the middle of all the action. This is a clean block and a bad call. Thanks for clearing that up for us!

I'll now be accepting your appology in the form of blow jobs.

PWNED! Once again Taco is destroyed.

Bowser
09-06-2005, 11:57 PM
Taco,
Thanks for the video clip!
As you can see it removes all doubt when your crappy editing is removed from it so that it can actually be seen.

I'll take out the three frames from your video that really matter:

http://iu.dnsalias.com/football/17.gif
http://iu.dnsalias.com/football/18.gif
http://iu.dnsalias.com/football/19.gif

A blind man can see that priest was the first blocker to make contact... from the front... right in the middle of all the action. This is a clean block and a bad call. Thanks for clearing that up for us!

I'll now be accepting your appology in the form of blow jobs.

THAT stings....

Pants
09-07-2005, 01:15 AM
Taco... :shake:

Rukdafaidas
09-07-2005, 08:06 AM
Taco,
Thanks for the video clip!
As you can see it removes all doubt when your crappy editing is removed from it so that it can actually be seen.

I'll take out the three frames from your video that really matter:

http://iu.dnsalias.com/football/17.gif
http://iu.dnsalias.com/football/18.gif
http://iu.dnsalias.com/football/19.gif

A blind man can see that priest was the first blocker to make contact... from the front... right in the middle of all the action. This is a clean block and a bad call. Thanks for clearing that up for us!

I'll now be accepting your appology in the form of blow jobs.
ROFL Rep coming your way!
Just how sad is it that Taco would go through all that trouble of editing a play so that it shows what he wants it to show. That's pretty pathetic.
Now, SUPER REP to anyone that can find the Foster hit on Williams last year in the Monday night Denver/Cincinnati game.

Taco John
09-07-2005, 10:12 AM
Taco,
Thanks for the video clip!
As you can see it removes all doubt when your crappy editing is removed from it so that it can actually be seen.

I'll take out the three frames from your video that really matter:

http://iu.dnsalias.com/football/17.gif
http://iu.dnsalias.com/football/18.gif
http://iu.dnsalias.com/football/19.gif

A blind man can see that priest was the first blocker to make contact... from the front... right in the middle of all the action. This is a clean block and a bad call. Thanks for clearing that up for us!

I'll now be accepting your appology in the form of blow jobs.


They engqaged at the same time. Priest just started diving at the guys legs in frame 2.

Nice try, but it's still a chop block. He still got a penalty. And TrINT still threw an interception on that play.

Taco John
09-07-2005, 10:14 AM
"Forget the fact that we criticise the Broncos for their blocking techniques. Clearly Priest is diving and rolling BEFORE the lineman can engage him. I rest my case."


AHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Taco John
09-07-2005, 10:16 AM
THAT stings....


PWNED! Once again Taco is destroyed.



ROFL That's hilarious! You guys are DESPERATE to get over on this one. Ultimately, you lose, because you'll notice at the beginning of the clip, there is a referee who called him for an Illegal chop block...

And he was right to. It was an illegal chop block... And according to this board, that's the most evil thing a person can do in football...

The only place that stung was my stomach from laughing so hard.

Raiderhader
09-07-2005, 10:21 AM
Hey no problem... I figured as much. I was just checking to see if there was really a moral imperative here with all the whining that you guys do, or if it was simply a team oriented thing.

I think that's been answered loud and clear.


You are trying to compare apples to oranges. Though I'm sure it all makes sense in your twisted thinking.

Frankie
09-07-2005, 10:23 AM
Nice try, but it's still a chop block. He still got a penalty. And TrINT still threw an interception on that play.
The Bullsh!t piles up.:shake: Trent didn't even play that game.

Shag
09-07-2005, 10:24 AM
They engqaged at the same time. Priest just started diving at the guys legs in frame 2.

Nice try, but it's still a chop block. He still got a penalty. And TrINT still threw an interception on that play.

So, Priest is just supposed to inherently know that the OL is going to engage the same guy he is going to block? If anything, the OL is at fault, as Priest was in a much better position to make the block (which, btw, would have been perfectly legal if the OL hadn't made that decision). It's clearly far from dirty, and your insistence that it is is nothing more than trolling...

Additionally, the claims of "rolling twice" are blatantly false. I just watched the play about 10 times on my tivo - Priest blocks him slightly above the knees, and lands on his side. The defensive player flies over him, then Priest makes 1/2 roll in order to get back on his feet. So, your "rolling twice" is actually nothing more than 1/2 a roll, and well after the defender is cleared.

Watch any NFL game this Sunday, and you'll see that exact block made at least 1/2 a dozen times. The only thing that caused the flag is the OL choosing to engage him AFTER Priest had already committed himself to the block (as evidenced by the images above). And if you think a referee's flag is always an indication of fault, you're both blind and dumb.

Oh, and that wasn't Trent, dumbass - he didn't take a single snap in the game...

Taco John
09-07-2005, 10:24 AM
The Bullsh!t piles up.:shake: Trent didn't even play that game.



That's right... My bad. It was Todd Collins wasn't it?

Frankie
09-07-2005, 10:25 AM
That's right... My bad. It was Todd Collins wasn't it?
Ummm try again.

Taco John
09-07-2005, 10:27 AM
Additionally, the claims of "rolling twice" are blatantly false.


Actually, I said two rotations. Which is accurate.

Watch any NFL game this Sunday, and you'll see that exact block made at least 1/2 a dozen times.


Now you sound like me after someone here starts complaining about the Denver blocking scheme. Which is kind of the point of this.

Taco John
09-07-2005, 10:27 AM
Ummm try again.


I don't actually care who it was.

ROYC75
09-07-2005, 10:27 AM
It looks as thou he started his block a little low, a block from the front side with out the roll you want to tag on it.. Not a cheap ass block from the backside and roll over as you guy did lastyear . A play you were unhappy about.

Front vs back, one see's it coming, one doesn't......


Now clearly, where is the intent to do harm ?

ROYC75
09-07-2005, 10:31 AM
Actually, I said two rotations. Which is accurate.




Now you sound like me after someone here starts complaining about the Denver blocking scheme. Which is kind of the point of this.


Rotations my ass, the only rotations is your spin. Any rotation would have been forwards, not backwards. The blocker was in front of him, not behind him with his back turned.

Taco John
09-07-2005, 10:33 AM
Taco,
Thanks for the video clip!
As you can see it removes all doubt when your crappy editing is removed from it so that it can actually be seen.

I'll take out the three frames from your video that really matter:

http://iu.dnsalias.com/football/17.gif
http://iu.dnsalias.com/football/18.gif
http://iu.dnsalias.com/football/19.gif

A blind man can see that priest was the first blocker to make contact... from the front... right in the middle of all the action. This is a clean block and a bad call. Thanks for clearing that up for us!

I'll now be accepting your appology in the form of blow jobs.


1. He hasn't made contact in frame 18
2. He still hasn't made contact in fram 19.

You, sir, are wrong.

Taco John
09-07-2005, 10:35 AM
Now clearly, where is the intent to do harm ?


Is that the standard? If that's the case, then there is nothing wrong with our blocking scheme. Our guys aren't intending to do harm.

Taco John
09-07-2005, 10:37 AM
Really, I want to commend Stevie for his integrity on this one... I'm suprised at the spin in this thread to try to make Priest innocent of an illegal block that he was penalized for.

Rukdafaidas
09-07-2005, 10:46 AM
Really, I want to commend Stevie for his integrity on this one... I'm suprised at the spin in this thread to try to make Priest innocent of an illegal block that he was penalized for.
In post #48 of this thread, I said the block was illegal. I now take that back, it was clearly a legal block.

ROYC75
09-07-2005, 10:48 AM
Is that the standard? If that's the case, then there is nothing wrong with our blocking scheme. Our guys aren't intending to do harm.


Try again Taco. A chop block happens from the front, a bad decision on a player blocking scheme to start his block too low to get leverage.

A crackback block is designed to take an opponets legs out when two current offensive linmen team up to hit a player high and low. Which by meands that Gibbs and Denver has used it well over the years to have a player roll up on a guys legs or to hit him when he wasn't engauged in the current battle of a block. These tactics are clearly used to gain an advatgae and to do harm by taking the player out of the game. Cripple him to bring in the backups, aka Gladiator style of football, eliminate the opponent.

Gibbs leaves for Atlanta, what happens in Atlanta, reports of crackback blocks being reported byt current NFL teams that have played them.

Maybe in time Denver can get away from that style, who knows. But for a time, you guys were the author of crackback blocks with the intent to do bodily harm.

Taco John
09-07-2005, 10:56 AM
Try again Taco. A chop block happens from the front, a bad decision on a player blocking scheme to start his block too low to get leverage.

A crackback block is designed to take an opponets legs out when two current offensive linmen team up to hit a player high and low. Which by meands that Gibbs and Denver has used it well over the years to have a player roll up on a guys legs or to hit him when he wasn't engauged in the current battle of a block. These tactics are clearly used to gain an advatgae and to do harm by taking the player out of the game. Cripple him to bring in the backups, aka Gladiator style of football, eliminate the opponent.

Gibbs leaves for Atlanta, what happens in Atlanta, reports of crackback blocks being reported byt current NFL teams that have played them.

Maybe in time Denver can get away from that style, who knows. But for a time, you guys were the author of crackback blocks with the intent to do bodily harm.



Dude... Not one thing you said in that entire paragraph even approaches accurate. You have no idea what a crackback block is... or apparently that it is done by WRs. You obviously have no clue what a chop block is, or you'd know that the example with Priest is text book chop block... I haven't heard even a single report of "crackback" block in Atlanta, and even if I did, so what? Since when has the receiver crackback become Illegal?

Gibbs, along with just about every other team, uses "CUT" blocks, not "crackback" blocks.

It's amazing how wrong you got it.

dirk digler
09-07-2005, 10:56 AM
TJ as I have said before this was a very questionable call and now that I see frame by frame I still stand by that. The call could have gone either way IMO. Priest clearly engaged the defender before Jordan Black.

It all depends on what the NFL calls engaged IMO. But it wasn't a cheap penalty by any means.

Taco John
09-07-2005, 10:59 AM
TJ as I have said before this was a very questionable call and now that I see frame by frame I still stand by that. The call could have gone either way IMO. Priest clearly engaged the defender before Jordan Black.

It all depends on what the NFL calls engaged IMO. But it wasn't a cheap penalty by any means.



Well, you're just wrong them. Priest made no contact prior to the offensive linemen making contact. It might look like he did in the still shot, but the live action tells a far different story.

In any case, it was illegal and he was penalized for it. All the post mortem spinning isn't going to change that.

dirk digler
09-07-2005, 11:02 AM
All the post mortem spinning isn't going to change that.

I agree. :thumb:

Rukdafaidas
09-07-2005, 11:03 AM
Well, you're just wrong them. Priest made no contact prior to the offensive linemen making contact. It might look like he did in the still shot, but the live action tells a far different story.

In any case, it was illegal and he was penalized for it. All the post mortem spinning isn't going to change that.
"Personal foul, Unnecessary use of the Spin, on #5 Taco John"

Shag
09-07-2005, 11:20 AM
Well, you're just wrong them. Priest made no contact prior to the offensive linemen making contact. It might look like he did in the still shot, but the live action tells a far different story.

In any case, it was illegal and he was penalized for it. All the post mortem spinning isn't going to change that.

Contact or not (I believe he made contact before the OL), he's clearly committed to the block long before the OL makes a move to block the same player. Priest's body is lowered, his head is away from the OL, and his momentum is into the defender - he couldn't have stopped the block if he'd wanted to. AFTER all that, the OL moves to block the defender as well. The penalty was created by the OL, not by Priest.

Taco John
09-07-2005, 12:47 PM
Contact or not (I believe he made contact before the OL), he's clearly committed to the block long before the OL makes a move to block the same player. Priest's body is lowered, his head is away from the OL, and his momentum is into the defender - he couldn't have stopped the block if he'd wanted to. AFTER all that, the OL moves to block the defender as well. The penalty was created by the OL, not by Priest.


If that makes you feel better, I say go with it.

Katipan
09-07-2005, 12:55 PM
There are no bad calls in football. ROFL

ROYC75
09-07-2005, 01:28 PM
Dude... Not one thing you said in that entire paragraph even approaches accurate. You have no idea what a crackback block is... or apparently that it is done by WRs. You obviously have no clue what a chop block is, or you'd know that the example with Priest is text book chop block... I haven't heard even a single report of "crackback" block in Atlanta, and even if I did, so what? Since when has the receiver crackback become Illegal?

Gibbs, along with just about every other team, uses "CUT" blocks, not "crackback" blocks.

It's amazing how wrong you got it.


I'll give you this, I typed something different than what I wanted to say, The crackback block occurs outside the tackles when a reciever is engaged in a block, or something like that.

Anywho back to the cut block, you guys mastered it with the help of Gibbs. The double teaming a lineman by Gibbs over the years were brought to a new level by Denver.

Again, it appeared that Priest started his block to quick and got down to low before contact, it made it look worst that what it was. No excuse, just facts, it was wrong, he got caught, as he should. But for years you guys got away with it, it wasn't untill every NFL team complained did it get noticed.

So thanks to your former cheating ways, we got caught. :D

Shag
09-07-2005, 02:30 PM
If that makes you feel better, I say go with it.

I know it's a foreign concept to you, but yes, the truth does make me feel better...

Tinlar
09-07-2005, 04:24 PM
1. He hasn't made contact in frame 18
2. He still hasn't made contact in fram 19.

You, sir, are wrong.

Some people just can't admit when they are beaten.

The rule for chop blocking is any offensive player who is lined up in the backfield before the snap cannot block below the waist a defensive player who is already engaged above the waist by another offensive player.

Clearly, from your own video, Priest had engaged the block prior to any contact from any other player. Therefore his block was legal. Furthermore the secondary block was after priest had engaged making it legal as well.

All you have found is one of the many bad calls that happen week in and week out in the NFL. Your cookie is in the mail... but it will probably be stolen by one of your dirty players.

Calcountry
09-07-2005, 05:15 PM
Come on Amoron... Tell me again about how cut blocks are flat illegal, all the time, anywhere, while Chop blocks are legal. You're so knowlegable...Getting kind of tense aren't ya Taco meat.

Braincase
09-07-2005, 06:06 PM
Salary cap violations are wrong, too, but the Broncos haven't stopped bragging about their pirated Superbowl trophies.

Taco John
09-07-2005, 06:32 PM
Clearly, from your own video, Priest had engaged the block prior to any contact from any other player.


No. That's false. Priest wasn't engaged there. It's clear when you se the action. The first time Priest touches the guy is when he's on his back rolling into him.

It's a neat trick you are trying to do, but ultimately the truth of the matter wins out. And the fact that he was flagged for pulling the illegal maneuver in the first place.

Taco John
09-07-2005, 06:35 PM
Anywho back to the cut block, you guys mastered it with the help of Gibbs. The double teaming a lineman by Gibbs over the years were brought to a new level by Denver.



Actually, it was mastered in KC, and Denver then enticed Gibbs to join the Broncos. Whether you guys like it or not, your offensive linemen were doing the same thing in KC that we did in Denver. It's the same coach teaching the same stuff... It's why we wanted him on our side.

CrazyHorse
09-07-2005, 06:36 PM
I waited for a few days for this thread to magivally appear as people demanded that Preist be immediately benched for his dirty, dirty tactics during the Rams game. But yea, I didn't see one. Anyone catch Priest's cheap shot? The guy not only dove at the legs, but HE ROLLED!

:shake:

I'm just here to join in the chastisement that I'm sure is bound to ignite any second now about these dirty tactics. Knowing the sentiment around this place as I do, I know that it can be found under general agreement here that only the most cheap of players would ever do such a thing as dive at a defenders legs and then roll. And I must say that I agree. While I do support the cut block, the chop block is cheap.

I think it was an accident. I'll bet he's sorry. I have forgiven him and moved on.

Further, before you start calling anyone cheap, have you seen Mike Planahans eye? Is that thing made of wood or something?

jettio
09-07-2005, 06:49 PM
NOthing phony about that. He dove, he rolled, he got flagged for illegal chop block. The editing is to show he was clearly rolling into the defenders legs.

You doctored up the tape, your evidence is phony.

Your actions in this thread should be considered a breach of board etiquette.

It would be one thing if you were serious about it, or just playing a gag, but you are trying to enjoy the fact that people are engaging your phony argument as if you were having a respectable disagreement.

You really seem to be amusing yourself that people think you are genuine when you know that you are not.

Yuk, Yuk,

It is clear and the consensus on the thread seems to be that the ref was right to call the penalty, but that it is most likely that Priest made the block without knowing that the OL was going to engage the guy after he had already committed to making the block.

And BTW, Jake Plummer is the QB for the Broncos.

Take that, Right between the eyes, Mister....Bronco.....Fannnnn..

Amnorix
09-07-2005, 07:18 PM
Did you mean chop blocks?

And way to own TBell.

Yes, this part should have been chop block. Sorry.

Saulbadguy
09-07-2005, 07:19 PM
Your actions in this thread should be considered a breach of board etiquette.

This board has ettiquette? :D

BTW, If I or another person started a thread like this on Taco's watch, it would be moved.

Amnorix
09-07-2005, 07:21 PM
What a buncyh of bullshit... You were wrong dude.

The terms aren't used interchangably. That's stupid. Like you said, I should know. I've been paying attention to such things for almost ten years now.

A cut block is not used interchangably for a chop block. They are two very different things. Sack up and admit you got it wrong you chode.

I now know your major malfunction. I had a simple typo in my original post. I refer to "cut blocks" as legal, and then later call them illegal. Simple mistake that you then carry 10x too far.

Cut blocks are legal, chop blocks aren't. We're in agreement on that.

Amnorix
09-07-2005, 07:23 PM
Hmm... Turns out the defender was engaged...

Here is Holmes right before he starts his roll:

Based on this it looks like a probable penalty for chop block. The TIVO thing is so fast and the image so small, I can't really get a good feeling for what happened.

But the picture suggests a penalty was in order. Can't cut a guy who is engaged high by another blocker.

Amnorix
09-07-2005, 07:26 PM
P.S. "rolling" has nothing to do with anything. It doesn't make any difference whether the blocker rolls or not into a guy. It's either a legal cut block or an illegal chop block, and that is not determined by rolling.

Amnorix
09-07-2005, 07:27 PM
The Cut Block = Legal

The Chop Block = Illegal


This is correct IF THE CUT BLOCK IS IN THE TACKLE BOX. Keep in mind that the Donkeys push that to its outer limits, and then some, with regularity.

Amnorix
09-07-2005, 07:29 PM
So which part of Priest diving at the defenders legs and rolling isn't cheap?

Every part of it, if it's a legal cut block. Rolling makes no damn difference at all. I honestly don't have any clue why you're hung up about rolling. What difference does it make if he dives at his legs or rolls into his legs? :spock:

I noted, separately, that based on your picture it may well hae been a chop block, but this whole rolling thing. :shake:

Saulbadguy
09-07-2005, 07:31 PM
He rolled! He ROLLED! Man. He should be fined.

Amnorix
09-07-2005, 07:33 PM
WTF CARES ABOUT ROLLING?!?! IT'S FUGGING IRRELEVANT!!!

Amnorix
09-07-2005, 07:35 PM
Saul--my last post wasn't directed at you. I'm going back through this thread (currently on "page 10" in my viewer) and I see this ridiculous obsession with rolling and number of rotations, etc. :shake:

Count Alex's Losses
09-07-2005, 10:03 PM
I have enhanced the image and it definitely appears that Taco is right. Here is undeniable evidence:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041201/images/2004-12-01cutblock.jpg

Boardin Bronco
09-07-2005, 10:10 PM
I have enhanced the image and it definitely appears that Taco is right. Here is undeniable evidence:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041201/images/2004-12-01cutblock.jpg

AN ACCIDENT: In Jacksonville, Jaguars coach Jack Del Rio called the block on defensive end Paul Spicer "an accident."

Said Del Rio: "I don't think it was deliberate."

Tinlar
09-08-2005, 07:39 AM
No. That's false. Priest wasn't engaged there. It's clear when you se the action. The first time Priest touches the guy is when he's on his back rolling into him.

It's a neat trick you are trying to do, but ultimately the truth of the matter wins out. And the fact that he was flagged for pulling the illegal maneuver in the first place.

Well Taco, I didn't get to "see the action” I only got to see your posted video. From it I would have to say that it is about as clear as dirt. Your assumption is that priest rolls into him which isn't flaggable. The debate (if you can call this a debate) is that priest low blocked a man already engaged in a high block.

As evidence of this you have presented two things; a video, and that fact that he was flagged for it.

First your video, which I took apart and repaired as much as possible. I disagree with your finding that priest wasn't the first to make contact. In frame 18 the defenders upper body is already headed to earth and Gary Stills is yet to make contact.

Secondly you offer as evidence that he was flagged for it. We all know that there is such a thing as a bad call. If you live in a world where you think the ref is right any time he pulls out his yellow tampon then the only case you've made is that you are beyond help. (Not a hard case to make)

In truth the debate isn't about if he committed the penalty or not. It is about if he is a "dirty" or "cheap" player or not. From your video you would have to at least concede that he is physically committed to the block, such that he could not alter it, before any other contact is made with the defender. That being the case then the play can't be placed as evidence of a cheap and/or dirty player.

I would call a player dirty when he does something illegal because he assumes he will not be punished for it. I would call a player cheap when he does something without regard for those he is playing the game with. It appears that you would call a player cheap/dirty for being flagged and failing to exhibit superman like qualities to alter bodies in motion.

So the way you see it every player is cheap and dirty. The way I see it only a few are. If you'd like my list I'm sorry I haven't compiled an official one but I'll put on together for you if you don't mind getting with me later on some of the names. I'm sure you are better versed in the Broncos roster than I am

Rukdafaidas
09-08-2005, 08:43 AM
Since Taco doesn't know the difference between a cheap block and a regular block, I thought I would show him some examples of cheap blocks:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/clayton_john/1272089.html
New England Patriots linebacker Bryan Cox vowed to seek justice on the field after a low block delivered by Denver guard Dan Neil broke his leg. The NFL delivered its own version of justice Thursday.
The NFL fined Neil $15,000 for what it determined to be an illegal clip on Cox in the open field.

http://www.cbssprtsline.com/nfl/story/5981625
Denver Broncos guard Steve Herndon was fined one game's pay Thursday for clipping San Diego Chargers defensive tackle Jamal Williams, ending Williams' season
Herndon and Broncos coach Mike Shanahan apologized to Williams and the Chargers on Wednesday, the same day Williams was put on injured reserve with a dislocated left ankle. Williams underwent surgery on Monday.

http://www.nfl.com/teams/story/JAC/7697711
Jaguars defensive end Paul Spicer broke his right leg against the Denver Broncos and could be out for the season.
Spicer had to be carted off the field late in the third quarter after he cut inside left tackle Matt Lepsis and was met by running back Quentin Griffin. Lepsis then blocked Spicer low.

http://www.nfl.com/teams/story/CIN/7834442
Williams was chasing Denver quarterback Jake Plummer on Monday night when lineman George Foster dived at his lower leg. The Broncos have a reputation for such tactics, known as cut blocks.
"It was unnecessary," defensive tackle John Thornton said. "He said he didn't mean to do it, but they're coached to do it. I blame Mike Shanahan."

www.morningsun.net/stories/102701/spo_1027010052
Denver Broncos tackle Matt Lepsis has been fined $15,000 for a block that left San Diego's Maa Tanuvasa with a broken ankle.
The block came in the third quarter of Denver's 27-10 loss Sunday. Lepsis was not penalized, but after reviewing videotape, the NFL found him guilty Thursday of unnecessary roughness.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/pasquarelli_len/1291542.html
Right tackle Matt Lepsis has been fined $7,500, league officials confirmed, for an illegal leg whip block against the Miami Dolphins in last Sunday's game. It marked the second time this year that Lepsis has drawn a fine for an illegal block, the first a $15,000 sanction for a cut block that broke the leg of San Diego defensive lineman Maa Tanuvasa, a punishment that he has appealed.
This marks at least the fifth instance in 2001 in which a Denver blocker has been fined for illegal tactics. As a team, the Broncos have now been fined nearly $158,000 for on-field incidents, and that doesn't count the approximately $1 million the team was docked earlier this week for failing to properly fund deferred contract monies.
Denver also forfeited a third-round choice in the 2002 for that infraction.

What's really amazing about all of the examples listed above is that none of them received a flag on the play. After reviewing the plays listed above, the NFL ruled that all but two of these incidents were illegal blocks and they were fined for them.

Taco John
09-08-2005, 12:38 PM
WTF CARES ABOUT ROLLING?!?! IT'S FUGGING IRRELEVANT!!!


Not to Chiefs fans it's not. Apparently, rolling is the worst thing a football player can possibly do.

Why did you get involved in this anyway? I've already smacked you around after your moronic "Cut blocks are Illegal anywhere anytime" garbage. Why stick around after that?

Shag
09-08-2005, 01:40 PM
Why did you get involved in this anyway? I've already smacked you around after your moronic "Cut blocks are Illegal anywhere anytime" garbage. Why stick around after that?

LOL! Anyone with a modicum of intelligence could read his post and realize it was a simple typo. Pretty sad that's all the ammo you have...

Tinlar
09-08-2005, 02:03 PM
Not to Chiefs fans it's not. Apparently, rolling is the worst thing a football player can possibly do.

Why did you get involved in this anyway? I've already smacked you around after your moronic "Cut blocks are Illegal anywhere anytime" garbage. Why stick around after that?

Maybe for the same reason you are still here after I shredded your "evidence."

Now you are just using a chewbacca defense.

Waaa waaa waaa, flag was thrown so I win ... waa waaa WAAAA...
blaah blaah blah, you made a typo so I win ... blaa blaa blah...

We've heard it from you before but every class needs a clown so keep going anyway... it's good for my rep.

Amnorix
09-08-2005, 02:55 PM
Not to Chiefs fans it's not. Apparently, rolling is the worst thing a football player can possibly do.

Why did you get involved in this anyway? I've already smacked you around after your moronic "Cut blocks are Illegal anywhere anytime" garbage. Why stick around after that?

It was a typo you moron. As proven by my statement IN THE EXACT SAME POST that said:

"Cut blocks are legal and performed by EVERY TEAM IN THE NFL, so long as they are within the tackle box."

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2671068&postcount=69


And I "got involved" because, as Frazod said (roughly), seeing a Brown Cows fan complain about someone diving at someone's legs is like Hitler complaining about human rights violations.

Bowser
09-08-2005, 02:57 PM
This thread should be re-named "The TJ Dancing Puppet Thread".

TJ was long ago owned by Tinlar and others, yet he continues to stir the pot.

Chief Faithful
09-08-2005, 03:39 PM
Since Taco doesn't know the difference between a cheap block and a regular block, I thought I would show him some examples of cheap blocks:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/clayton_john/1272089.html
New England Patriots linebacker Bryan Cox vowed to seek justice on the field after a low block delivered by Denver guard Dan Neil broke his leg. The NFL delivered its own version of justice Thursday.
The NFL fined Neil $15,000 for what it determined to be an illegal clip on Cox in the open field.

http://www.cbssprtsline.com/nfl/story/5981625
Denver Broncos guard Steve Herndon was fined one game's pay Thursday for clipping San Diego Chargers defensive tackle Jamal Williams, ending Williams' season
Herndon and Broncos coach Mike Shanahan apologized to Williams and the Chargers on Wednesday, the same day Williams was put on injured reserve with a dislocated left ankle. Williams underwent surgery on Monday.

http://www.nfl.com/teams/story/JAC/7697711
Jaguars defensive end Paul Spicer broke his right leg against the Denver Broncos and could be out for the season.
Spicer had to be carted off the field late in the third quarter after he cut inside left tackle Matt Lepsis and was met by running back Quentin Griffin. Lepsis then blocked Spicer low.

http://www.nfl.com/teams/story/CIN/7834442
Williams was chasing Denver quarterback Jake Plummer on Monday night when lineman George Foster dived at his lower leg. The Broncos have a reputation for such tactics, known as cut blocks.
"It was unnecessary," defensive tackle John Thornton said. "He said he didn't mean to do it, but they're coached to do it. I blame Mike Shanahan."

www.morningsun.net/stories/102701/spo_1027010052
Denver Broncos tackle Matt Lepsis has been fined $15,000 for a block that left San Diego's Maa Tanuvasa with a broken ankle.
The block came in the third quarter of Denver's 27-10 loss Sunday. Lepsis was not penalized, but after reviewing videotape, the NFL found him guilty Thursday of unnecessary roughness.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/pasquarelli_len/1291542.html
Right tackle Matt Lepsis has been fined $7,500, league officials confirmed, for an illegal leg whip block against the Miami Dolphins in last Sunday's game. It marked the second time this year that Lepsis has drawn a fine for an illegal block, the first a $15,000 sanction for a cut block that broke the leg of San Diego defensive lineman Maa Tanuvasa, a punishment that he has appealed.
This marks at least the fifth instance in 2001 in which a Denver blocker has been fined for illegal tactics. As a team, the Broncos have now been fined nearly $158,000 for on-field incidents, and that doesn't count the approximately $1 million the team was docked earlier this week for failing to properly fund deferred contract monies.
Denver also forfeited a third-round choice in the 2002 for that infraction.

What's really amazing about all of the examples listed above is that none of them received a flag on the play. After reviewing the plays listed above, the NFL ruled that all but two of these incidents were illegal blocks and they were fined for them.

Nice job. Look for this type of material coming out of Atlanta now that Gibbs is coaching the Falcon OLine.

dirk digler
12-08-2005, 08:47 AM
Bump....bump...bump

dirk digler
12-08-2005, 08:52 AM
bump

dirk digler
12-08-2005, 09:03 AM
another bump

JohnnyV13
12-08-2005, 09:05 AM
Oh man,

This is Cowboy week. I don't want to see anything about the Browncos!
I think this thread needs to be moved to the romper room, I just can't take it!

jspchief
12-08-2005, 09:08 AM
...And Taco moves these threads to the romper room on his site.

Troll and hypocrite.

dirk digler
12-08-2005, 10:16 AM
...And Taco moves these threads to the romper room on his site.

Troll and hypocrite.

Hyprocrite for sure, I am still debating troll at this point.

I still can't find the Dante Hall/john lynch thread.

htismaqe
12-08-2005, 10:28 AM
...And Taco moves these threads to the romper room on his site.

Troll and hypocrite.

We're going to start treating them here like they treat us over there. Bottom line.

KCTitus
12-08-2005, 10:32 AM
We're going to start treating them here like they treat us over there. Bottom line.

Cool! :thumb:

Saulbadguy
12-08-2005, 10:34 AM
We're going to start treating them here like they treat us over there. Bottom line.
Seriously?

dirk digler
12-08-2005, 10:41 AM
We're going to start treating them here like they treat us over there. Bottom line.

Thank you Parker!!!!

Tell TJ he has been put on notice.

:thumb:

htismaqe
12-08-2005, 10:58 AM
Seriously?

You have a problem with it?

We allow them to post here. They allow us to post there.

We treat them with respect. They make jokes about camaros and mullets.

We allow them to discuss THEIR team on a rival message board, even if the topic is controversial. They move our threads to their trash forum if we say something that they don't agree with.

Absolutely, I'm serious.

Taco John
12-08-2005, 11:18 AM
You guys can spend all the time you want this week talking about me and whining about how mistreated you all feel. I didn't do anything but move a thread posted by someone with the clear intent to troll using a graphic that read "John Lynch is a Bitch."

Mark M
12-08-2005, 11:53 AM
I didn't do anything but move a thread posted by someone with the clear intent to troll ...

And that's different than 90% of the crap you post here because ...

MM
~~:hmmm:

ChiTown
12-08-2005, 11:56 AM
We're going to start treating them here like they treat us over there. Bottom line.

Wait a GD second, Parker! I thought we were still in the early discussions of making Taco a moderator..............

htismaqe
12-08-2005, 12:25 PM
You guys can spend all the time you want this week talking about me and whining about how mistreated you all feel. I didn't do anything but move a thread posted by someone with the clear intent to troll using a graphic that read "John Lynch is a Bitch."

ROFL

Apparently Taco is a vampire. Otherwise, he'd have a real problem with looking in a mirror...

Tribal Warfare
12-08-2005, 02:11 PM
We're going to start treating them here like they treat us over there. Bottom line.

Don't do that, it would degrade ChiefsPlanet